Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Mayor Dennis Phillips’

Tax, Borrow, and Spend mayor scares off opponents

February 20th, 2009 No comments

It is disappointing that Mayor Dennis Phillips in the Kingsport, Tennessee election for mayor will not have an opponent in the race.  Having no opposition or successful write in campaign means that Dennis Phillips will win a third term.  It is a sad day for the citizens of Kingsport.

The big money interests have prevailed and in my opinion we can expect more of the same out of Dennis Phillips which is Tax, Borrow, and Spend.

I had never gotten involved very much in political matters until I began to see first hand what was happening in the City of Kingsport.

I have seen first hand, city leaders make a promise to citizens and then turn around and break that promise.  I have seen the cocky and arrogate attitude displayed by Mayor Phillips toward the citizens of Kingsport and that disturbed me very much.

I have dug down deep enough into the inner workings in Kingsport to give me a pretty good view that Mayor Phillips is going to do what he wants to do and that’s it period.  Unless you are a pal of Mayor Phillips, you can just about forget it.

I have reported in this blog many times about the attempts by Mayor Phillips administration to misrepresent data that would make the city look better.

The bottom line is if Mayor Phillips wants to do something, he has the votes from other BMA members (Joh Mallicote, Shupe and Munsey) to back him up.  It does not matter if the citizens object because he has the votes to do it.

Do not be discouraged and not vote in this election.  It is even more important that you do vote because there are three Alderman seats that are up for grabs.  There are some candidates for the Alderman positions that believe exactly what the mayor preaches.  It this happens, then we have no checks and balances in the BMA.  We would have a another rubber stamp for the mayor’s position.

While Mayor Phillips has been mayor, we have seen record spending on pet projects.  Unemployment in Kingsport is the highest in the Tri-City region.  This unemployment was high even before the so called recession hit the nation.  We see the emphasis being put to make Kingsport a destination city for tourists.  We have seen the emphasis to increase retail, but no emphasis to attract companies that can come to the area with good paying jobs to support the retail firms that are here.

This blog has done hundreds of posts concerning Kingsport’s government.  As a suggestion, enter the name “Phillips” in the search box in the upper right-hand corner.  All posts will be displayed and the word “Phillips” will be highlighted.

I will continue to report via this blog, issues that pertain to the Kingsport, TN Government.

Kingsport’s sidewalk to nowhere

February 17th, 2009 No comments

Out there in cow pasture country is a housing development that seems to get it’s way with the Kingsport, Tennessee City government.

On the recently annexed Rock Springs Road is a new housing development called Edinburgh.  This housing development states that up to 330 new homes will be built and will be the location of a new John Adams city school that is now under construction.  The developer of the Edinburgh development gave the city the land to build the school on and the city will need to bus in 125 students from other areas to help fill up the school.

The Edinburgh developer went to a BMA meeting and there were discussions about doing road work at the Edinburgh location.  They even had a local resident come to the meeting and state how bad the road was.  They even mentioned that in the 1950’s a lady got killed on the road and some teenagers flipped their car also. 

The developer got the roadwork approved and the developer paid for the grading, but guess what, the city paid for the paving, curbs and sidewalk on a country road.  This is a sidewalk that leads to nowhere and is about 400 feet long.

One has to drive almost two miles from I-26 on Rock Springs Road going past cow pastures and hay fields to get to this sidewalk.

Safety was mentioned as a reason to do the roadwork, but local folks know that the real reason was to make the Edinburgh development more attractive.  To cite someone getting killed on that road near the Edinburgh in the 1950’s when it was likely a dirt road is really stretching it a bit and the section that had the road work done was no more dangerous than other areas of Rock Springs Road.

My whole point in the above is Kingsport city government is willing to help new developments with sidewalks and curbs, but has failed to provide the same in older established neighborhoods.

If you feel that this is unfair, then ask Mayor Phillips to install a sidewalk in front of your property.  Better yet, get the entire neighborhood organized where you live and request your sidewalks.  I am sure that Mayor Phillips will be more than willing to help you with your sidewalks in an election year.

