After previously agreeing to openly discuss an alleged “quid pro quo” a developer had offered him, Palm Coast Mayor Mike Norris told the Palm Coast City Council last night that he wouldn’t talk about it after all, and take his case to law enforcement. Norris’s flip was one more example in an accumulating series of bizarre behavior, conspiratorial statements, accusations and deflections that continue to shift the sands under the council’s feet and project images of distrust and dysfunction, damaging city functions.
Last week, as the council was about to discuss an independent investigation that found Norris to have violated the city charter and insulted and intimidated staff, Norris threw “a grenade,” in the vice mayor’s words, deflecting from the issue. He claimed a developer offered him a “quid pro quo” in exchange for approving the city’s pending comprehensive plan without changes. He did not name the developer. A quid pro quo is an offer of a benefit in exchange for a favor. It can be innocuous. When a public official and public policy are involved, it’s illegal.
Norris claims the statement was witnessed by a retired law enforcement officer (apparently, Norris’s wife, though he would not confirm it.) Norris wanted a closed-door meeting to discuss the issue, including “four witness statements,” and presumably reveal the developer’s identity. Norris said state law provides for such closed-door sessions in those circumstances.
It does not. Norris was confusing a law that allows for the details of certain ongoing economic development projects to remain secret for six months to a year, under limited circumstances. (For example, the city is currently working with Atlanta-based DC Blox to build a data center in Town Center. That project is covered by confidentiality, though only city officials are required to keep it confidential.) Nothing in law provides for secret council discussions about alleged improprieties unless the matter is in litigation.
After a torturous discussion among council members and City Attorney Marcus Duffy at the May 1 meeting, Norris agreed to an open discussion of the matter, scheduled for last night’s meeting.
When it was time for that item, Norris again stunned his colleagues. He would not discuss the matter openly after all. He’d take it up with Sheriff Rick Staly, then move his way up–“Florida Department of Law Enforcement, or whoever, Department of State or Ethics Commission, whatever I need to do.”
He said he did not want to open the city to litigation, claiming he had not discussed the matter “other than my closest advisor and my wife.” In that case, he has already broken the supposed confidentiality he is under, and he would be liable–if there were such a confidentiality requirement. But there isn’t.
“He thinks it should still be confidential,” Duffy said. Duffy has repeatedly informed Norris that confidentiality does not apply. Norris said he had not consulted his own attorney on the matter, so it’s not clear how he is concluding that his legal opinion is correct. “So I said, if he’s not comfortable, then he could bring it to the sheriff’s department or some type of law enforcement agency to look into it himself.” If the mayor is making a criminal allegation, Council member Charles Gambaro said, then the law enforcement route is appropriate.
Council members were not willing to let Norris table the “quid pro quo” issue so unaccountably.
“Mayor, your comment was that you received a quid pro quo from somebody related to the comp plan and westward expansion. And that’s a concern for me,” Pontieri said. (The city refers to its plan to expand development on thousands of acres west of U.S. 1 as the westward expansion.) “Particularly, you presumably received this quid pro quo quite a while ago. We’ve already had the comp plan come before us once, and it wasn’t brought up. So I just have some really big concerns about where we go from here, and whether or not some actions need to be taken. I mean, this is a big deal.”
“That’s why I had a discussion with Marcus,” the mayor said.
“Forgive me, Mayor, but why throw the grenade last week then?” Pontieri asked.
“Because I just wanted you to–you my colleagues, to be aware that this happened, and some of those sworn statements were by the people that did it,” he said. It wasn’t exactly clear what he meant by “sworn statements,” unless he was referring to the numerous complaints employees made to human resources about his conduct. Yet he is pinning the quid pro quo on a developer, not staff members.
“You’re ham-stringing us now, because we have no idea what’s going on,” Pontieri said.
“There’s going to be a resolution to it, you’re going to hear about it. It’s going to come out,” Norris told the council. “But I do not want to open our city up–I am not about wasting the city’s money, and it certainly won’t be because of litigation. I don’t want that to happen. I don’t want our city ever to be sued.”
The day before, Norris had filed suit against the city.
Council member Dave Sullivan cautioned the mayor against bringing things up about a “really nasty thing going on,” only to drop it without a resolution.
Norris’s answer was unrelated to the issue: “You caused me to put my dukes up and ready for a fight,” he said, again referring to the complaints against him, and the council’s censure and loss of confidence in him.
“I would just ask that before allegations like that be launched from this dias,” Pontieri told the mayor, “we need to think very carefully about what we say and do up here, as far as there being any connotation of misrepresentation or misinformation. And I’m not saying that there is in this case. But when you leave something like that hanging for the city and people to interpret or make assumptions or whatever it may be, it is not healthy for the city. So in the future, I would just ask, mayor, that maybe legal be consulted beforehand, and that we just exercise an extreme amount of discernment with regards to what we say and when, if we’re not ready to put it fully out in the sunshine at that time with full context. And to say that your dukes were up and that was why you did it, mayor, we are all under a lot of pressure up here.”
The comprehensive plan was on the council’s agenda for final approval last night. It was approved, 4-1, with Norris dissenting.
