Judge to Decide Name-Clearing Issue After Fiery Court Hearing in Anderson v. Jonesboro

JONESBORO, Ark. – Will Rachel Anderson get a name-clearing hearing from the City of Jonesboro? That’s the question waiting for Special Judge Bentley Story after Wednesday’s hearing in the case of Rachel Anderson v. City of Jonesboro, its mayor, and police chief.

Judge Story is presently deliberating his decision on the request for a name-clearing hearing by Anderson and her lawyers. The judge heard hours of arguments from both sides Wednesday.

Few people in courtroom 4-A at the Craighead County Courthouse expected the hearing on January 24 to last the full-scheduled two hours. Even fewer expected it to last five hours, keeping all parties in the proceeding until 2 PM, by which only a handful of the original attendees remained. However, the hearing felt more like the full trial, itself – and the actual trial still hasn’t been scheduled.

As the proceeding began, Anderson’s lawyers, Lucien Gillham and Luther Sutter, both sat each side of their client. On the opposite side of the courtroom, Mayor Harold Copenhaver, Chief of Police Rick Elliott, and several other city officials, along with their counsel, Christopher Stevens and Assistant City Attorney Heather Owens. Anderson’s side of the courtroom contained numerous supporters.

The hearing, which was only to determine if a name-clearing hearing is to be ordered held by the city, began with Gillham calling, in a volume one would expect for a public announcement, Mayor Copenhaver to the stand. The first question of the day was if the mayor made the decision to terminate Anderson.

“Ultimately, yes sir,” Copenhaver said.

From there, Gillham brought up the accusations by city leaders that Anderson had been dishonest and unethical in her public speech at a bond hearing last November. The mayor agreed that the reason Anderson was fired was a serious issue. He stopped short of specifically saying she had been unethical, but still indicated that was the ultimate result of her actions.

The curiously timed allegation about Anderson’s abuse of a take-home vehicle was also brought up. Gillham asked why this was referenced in her termination letter before it had been investigated. An internal investigation later exonerated Anderson. The mayor said he assumed the police chief had investigated the issue before the letter that referenced it, acknowledging that he had not. Had she been guilty, Copenhaver said it would have been a waste of public funds.

The mayor acknowledged Anderson’s comments had not created a disruption in her department. The mayor also said honesty is a very important quality for a police officer.

It was at this point that Sutter & Gillham requested the city employees and officers not testifying leave the room. The judge agreed, resulting in several exits including of Communications Director Bill Campbell, Captain Steve McDaniel with JPD, and Anderson’s husband, Blake, who is an officer with Jonesboro, too.

As Gillham continued to question Mayor Copenhaver, the conversation shifted to the process of building the Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC). He said the chief had requested they create a position for her. He said her statements before council at the bond hearing “caught me off guard.” He said he felt betrayed, frustrated, and disappointed but he “didn’t act quickly,” noting that it took them a full week to fire Anderson for her comments. The mayor said he did not write any of the statements released about Anderson, and added that the police chief had determined the policy violations she was fired for.

Luther Sutter took over next, planning to call Bill Campbell to the stand. However, Campbell left the courthouse when asked to exit. A frustrated Sutter decided to call the chief of police, instead. That’s where the fireworks truly began.

“How’s it feel to destroy a girl’s reputation?” Sutter began by asking Elliott. “Do you appreciate being called a liar?,” Sutter continued. No stranger to long answers, Elliott began attempting to answer at his usual pace, but Sutter wasn’t having it. He interrupted the police chief, leading to an objection being called and sustained. The judge cautioned Sutter not to talk over the defendants and Sutter said he would try, telling the judge he didn’t want a sermon. Judge Story agreed.

Elliott acknowledged he did not want to fire Anderson, but as he told NEA Report, he said that was because he valued her work and not because he was forced to by the mayor. Elliott said she had the right to disagree with him. Sutter then asked for the names of the officers who had complained about her misuse of a take-home vehicle, so that he could sue them, too. The chief seemed hesitant to respond but, did eventually say Erik Johnson was one of the officers who had made the false allegations against Anderson. The chief also mentioned others, but not by name.

The police chief seemed to take issue with Anderson speaking against the bond because she personally didn’t want to work with dispatch. This is despite the statement that when she spoke, she had allegedly done so on behalf of her department and the city. Elliott said when he entered the room with Anderson, he had already decided he was going to fire her. He added that her job duties had been assumed by Lt. Lyle Waterworth, whom he felt was doing a better job than she had.