There’s No Stimulating Chattanooga or Kingsport

February 15th, 2009 No comments

Chattarati bog in Chattanooga picked up on the fact that Mayor Littlefield of Chattanooga did not have any “shovel ready” projects for stimulus funds.  At least Mayor Littlefield and Kingsport’s Mayor Dennis Phillips have something in common……they did nothing.

So where does Chattanooga rank? Off the charts—literally. While there are more than $60 Million worth of projects listed for neighboring Cleveland, none were included for the scenic city.  Read more on Chattanooga

Mayor insults citizens

February 15th, 2009 No comments

It is an election year in Kingsport, Tennessee for members of the Board of Mayor and Alderman.  Mayor Dennis Phillips is running for re-election and has managed to insult the voters in his bull-headed attempt to put the aquatic center in an area where he wants it, but the citizens do not.

The mayor recently made the statement below as reported by the Kingsport Times-News.

“We have got to do a better job of getting this whole thing down to the eighth-grade level to where we can all understand it. I think that we need to get the word out of who we’re building the pool for,” Phillips said.

The above statement by the mayor should tell the citizens what the mayor thinks about their intelligence.  Clearly, this is an insult..

Mayor Phillips is attempting to resell the concept of putting the aquatic center in the Meadowview area.  He has managed to get very strong vocal opposition to it being placed in the Meadowview area and opposition to it being built in this economy.

This issue has been hard wired from the very beginning.  First, it was the committee appointed by the mayor to make recommendations where to place the pool.  It came out in the February 3, 2009 BMA meeting that the findings of the committee were flawed because of the very narrow marching orders given to the committee.  Also, who do you think made presentations to the committee?  Apparently, the committee believed the data presented by the city and we have seen in the past that the city is capable of not telling the full story sometimes.

The demographic analysis stated that the Meadowview area was the “closest proximity to home owners” is also flawed.  I guess the city thought the citizens would believe that statement when in fact there is no way it can be true.  I have reported many times concerning the city twisting the truth to get the effect they wanted.

The mayor states. “At the same time, we will maintain some type of city water feature at Legion Pool for the foreseeable future. We’re not going to abandon those children.”  The city talks about keeping the Legion Pool open for one to two years after the aquatic center opens.  Well, Mr. Mayor, when you close the Legion Pool after one or two years, then you are in fact abandoning the children.

Phillips said the city would somehow make the aquatic center available to people who can’t afford the fees and find a way to help some people get to the new facility.  Nothing has been said about the fees that would be charged.  Mayor Phillips statement makes be believe that the fees will be higher than the Legion Pool.

“This aquatic center is an investment in our city, and you have to invest in your city to get people to come,” Phillips said.  Apparently the mayor is willing to invest money to get tourists to come to Kingsport, but not willing to invest to help lower the high unemployment rate in Kingsport.

Clearly, the mayor and city manager are on a public relations blitz to keep this project going.

I encourage you to read the entire Kingsport Times-News article (including comments) and also see post,   Kingsport’s aquatic center in deep water

Comments are welcome.

Missing leadership in Kingsport, TN city government

February 14th, 2009 No comments

Stimulus Watch has a list of  “shovel-ready” projects for which the mayors of this state have requested federal stimulus funding.  I guess Kingsport, Tennessee Mayor Dennis Phillips and City Manager John Campbell are happy with the unemployment  rate (Dec. 8.4%) for Kingsport, because Kingsport does not have any “shovel ready” projects listed.  It is interesting that Johnson City submitted 11 projects.

Where are our great economic development politicians when we need them?  Why is it they just want to spend our local tax generated money when billions of dollars are available from the feds?

Kingsport citizens deserve better leadership!!

See Tennessee projects

Find projects by state or territory

Kingsport’s mayor needs to come clean about future spending

January 28th, 2009 No comments

Kingsport, Tennessee  Mayor Dennis Phillips who is running for re-election needs to come clean and tell the citizens what the plans are for future spending.

A recent review by Standard & Poor’s, a credit rating firm made the following statement below.

The five-year capital improvement program through fiscal 2013 includes planned issuance of additional GO debt of $5 million-$8 million annually, to help fund total general fund projects of $50.8 million.

The City of Kingsport provided Standard and Poor’s information such as financial data so Standard and Poor’s could give Kingsport a credit rating.

Mayor Phillips, what is the above $50.8 million going to be used for? There should be no secrets, and no surprises about future spending.

