The Palm Coast City Council on Tuesday evening met to discuss some of the most important issues facing the city, including the ongoing city manager search and an alleged quid pro quo offered to Mayor Mike Norris by an area developer. The meeting produced some much-needed direction in a few areas, while reverting to dysfunction in others.
The first major decision reached by the Council was to move on from SGR, the recruiting firm which had been conducting the city manager search for over a year. The last city manager, Denise Bevan, was fired by the previous Council in March 2024.
City Manager Search
The search ultimately culminated in the withdrawal of every candidate. The city will post the job itself for a 90-day period before moving forward in the process, presumably extending the tenure of acting City Manager Lauren Johnston into at least the early fall.
Where the conversation deteriorated was when the Council touched on the reason for the failure of this latest attempt to hire a city manager. Mayor Norris spoke of city staff recording and gossiping about his private conversations, and accused SGR of cut-and-dry wrongdoing within their contract with the city.
Norris vs. Gambaro (Again)
Councilman Charles Gambaro, whom Norris is suing to have removed from office, placed the blame for the dysfunction squarely on Norris himself. “The problem is you,” Gambaro said. “None of us conducted interviews in a disrespectful fashion at our tailgates of our truck. The reason we don’t have a city manager right now is because of your behavior. I think we need to take a break until we get past Norris-gate. Norris-gate is the problem.” Norris was forced to hammer his gavel to quiet the gallery, as many in attendance jeered at Gambaro’s characterizations.
Norris retorted that criticism of his interviewing style was not Gambaro’s place to speak, and again referenced his eroding trust in the city employees around him. “I can interview anybody, any-damn-where I want to,” Norris shot back. “I am a singular member of this Council, and I have the right to do what I want to do. If I want to interview them at Starbucks, I can do that. But when my personal conversations anywhere in this building is either recorded, video-taped, or gossiped, that’s a problem.”
Background of the Quid Pro Quo
The first time Mike Norris accused a developer of corrupt dealings was at the State of the City on April 10th. In off-script remarks, he alluded to collusion between a non-city entity and some of those who made witness statements in regards to alleged illegal actions and improper conduct by Norris at City Hall. He declined to specify which individuals this accusation did or did not apply to, creating an open-ended accusation of corruption against several key city employees.
The second time Norris referenced similar dealings was at the May 1st business meeting, where he said a developer had offered him a quid pro quo deal in which he would be approving the city’s comprehensive plan without changes. That would ultimately come to pass anyway on Tuesday, in a 4-1 vote with Norris dissenting. He declined to offer specifics despite the urges of his colleagues, and pushed for a private meeting instead of a public discussion. Without the support of the Council, he was forced to accept adding it to Tuesday’s agenda.
Holding Off to Consult Law Enforcement
At the onset of the item coming up for discussion on Tuesday, Norris immediately asked to hold off on giving specifics for a third time. “I think what we need to do is we need to table this discussion and I will go have a conversation with the sheriff, because we are getting into legal issues, if I’m not mistaken Mr. Duffy,” Norris said to the City Attorney. “So I don’t think this is the forum to be talking about this at this time, because I don’t want to open the city up to any litigation.” Ironically, Norris himself is the plaintiff in ongoing litigation against the city.
“Is your intent to go file a police report?” asked a concerned Theresa Carli Pontieri. She had previously fought to make sure the matter was discussed in public and not private. “I’ll talk to the sheriff and see if I need to,” Norris replied. He mentioned potentially taking the issue to state bodies if the situation warranted it.
The concerns Norris has expressed about bringing the situation’s details up publicly have centered around potential violations of confidentiality law. The other Council members have maintained their desire to know who potentially attempted to corrupt city decisions, especially as they prepared to vote on the action in question. On Tuesday, Norris again accused one of the participants in the investigation against him of being involved in the scheme.
“Some of those sworn statements were by the people that did it,” Norris claimed. Again, Pontieri balked. “But you’re hamstringing us now,” she said, “because we have no idea what’s going on.” And so again, Norris maintained that a major plan had occurred to corrupt him within a major city business item while opting not to publicly share who was responsible or what had been offered. His direction was supported by Councilman Gambaro, as well as by Councilman David Sullivan who pushed for caution in revealing incendiary storylines before being prepared to offer supporting details. Councilwoman Pontieri concurred.
