- June 21, 2025
Dear Editor:
During two May City Council meetings, Mayor Mike Norris presented his mostly vague allegations of bribery he referred to as a “quid pro quo” real estate developer offer relating to his approval of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. He has and still refuses to offer the full details, but contends he has referred the matter to law enforcement.
However, during one of the council meetings, very surprisingly and carelessly, he actually did divulge who a suspect is without naming a name. He publicly announced that the suspect was one of the only two developers that had provided witness statements included in the Ethics Commission complaint alleging City Charter violations by Norris along with HR related concerns attributable to Norris. From the mayor’s disclosure and inference, the public now knows their two names and respective companies. It’s safe to assume those developers also know they have been named by Norris as suspects in a very serious criminal matter, attempted bribery of a public servant.
We have to wonder what these two developers are thinking now since at least one of them may have been defamed by Norris’ implication. Are they concerned about the future reputational damage done because of Norris’ statements? Is it possible that at least one will sue both the mayor and the city? Is it also possible that if it turns out the mayor's allegation is not credible or is not an actionable law enforcement case, both could sue? It’s reasonable to assume that both of these developers, although maybe for different reasons, have “lawyered up” already thanks to Mayor Norris’ poor judgement.
The City Council, obviously aware of legal exposure, is fearful of a lawsuit attributable to the mayor’s indiscretions and there has been an openly expressed concern by the vice mayor that a legal action, specifically for “defamation,” is possible.
And, of course, in furtherance of this Norris slip-up, any law enforcement authority may not be too pleased with the mayor carelessly providing a very public heads up to the bribery suspect.
All things considered, the whole “quid pro quo” matter for now seems a bit like a Mike Norris generated mess.
Mary Zito
Palm Coast