If you see the mayor, ask him about this $50.8 million and any other spending he has in mind.  What about the $70 million figure that has used for King College Medical School if they decide to locate in Kingsport?  The voters need this information!

Comments are welcome

Help Wanted: Good Political Leaders for City of Kingsport BMA

January 23rd, 2009 No comments

There are four positions on the Kingsport, Tennessee Board of Mayor and Alderman that are available for the term starting on July 1, 2009.

The current BMA members whose terms will expire are Mayor Dennis Phillips, Alderman Valerie Joh, Alderman Ben Mallicote (the vice mayor) and Alderman Pat Shull.

Any person who is a qualified voter of the city and who has resided within the city for at least one (1) year next preceding the election shall be eligible to election to the office of mayor or alderman.

Residence within any area annexed in a year preceding an election shall be counted in meeting the residence requirement of this section.

The City is governed by a seven member Board of Mayor and Aldermen, elected at-large and on a non-partisan basis for four-year staggered terms. The exception to this rule is that the Mayor is elected at-large for a two year term. Elections are held in May during odd numbered years. The new Board of Mayor and Alderman is seated on July 1 of each election year.

If you have a desire to be on the Kingsport Board of Mayor and Alderman, you will need to pick up your petition at the below location.   The deadline to submit completed petitions is noon on February 19, 2009.  25 signatures from registered voters are required on the petition.

Sullivan County Election Commission

3258 Highway 126, Suite 103
Blountville, TN 37617
423-323-6444
Fax: 423-323-6443
Email:
[email protected]

Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

City elections:  2009 schedule

Feb. 19 – Candidate petitions due in county elections office
April 20 – Last day of voter registration.
April 29 to May 14 – Early voting period.
May 19 – Election Day

Annexation lawsuits dropped in East Tennessee city

January 20th, 2009 No comments

The recently announced dropping of six annexation lawsuits by property owners apparently has given the City of Kingsport, Tennessee a reason to celebrate.  The ink on the local newspaper article (Plaintiffs drop Rock Springs annexation lawsuits), concerning the lawsuits had hardly dried when Assistant City Manager, Jeff Fleming posted information on his blog touting the victory while most citizens were still asleep.

The Mayor of Kingsport needs to understand that while the six lawsuits have been dropped, there are still more lawsuits out there that have yet to be decided on.  There has been much ill feeling caused by the City of Kingsport over it’s annexation policies.

The City of Kingsport tactics on this annexation issue will not be forgotten by those folks that were in the annexation area.  The city’s use of using a carrot and stick with annexations, and comments made by city officials will not be forgotten by the newly captured voters when it come time to vote.

The much bigger issue here is why did they want to annex outlying county properties.  The city wants to grow and because of it’s declining population, it needs to annex to get the revenue to afford the lavish spending spree it is on.

If you are a city resident, you may not think that all of this annexation stuff affects you.  But, it does by higher sewer and water rates.  The water and sewer funds are called “enterprise funds” which means that the water and sewer departments has to be self-supporting.  If the city wants to expand their water and sewer lines and there is not sufficient funds to cover the expense, they raise the water and sewer rates.  You might even call raising the water and sewer rates a “hidden tax.”

But you may ask, can they do it?  Yes they can, because Tennessee is one of only a handful of states that permit “forced annexation”.  If you have a problem with Tennessee’s annexation policy, then make your views know to your state representatives.

Mayor Dennis Phillips is running for reelection, but instead of celebrating victory, he might want to say “Whoops…..what have I stirred up?”

East Tennessee city steals data to enhance it’s image

January 15th, 2009 No comments

Claims by the administration of Mayor Dennis Phillips in the City of Kingsport, Tennessee makes one wonder what really is the truth. There is a pattern of making statements that don’t exactly tell the true story.

A December 30, 2008 Kingsport Times-News article made the following statement below

“Fleming said Kingsport’s efforts are paying off, as more than 2,700 families from 44 states have moved here in the past two years.”

In the above statement by Kingsport’s Assistant City Manager, Jeff Fleming, at first glance, one might say that having 2,700 families move to Kingsport in the last two years is great success.

The 2000 U.S. Census states that there are 2.48 people per household in Kingsport and this would mean that the population of Kingsport increased by 6,696 people.

