- May 23, 2025
Dear Editor:
This is the first time I have ever written to your newspaper. I find it quite distasteful that you chose to discredit our mayor, Mike Norris, in big print on the front page of the April 24 edition, and again on Page 3A.
You are not standing by your mission statement, found on Page 10A, where you claim: "We build community spirit and bridges of understanding through accurate and compelling journalism. We build the local economy by helping businesses strategically connect with our readers."
This statement is not how I and others feel, after this blatant attack on Mayor Norris, whom I did not vote for — however, I approve of what he is trying to do to protect our city from all the mass development that has been going on for the last five years.
If you care to do good for the community I would suggest you work with him and find out about many of the issues like salaries, and of the overtime pay, which the present council is aware of, and do a story on that.
The one councilman not elected and the others are evidently ganging up on the mayor for what he is trying to do and has uncovered. He is trying to do his job, but the builders associations and others are hiding in the back rooms, and that is raising our taxes and much more.
Carol Stoughton
Palm Coast
Editor's Note: First of all, thank you for reading. I can tell that you have community spirit and want your community newspaper to serve you well.
You say that the Observer "chose to discredit our mayor" with our headlines in the April 24 edition. (For those who didn't see, the headline on Page 1A was as follows: "Mayor censured in 4-0 vote," with this as the deck: "Norris admitted he 'requested' resignations of staff. Investigation says he's created a hostile environment." Those headline teased the stories with similar headlines on Page 3A.)
I understand that many people support our mayor, Mike Norris, and are cheering him on. But our role is not to cheer him on; nor is to discredit or cheer against him. The Observer doesn't take a stand on candidates or elected officials; we only report the facts. In this case, I believe we accomplished that. Perhaps you could say that the City Council members discredited the mayor, since they voted 4-0 to censure him; but the Observer didn't vote and didn't do anything to discredit Norris.
(Side note: Vice Mayor Theresa Pontieri pointed out on WNZF's "Free For All Friday" that the vote was not against the mayor, but against his actions, which violated the charter, in the opinion of the City Council.)
You pointed out that the headline was "big." Perhaps you disagree with our choice to make the 4-0 vote the top headline of the week. In my view, the vote was highly unusual, dramatic, and consequential, so it felt appropriate. But, does that choice follow our mission?
To build bridges of understanding, our goal is to report on opposing sides of an issue sympathetically. We start with a foundation of respect. Regardless of whether community members agree or disagree with each other, we are better off when we at least clearly understand each other's opinions. Beyond that, it's up to others to decide where they stand.
In this case, there are several parties — or several sides that need bridges. On one side, you have city staff members who reported that Mayor Norris demeaned them and made it difficult to do their jobs well, potentially violating the charter by doing so and creating a hostile work environment. Their voice deserves to be heard. On the other side, you have Mayor Norris, who said he was only joking, and: "As the mayor, I believe I have the right to request a resignation when I lose confidence in a staff member." His voice deserves to be heard.
The investigator's view is that the City Charter does not give the mayor the power to "influence employe status, particularly involving removal or direct supervision." The community should also be aware of that viewpoint.
The Observer did attempt to talk to Norris after the investigation and again after the City Council's vote to censure, but he did not respond.
You suggested that the Observer try to work with Norris; the best way for us to do that is to talk with him and report on his views. Despite his lack of interest in talking on the phone, we have reported on his views as best we can. For example, we reported on his State of the City speech, during which he voiced many of the concerns that you have mentioned. We also reported on an interview Norris gave on YouTube regarding his current views on the Oct. 1, 2024, appointment of Charles Gambaro. We reported on his advocacy for a building moratorium and for the Belvedere Terminals fuel terminal.
You concluded that the City Council members' 4-0 vote is evidence that they are "ganging up on the mayor for what he is trying to do." However, their stated motivations are regarding his perceived charter violations, not necessarily his policies. City Council members frequently disagree about policies; each member has one vote and equal time to persuade the others during public meetings.
You make an allegation in your letter that builders are "hiding in the back rooms, and that is raising our taxes." While many in the community feel the way you do — that our population growth is making it more expensive to live here — the implication is that there is something illegal or inappropriate going on "in the back rooms." Norris has made similar accusations, though he hasn't provided any evidence yet.
We will work on building more bridges of understanding on this issue. That is our mission.
— Brian McMillan, publisher
