Ex-Council Member Ed Danko’s Ethics Complaint Against Mayor Norris Found ‘Legally Insufficient’

The Florida Ethics Commission on Friday tossed out a complaint by former Palm Coast City Council member Ed Danko against Mayor Mike Norris, finding it “legally insufficient.” As often as not, that sort of dining is equivalent to saying: “Not the Ethics Commission’s venue.” 

It is not necessarily to the discredit of the complaint’s allegation, as indeed several of those allegations are either in the public record, have been corroborated in an investigation conducted on behalf of the city, or have been argued in a city filing in Circuit Court. 

Danko’s complaint, filed in March, is unrelated to a separate complaint four members of the Palm Coast City Council jointly filed against Norris in May after censuring him for violating the city charter. The Ethics Commission has taken no public action on the council’s complaint yet and is not expected to do so until later this summer. 

“The Commission’s review was limited to questions of jurisdiction of the Commission and of the adequacy of the details of the complaint to allege a violation of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees,” the commission concluded. “No factual investigation preceded the review, and therefore the Commission’s conclusions do not reflect on the accuracy of the allegations of the complaint.” 

Danko declined to comment. Norris no longer talks to FlaglerLive. Based on past behavior–he recently misinterpreted a judge’s finding in the lawsuit he filed as conceding its emergency status and mischaracterized it as an early victory–he is likely to misinterpret the finding as vindication, rather than more justly settle for relief. 

Danko ended his four-year tenure on the City Council last November. He alleged that Norris that month, shortly after his election, directed City Attorney Jeremiah Blocker to initiate lawsuits against Danko, then-Mayor David Alfin, and Nick Klufas, who was ending eight years on the council. 

Blocker, Danko reported, told the mayor that the city attorney does not represent council members individually but the council as a body, and only at the direction of the council as such. Blocker and fellow City Attorney Marcus Duffy have said as much to the mayor on other occasions, correcting him about the impropriety of his overreach. (See: “Palm Coast City Attorney Calls Mayor Norris ‘Unprofessional and Inappropriate’ 3 Weeks After Censure for Similar Behavior.”)

Danko also alleged that Norris accused him and other council members and top staff of colluding in a secret meeting the day before the appointment of Council member Charles Gambaro. Norris has spoken vaguely of such a meeting, claiming he had a “spy” at City Hall, but (as Danko notes in the complaint) has not offered corroborating evidence. 

Norris has also since alleged in a lawsuit he filed against Gambaro and the city that the appointment was illegal, though–notably–the lawsuit contains no allegation of a secret meeting.

“To be clear,” Danko had written in his complaint, “no such meeting ever took place, and no evidence has been presented by Mayor Norris to suggest otherwise.” 

Further, the former councilman accused Norris of making several defamatory comments during public meetings and an interview on a social media site, all of which are accessible. Norris’s comments, in those instances–calling Gambaro an “unelected imp,” claiming that Danko and his colleagues violated the charter–don’t rise anywhere near the sort of comments a court would find defamatory. Rather, they reflect what courts would consider fair (if crude and reckless) opinion in a political forum, which legally benefits from the highest level of free expression. Indeed, Danko himself was no paragon of propriety from the dais in his day, and was himself censured. 

“While these allegations may involve a detriment to the individuals who were the subjects of [Danko]’s comments,” the commission found, “they fail to identify in a factual, nonconclusory manner any private capacity benefit to [Norris] or anyone to whom he has a private capacity nexus.” 

The city’s complaint may run into a similar finding. The commission underscores that the only element it could have investigated was whether Norris had misused his office for private gain–something not even his worst enemies, Danko among them–have claimed he’s done (though his voluntary surrender of responsibilities as mayor in recent months may raise questions about the substantial salary he still draws). 

While the Danko complaint echoes several concerns and corroborated findings of the independent investigation of Norris an attorney conducted for the council, the complaint was, from the start, a “J’Accuse” sort of manifesto–more in outrage than style–calling for any entity to investigate the mayor: “I respectfully request that this complaint be formally reviewed by the appropriate oversight authority, whether at the City of Palm Coast, the Florida Commission on Ethics, or other relevant state or federal agencies,” Danko had written. The Ethics Commission was thrown into the mix, even though the likelihood of success there was slight, given the parameters of commission investigations. 

The commission’s finding is not without contradictions. It found Danko’s complaint legally insufficient in part because it relied on hearsay. For example, Danko gave no indication in the complaint that he was physically present when Norris allegedly directed the attorney to draft lawsuits, removing the Ethics Commission’s authority to investigate. 

But even where the commission concedes that the allegation Danko reports were based on his personal, direct knowledge, it found them legally insufficient. 

Danko’s complaint was one of 33 the Ethics Commission found legally insufficient at its June 6 closed session in Tallahassee. Its action is unlikely to begin to restore the council’s confidence in Norris, a confidence that continues to erode through the mayor’s own actions and abrogations.