- December 4, 2025
Dear Editor:
An assessment of the rationale for Mayor Norris’ unprecedented lawsuit against the city and its eventual outcome, puts into question any altruistic or public-spirited motives for suing. Rather than acting on principle and an abiding reverence for an aspect of the Palm Coast City Charter, as he claimed, the mayor’s actions paint more of a picture of reprisal and purposeful distraction based upon the timing of the lawsuit, what preceded it and how the lawsuit was concluded.
Less than two weeks after the City Council unanimously voted to censure Norris and went on record as having “no confidence” and moved towards getting him removed from office, the mayor reacted. In what appeared to be a “tit for tat” move, he struck back by suing the city for an alleged City Charter violation for what the mayor claimed was an illegal appointment of Councilman Gambaro.
And he did so with the added bravado that it was so righteous he didn’t care what it costs the taxpayers. Saving the city from Gambaro and upholding the sanctity of the City Charter was so important, so principled, even a million dollars of taxpayer money spent was OK.
Norris always contended his lawsuit was an altruistic gesture, strictly a matter of principle … a righteous, selfless act of civic duty and nobleness.
The lawsuit fizzled, as he was warned multiple times it would, but the mayor was not deterred and proceeded with an appeal process. However, his intention of continuing any such lawsuit appeal was swiftly dropped like a hot potato when the city's attorney put Norris on notice and warned that the city would pursue financial sanctions against him if the lawsuit continued.
To avoid being held personally responsible for the city's legal fees, the mayor almost instantly conceded. He gave up, no longer willing to uphold his noble cause to the bitter end. But even as the mayor’s altruistic swagger faded away, he claimed he had multi-millionaire residents willing to back any continued legal efforts.
Norris ending the legal proceedings was not out of deference to taxpayers paying the ever increasing legal bills, which he refuses to reimburse, or to stop the unwelcome City Council drama it caused or because he finally realized the lawsuit was simply a mistake from the beginning and was becoming a futile effort.
He quit because it could personally cost him big bucks to continue. His high road took an off-ramp when the tolls were too much. To end the lawsuit fiasco, money became the motive. The mayor’s own pocketbook and his own self interest took precedence over any principle, altruism or civic duty. As such, is it reasonable to suggest that maybe the whole lawsuit affair was not a result of the mayor’s professed selfless and noble civic duty after all, but rather was foremost a reprisal and a purposeful distraction from the council’s efforts to remove him from office?
Ed Gardner
Palm Coast