Using the Kingsport population in the table below, we see that in 2006, the population was 44,122.  Add the new residents(6,696), the total would be 50,818 population.  This would equate to 3.70 families moving to Kingsport everyday for the past two years.  If these numbers are true, Kingsport would need to set up some form of “tent city” because of lack of housing in the area.

In the table below we see that Kingsport population growth rate is –1.8% for years 2000 to 2007.

City Population Table

YearKingsportJohnson CityBristolGreenevilleMorristown
200045,12555,99825,39115,39226,292
200144,74156,15025,33915,31326,468
200244,57257,47125,33015,21026,268
200344,41057,64925,14015,15626,316
200444,08158,07124,97915,20126,490
200544,11459,10425,06715,27826,765
200644,12260,34825,24415,42027034
200744,43561,02825,47415,44627,432
% Growth 2000-2007-1.6%8.2%0.3%0.3%4.2%

On January 4, 2009, Jeff Fleming stated that “716 families from 34 states moved to Kingsport July-Dec 2008”.  Click on the link at the bottom of the post on the Kingsport! blog maintained by Kingsport’s Assistant City Manager Jeff Fleming and you will see that 600 families moved away from Kingsport during this period.

Now, we can see that the City of Kingsport is using data from other areas and hopes that people would take it as gospel.  But using data from other areas and not telling the full story unless you drill down to see how many people moved away, to me, is not honest.

The United States does not ride on the coattails of other countries. Tennessee does not rely on other States for better numbers/data and Sullivan County should also be only concerned about it’s own data or numbers.  Kingsport should get out of the business of stealing data from the surrounding areas to enhance it’s image.

The links below give information how the City of Kingsport uses data from other areas to enhance it’s image.

Kingsport, TN conveniently twists unemployment data

Blog reader debunks city claims

What are your views on this style of reporting by the city?  Leave a comment

Kingsport, Tennessee Code of Ethics

January 7th, 2009 No comments

It is time for the City of Kingsport Board of Mayor and Alderman officials to update their Statement of Disclosure Interests for 2009?  Has any one on the Board of Mayor and Alderman declared bankruptcy?   Has the sources of income changed?  Investments, etc?

The Tennessee Ethics Commission disclosure form seeks the following information below concerning the candidate or elected official.

  • Filer Contact Information
  • Professional Services
  • Office Held or Sought
  • Retainer Fees
  • Sources of Income
  • Bankruptcy
  • Investments
  • Loans
  • Lobbying

You can review the current “2008 Statement of Disclosure of Interests” for the Kingsport, Tennessee BMA members listed below by clicking on the name of the person below.

2008 Statement of Disclosure of Interests

Mayor Dennis PhillipsVice Mayor Ben MallicoteAlderman Larry Munsey
Alderman Valerie JohAlderman Jaunty ShupeAlderman Patrick Shull
Alderman Ken Marsh

You can  report alleged violations of any law within the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Ethics Commission. See link to report violations.   Sworn Complaint (ss-8003

Note, however, that the Tennessee Ethics Commission does not have the authority to enforce local government ethical codes, nor does the Commission have any authority to regulate the conduct of local government officials except as relates to the filing of a Statement of Disclosure of Interests.

Also, see the following link:  Tennessee Local Government Ethical Standards

The Kingsport, Tennessee Code of Ethics below is from the Code of Ordinances for the City of Kingsport, Tennessee.  Use the following link to view all city codes.  CODE OF ORDINANCES

Kingsport, Tennessee Code Of Ethics

Sec. 2-97. Code of ethics–Applicability.

(a)   The provisions of this code of ethics, sections 2-97 through 2-106, are applicable to all full-time and part-time officials, officers, employees, servants, member of any board, agency, commission, authority or corporation, whether compensated or not and any officer, employee, or servant thereof of the city. This includes any separate board, commission, committee, authority, corporation, or other instrumentality appointed or created by the city as set out in T.C.A. § 8-17-102 including, but not limited to: the board of mayor and aldermen, city board of education, and employees, city industrial development board, city housing and redevelopment authority, city emergency communications district board, city regional planning commission, board of zoning appeals, beverage board, Bays Mountain Park commission, electrical board of examiners, gateway review commission, historic zoning commission, mechanical, plumbing and gas board of examiners, parks and recreation advisory committee, public library commission, senior citizens advisory board, sidewalk board, and wastewater appeals board.

