Norman's lapse

Editorial

It's not the final word on the matter, but the Florida Commission on Ethics' finding that there is probable cause to prosecute Hillsborough Sen. Jim Norman underscores the former county commissioner's poor judgment and ethical indifference.

Commissioners found Norman should have disclosed a $500,000 gift to his wife by the late Ralph Hughes, a political powerbroker. The money was used to buy a lakefront house in Arkansas.

Hughes appeared often before the county commission, and Norman routinely supported his agenda.

A federal investigation could find no quid pro quo in the deal and the Commission on Ethics also did not find probable cause on the accusation of exchanging votes for political favors.

But if no crime was committed, the arrangement was inappropriate and Norman did his best to hide it.

He did not the list the Arkansas house on his financial disclosure forms and once the press discovered it, he misrepresented who had supplied the money. He said friends "who were like family" were investing in the house with his wife.

But there was only one friend, the late Hughes, Norman's biggest political champion.

His Republican primary opponent contested the election because of Norman's failure to disclose the arrangement. A Leon County judge initially ordered Norman's name off the ballot, but the move was overturned by an appeals court.

The judge's initial ruling is worth remembering.

"When he failed to disclose any part of this transaction, which includes his single largest asset ... in filing to qualify for Florida Senate, District 12, this Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that he did so intentionally to deceive the public."

Norman can contest the ethics commission's finding before a state administrative law judge or admit guilt and pay a fine.

But his claims that he is "clean as a whistle" fall flat.