Palm Coast Mayor Mike Norris tried and failed Tuesday to get the council’s approval for a “legal opinion” about the propriety of the previous council’s October appointment of Charles Gambaro to the seat Cathy Heighter had resigned. Norris said he wanted a legal document protecting the city in case the city was sued over the appointment.
It was a puzzling move. Intended or not, Norris’s move could potentially create antagonism from the chair responsible for unifying the council to the extent possible. Though Norris said he had “nothing against anyone.” He did not preface his request by addressing Gambaro to at least defuse the appearance of questioning Gambaro’s legitimacy as a council member until later in the discussion, when he said “it’s nothing against you, Charlie.”
Norris’s first words on the matter were to Marcus Duffy, the city attorney, as if the two had already had a conversation about it, and that Duffy may have (wisely, if that was the case) tried to dissuade Norris from going ahead with the proposal.
“I told you I wasn’t going to do this this, Marcus, but I have to, because with me being the figurehead of the city, I have an obligation to the Constitution, the state constitution and the city charter,” Norris said. “So what I would like to ask among the members of the city council, if we can come to a consent agreement to have our city legal counsel draft up a formal opinion regarding the appointment of the District 4 seat, and just for us to be covered, because there is legal questions to it, and I just want a legal, a formal legal opinion from you to the city council regarding that appointment.” Norris was referring to an interpretation of the charter, which he explained as “what’s going to cover us in court, if we go to court, if someone sues us.”
It is not clear what “legal questions” about Gambaro’s appointment Norris was referring to. There have been no intimations of such a lawsuit. There has not been so much as a hint that anyone in the public–or on the council for that matter, until Norris spoke of it Tuesday–would challenge the Gambaro appointment. What public dissatisfaction was expressed when he was appointed on Oct. 1 was with the choice more than the process.
Before the appointment there’d been some public requests for a special election, and people voiced complaints that a council with three members about to step down, all of them defeated in elections (for the council or the County Commission) should be making an appointment that the next council could make in a matter of weeks.
Once the council settled on going the appointment route before the next council was seated, the debate shifted. City Council member Theresa Pontieri and several residents expressed surprise and displeasure that Darryl Boyer wasn’t the appointee. Some residents were disappointed that Sandra Shank, a member of the city’s planning board, was not chosen. But by then none of the criticism focused on the process. The debate was political, not procedural, as was the criticism, and once Gambaro was appointed, he was accepted–and applauded–and the council moved on.
Boyer certainly had no intention to challenge the result. “I never heard of any type of lawsuit,” Boyer said today. Norris’s move was news to him, and he said he wasn’t challenging the appointment. “It’s over with.” He said He hadn’t heard of anyone else going that route, either. Council member Theresa Pontieri said in a brief interview today that she had “not gotten any word or hint or anything like that of any lawsuit,” though she has received emails from a couple of people who frequently address the council, claiming the charter was violated. Those emails may have also been sent to the mayor.
Norris did not respond to questions before this article initially published.
Duffy told the mayor that the legal opinion would not change anything, even if provided. He said he’d already provided his legal opinion t the previous council, in emails. He was willing to do so again more formally, but ” it does not change anything. Only one person could change something, and that’s a judge.”
Courts are not in the habit of second-guessing local governments’ appointments, however. Council members have no authority to suspend or remove a fellow council member absent specific causes of actions spelled out in the charter, such as if a member is charged with a crime or misses too many meetings. Norris said it was only a matter of “the process and upholding the law, from the constitution to the state constitution to the city charter.” But he did not point to any part of any of those documents that may have been violated, though he suggested that the charter had not been followed. “I spoke to a federal judge today, and his opinion is quite different than yours. Marcus,” Norris said.
Pontieri was at first open to the idea, but on reflection, opted against giving her consent. “Obviously we’ve already taken steps based on legal counsel’s opinions previously, and suggestions, advisement previously,” Pontieri said. Further opinions would be costly and would open the city to vulnerabilities “because we’re asking for this extra document when we’ve already taken steps based on the advisement of council.”
Gambaro told Norris he was “drawing unnecessary fire,” and cited the charter to say it addresses th process clearly. “We’re unnecessarily drawing fire to this organization and to the stability of this council, and I don’t give my consensus on this one, Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry,” he said.
Council members Ty Miller and Ray Stevens were also hesitant. “I think that we’re pushing the envelope here, shooting from the hip,” Stevens said. “I think we get the legal opinion if in fact somebody turns around and sues the city. Doing so, getting a legal opinion kind of, as I said, pushes the envelope, but it’s an indication that we might be expressing some sort of guilt. Here, I would wait and see what happens. We can always get a legal opinion.”
Norris dropped the proposal. Ed Danko, the former council member who had pushed hardest for Gambaro’s appointment, termed Norris’s move to undo the previous council’s decision “alarming and a major overreach,” though he was glad the rest of the council refused to go along.