(b)   In any situation in which a personal interest under this code of ethics is also a conflict of interest under state law, the provisions of the state law shall govern. In accordance with T.C.A. § 8-17-103 to the extent an issue is covered by an ethical standard addressed by a law of general application, public law of local application, local option law, or private act nothing herein shall be construed to be less restrictive than such laws.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Editor’s note: Ord. No. 5558, § I, adopted June 19, 2007, repealed and reenacted § 2-97 to read as herein set out. Formerly, § 2-97 pertained to free passes, tickets or services prohibited, and derived from the Code of 1981, § 2-37.

Sec. 2-98. Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section:

City means the City of Kingsport, Tennessee.

Board of mayor and aldermen means the board of mayor and aldermen of the city.

Municipal board means any board, commission, committee, authority, corporation, or other instrumentality appointed or created by the city, including those set out in T.C.A. § 8-17-102.

Personal interest means:

(1)   Any financial, ownership, or employment interest which is the subject of a vote by a municipal board or board of mayor and aldermen not otherwise regulated by state statutes on conflict of interest;

(2)   Any financial, ownership, or employment interest in a matter to be regulated or supervised by the board of mayor and aldermen or a municipal board; or

(3)   Any such financial, ownership, or employment interest of the official’s or employee’s spouse, parent(s), step parent(s), grandparent(s), sibling(s), child(ren), or step child(ren).

Employment interest means a situation in which an official or employee or a designated family member is negotiating possible employment with a person or organization that is the subject of the vote or that is to be regulated or supervised.

Official or employee means and includes any official, whether elected or appointed, officer, employee or servant, or any member of any board, agency, commission, authority or corporation, whether compensated or not, or any officer, employee or servant thereof, of the city.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-99. Disclosure of personal interest.

(a)   An official on the board of mayor and aldermen or any municipal board with the responsibility to vote on a matter shall disclose during the meeting at which the vote takes place, before the vote and so it appears in the minutes, any personal interest that affects, or that would lead a reasonable person to infer that it affects the official’s vote on the matter. In addition, the official may recuse themselves from voting on the matter.

(b)   An official or employee who must exercise discretion relative to any matter, other than casting a vote, and who has a personal interest in the matter that affects or that would lead a reasonable person to infer that it affects the exercise of the discretion shall disclose, before the exercise of the discretion when possible, the interest on a form provided by and filed with the recorder. In addition, the official or employee may, to the extent allowed by law, charter, ordinance, or policy, recuse themselvesfrom the exercise of discretion in the matter.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-100. Prohibition of acceptance of gifts and gratuities.

An official or employee may not solicit, accept, directly or indirectly, on behalf of themselves or any member of their household, any money, gift, gratuity, service, transportation, loan, loan guarantee or other consideration or favor of any kind from any person, other than the city:

(1)   For the performance of an act, or refraining from performance of an act, that he or she would be expected to perform, or refrain from performing, in the regular course of his or her duties; or

(2)   Who has, or is seeking, to obtain, contractual or other business or financial relations with any department of the city or conducts operations or activities that are regulated by the department of the city where the employee is employed or the official has authority to act;

(3)   Who has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the official duties of the official or employee;

(4)   Who has some mutual understanding that the gift will influence the official’s or employee’s decisions on behalf of the city.

(5)   That might reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to influence the action of the official or employee or reward such official or employee for past action in executing city business.

(6)   Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, gifts, gratuities, services or favors, which are allowed in section 2-101 are not prohibited by this section.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Editor’s note: Ord. No. 5558, § I, adopted June 19, 2007, enacted provisions intended for use as subsections (a)–(f). To preserve the style of this Code, and at the discretion of the editor, said provisions have been redesignated as subsections (1)–(6).

Sec. 2-101. Acceptance of gifts and gratuities.

The following are not deemed gifts subject to the aforementioned prohibitions in section 2-100:

(1)   A personal gift from a relative or friend, if such gift is unrelated to city matters.

