Citing legal inadequacy, the Florida Commission of Ethics dismissed a complaint against Mayor Mike Norris that was submitted by four members of the Palm Coast City Council.Mistaking the order for a win, Norris had stated as much in a town hall meeting on Monday and in a social media post last Friday.
Following the signing of the order, the Ethics Commission made its decision in a secret session last Friday and made it public early this afternoon. According to the order, the Commission’s conclusions do not address the veracity of the complaint’s allegations because no factual investigation was conducted prior to the review.
The ethics commission’s ruling is seen by the council members as justification for amending the municipal charter to include disciplinary provisions that would allow a council majority or supermajority to deal with a rogue or derelict member.
The legitimacy of the allegation is not addressed in the order. The commission said it was outside its purview to look into the complaint, as it often does. Norris is not charged with any of the two issues the commission looks into: conflicts of interest and abusing public authority for private benefit. Misconduct that falls beyond of that purview, such hostile misconduct or infractions of local charters, is not investigated by it.
Following Norris April’s reprimand as the county’s first elected official for breaking the municipal charter and other wrongdoing, the council filed the ethics complaint in May. According to an independent inquiry, Norris denigrated employees, attempted to remove the interim city manager and chief of staff in a private meeting, and established a hostile work environment—all of which were blatant violations of the charter.
The court concluded that the claim does not, in a factual, nonconclusive manner, establish any specific private capacity benefit that Norris would have had by requesting the staff members’ resignations. The order basically set aside the sworn statements about the misconduct because they were not Pontieri’s own, stating that no investigation could be done into the allegations of misconduct because they don’t seem to be based on the Complainant’s personal knowledge or information other than hearsay. Additionally, it concluded that Norris’s misbehavior had nothing to do with any personal benefit.
According to Council member Ty Miller, the findings of the investigation remain valid. Regretfully, our charter did not foresee or offer a penalty for a council member who willfully violated it. I do, however, agree with the committee’s conclusion and am eager to return to the task at hand.
Theresa Pontieri, a council member, stated that she will be advocating for changes to the charter that would address the unruly and damaging conduct of council members. Last Monday, Pontieri criticized Norris for stating that, despite the fact that the ethics complaint was the result of a team effort, Pontieri had submitted it individually. Norris was depending on the commission’s ruling that this complaint would be seen as having been submitted by the complainant in her private capacity because municipalities are not one of the agencies that are permitted to file ethics complaints. Pontieri was regarded as the principal signatory because he was vice mayor.)
Now that its choice to submit the complaint may be framed as a calculated error, Norris is viewing the dismissal as a win. Norris and his supporters’ argument that he is up against a cabal is strengthened by the decision, which he can mistakenly read as invalidating the council’s charges against him.
City Council member Dave Sullivan remarked, “That’s fine, but he’s been saying that about the judge and everybody else.” He was alluding to the way Norris has denied and mocked a circuit judge’s ruling against the lawsuit he brought to remove Council member Charles Gambaro from the council. Circuit Judge Chris France concluded in that ruling that the city had acted in accordance with the charter in choosing Gambaro and that Norristo lacked standing to file the action.
Norris keeps asserting Sullivan, who was also appointed, has now been linked to Gambaro, an illegitimate council member, as a member of the same conspiracy.
Regarding the events that resulted in Norris’ censure and the ethics complaint, Sullivan stated that facts are facts. We had inquiries conducted. Those who spoke under oath were among us. The public record contains a great deal of information. We’ve taken the course of action that currently seems suitable.
The council wrote to Governor Ron DeSantis to request that he suspend Norris after he was censured for the second time and it was discovered that he had misled the council about not being informed that he lacked the legal authority to sue the city. It was another dangerous step. The harm to the council would be proportionate to Norris’s sense of regained legitimacy if the governor refused to dismiss or penalize Norris, which is far more likely to happen than to comply with the council’s request.
Sullivan stated, “We’re going to get different views.” I don’t think we’ve done anything unethical or improper, and the points we made in our letter to the governor and our ethics complaint are supported by facts, so I believe we made the right decision. Like Miller, he emphasized that the ethics commission’s ruling was unrelated to the complaint’s facts or merits.
Even before the panel made the order public, Norris did not pass up the opportunity to crow.Norris displayed what he claimed to be a copy of the ethics complaint during his town hall on Monday.
He accused City Hall employees of putting off the Ethics Commission’s mailing until July 11 and said he didn’t receive it until then. In late May, he had taken a lengthy vacation. In front of more than 150 people, Norris said, “I didn’t receive this until July 11th, because apparently it got lost in the city.” And it reads, “Placed on your desk, right here.” After it was opened and resealed, nobody looked at it. The audience was giggling. As a result, I was unaware of an ethics complaint for over two months until I returned.
No one from City Hall sat on it. On May 19, it got the envelope. Like all mail received by City Hall, the envelope was opened for scanning as a matter of public record. Staff members did not scan documents that contained the phrase “confidential.” They resealed the envelope. The city manager’s executive assistant, Kendra Ianotti, marked the date of receipt and placed a message on the envelope.
According to Brittany Kershaw, the city’s director of communications, it was placed in his mailbox on May 19th with a letter on the front, and that was stamped on the front of the envelope. Mark Strobridge, the sheriff’s chief of staff who is currently serving as the temporary assistant city manager, claimed that he did not read Ianotti’s note but that he saw Norris pick up the envelope a few weeks ago.
As a result, when the mayor, for whatever reason, picked up the ethics commission’s envelope in July, he erroneously implied that the box had been opened improperly and accused city employees of not delivering it until July 11. Until July 11, he allowed his audience to chuckle, assuming that his letter had been snooped on and subsequently lost, without explaining mail protocol and public record scanning.
Since his election in November, Norris’s statements both on and off the dais have been marred by a pattern of misrepresentations and what his colleagues have called outright lies, which is continued in his account of events.
During the town hall, Norris stated that he had not had time to address the ethics complaint because the allotted 10-day period had passed.
I contacted the Ethics Commission five days after I eventually received it. With the ethics complaint in hand, Norris told the audience, “Hey, I said, I didn’t receive this ethics complaint.” I’m like, I won’t make any changes. It has my sworn statement. Don’t worry about it, Mike, she said him. It’s finished already. completed already. It s already been denied. Insufficient, legally. Not enough. That would be made public on Wednesday. They will put that out. They ve already tanked that.
He was right about that.