“Now, she’s a terrible employee?” Sutter asked. The chief disagreed. Sutter then asked if the police chief would fire Waterworth if he spoke against the city at a meeting. Elliott simply replied, “content.”

Elliott said Anderson made a false statement when she said she wasn’t consulted on the RTCC, because she was. As Sutter’s frustration with the length of the answers grew, he asked the chief why he didn’t release a statement on her exoneration, like was done when they were merely allegations. The chief did not have definitive answer.

As he was finishing testifying, the police chief caught his balance on the witness stand when his chair lunged forward. Sutter told the chief not to hurt himself. Elliott did not reply. An awkward silence followed.

It was at this point, 90 minutes into the hearing, the judge realized no one had been sworn in. The remaining witnesses were sworn in and an agreement was reached between both sides to allow, essentially, a retroactive swearing-in.

Next, Rachel Anderson was called to the stand. She mentioned a disconnect between what she said the RTCC does, and what the chief has said. Specifically, she said only five-to-ten percent of their workflow was with real-time situations. The rest were investigations, which is why she sought to keep the RTCC separate from dispatch and closer to detectives.

From there, the plaintiff’s lawyers introduced the letter from council member LJ Bryant as evidence. The city’s legal team objected, before withdrawing. The plaintiff’s team then looked to introduce a news article from NEA Report. Once again, the defendant’s lawyers objected, but the judge overruled. Another piece of evidence was introduced – the police chief’s statement from the city, shared by KAIT Chief Meteorologist Ryan Vaughan. Owens objected, noting there was no proof the post was shared by the real Ryan Vaughan. The city also brought up that two different versions of the same release existed. The reason for this, which was partially explained by Anderson, was that NEA Report had received the statement ahead of other outlets as an embargo, meaning we agreed not to run it until a given time. When the statement itself was released to the public, the embargo was lifted and we published ours, which was an earlier version of the same release with minor differences. The judge allowed Ryan Vaughan’s post to be admitted into evidence but upon the objection of Owens, said the comments under the post could not be admitted.

Coming back to the topic of the hearing, Anderson said she requested a name-clearing hearing through an email to aldermen@jonesboro.org as well as to the mayor. The city says it was unaware of such a request before the lawsuit was filed. The city then argued that Anderson had not been damaged by the incident enough to warrant the name-clearing hearing. Although the full details weren’t given, Anderson was asked about potential job offers she had received, including from departments in Batesville and Trumann. There was some contention about what a full “job offer” was, but Anderson said she had not received official offers from those departments. She mentioned an offer was made to her in the past week, but she had wanted to wait until a decision was made on the name-clearing hearing before she made a decision, herself. The defense attempted to capitalize on this, alleging she has had opportunities for work and simply didn’t capitalize upon them. But, Anderson said in these settings, and even in conversations with friends, she feels the need to constantly explain herself and the alleged misconduct which was widely publicized.

The final witness was a relative and supporter of Anderson, Tracey Snell. She testified she was asked several times about the alleged misuse of a take home vehicle by Anderson, as the plaintiffs tried to paint the picture of a negative stigma the defense disputes.

In closing arguments, Gilham asked the judge to take note of code 25-19-105(c), which makes a personnel file only open to public inspection after the final administrative resolution of any suspension or termination proceeding. Gilham noted the file was released before her appeal had concluded. He finished by adding that the city could have given her a name-clearing hearing as easily as they prepared for the hearing today.

The defense brought up the chain of command in their closing comments, perhaps hoping to appeal to the military background of Judge Story. The city also argued it hadn’t seen the request for a name-clearing hearing prior to today. Finally, the defense argued the plaintiff made her personnel records public, first, adding that she hasn’t shown irreparable harm.

“Basically, regardless of the outcome, we’ve established the material that got out there about Rachel was untrue,” Gillham told NEA Report after the hearing. “The second part of this claim is the First Amendment. City employees still have free speech rights. You cannot have policies that prevent employees from communicating what’s going on in the city or criticizing policy issues, like a $17 million bond issue.”

The city’s attorneys were not able to offer comment on the pending litigation.

Several exhibits and files were requested by the judge, who will review the arguments and evidence. Judge Story promised an order on the matter would be made as soon as possible.