(2)   An item of tangible personal property with an estimated retail value of less than $50.00 from any one person or entity at any one occurrence, provided it is not solicited by the official or employee and is of limited frequency; Employees who are supervisors or acting in such capacity are not permitted to accept cash gifts in any amount when such is related to or as a consequence of such employee’s employment with the city or other entity covered by this chapter.

(3)   A foodstuff gift, plant or flower arrangement which can be shared by everyone in a work area;

(4)   A discount for meals or services that is offered to employees as a marketing strategy by business to encourage trade from a large employee base, provided the discount is not solicited by the employee and is of limited frequency;

(5)   A business meal of a type and kind ordinarily associated with normal business activity;

(6)   Food, refreshments, sports activity or transportation when they are part of an official’s or employee’s participation in a charitable, civic, political or community event that bears a relationship to the official’s or employee’s office and the official or employee is attending in an official capacity;

(7)   A promotional, business logo gift item with an estimated retail value of less than $50.00 that is given for the primary purpose of advertising the business eatery or industry providing the logo gift item; or multiple promotional business logo gift items with a combined estimated retail value of less than $50.00 during a calendar year;

(8)   A door prize that is randomly won or received and where the opportunity to win/receive the gift is random and with low statistical likelihood, and when the employee is eligible for the prize as a consequence of his/her employment with the city or other entity covered by this chapter; provided however, that a door prize with an estimated retail value in excess of fifty dollars ($50.00) that is won as a consequence of employment with the city or other entity covered by this chapter may be accepted provided agift declaration form is completed and submitted to the city manager within five business days of receipt of the gift; and provided further that the final disposition of the door prize (i.e. to be retained by the employee, assigned to city use, or disposed/refused) shall be made by the city manager;

(9)   Receipt of entertainment or athletic tickets or entry to a private or sports/athletic suite, tickets to banquets, luncheons, receptions, local area golf tournaments and such for non-business related purpose; and

(10)   A gift or thing of value provided by the city to an employee in the course of the employer-employee relationship.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-102. Procedure for return of gifts and gratuities.

A gift, or gratuity prohibited in section 2-100 shall be declined and returned to the donor. If a gift is not easily returned, the gift shall be donated to a local charitable agency or organization in the name of the donor. Said donor shall be notified of such, as well as, notified of the city’s gift prohibition regulation. In addition, the following procedures and practices are to be followed:

(1)   A copy of all letters to donors shall be copied to the city manager;

(2)   Questions regarding the acceptability of a certain gift should be directed to the city manager for clarification.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Editor’s note: Ord. No. 5558, § I, adopted June 19, 2007, enacted provisions intended for use as subsections (a) and (b). To preserve the style of this Code, and at the discretion of the editor, said provisions have been redesignated as subsections (1) and (2).

Sec. 2-103. Use of information.

(a)   An official or employee may not disclose any information obtained in his official capacity or position of employment that is made confidential under state or federal law except as authorized by law.

(b)   An official or employee may not, directly or indirectly use or disclose information obtained in his official capacity or position of employment, that has not been made available to the general public, with the intent to result in financial gain for such official or employee or any other person or entity or to acquire or aid another to acquire, a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise that may be affected by the information, or to speculate, or aid another to speculate, on the basis of the information.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-104. Use of municipal time, facilities, etc.

(a)   An official or employee may not use or authorize the use of municipal time, facilities, equipment, or supplies for private gain or advantage of such official or employee, except to the extent that such are lawfully available to the general public.

(b)   An official or employee may not use or authorize the use of municipal time, facilities, equipment, or supplies for private gain or advantage to any private person or entity, except as authorized by legitimate contract, lease or that is determined by the board of mayor and aldermen to be in the best interest of the city.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-105. Use of position or authority.

(a)   An official or employee may not make or attempt to make private purchases, for cash or otherwise, in the name of the city.

(b)   An official or employee may not use or attempt to use their position to secure any privilege or exemption for themselves or others that are not authorized by the charter, general law, or ordinance or policy of the city.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-106. Violation and penalty.

Any person violating any section of this division shall be deemed guilty of an offense and upon conviction is punishable under the city’s general penalty clause or other applicable laws. An employee who violates any provision of this division is subject to disciplinary action, including termination from employment.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Secs. 2-107–2-125. Reserved.