SATELLITE BEACH, FL - In the summer of 2018, residents of Satellite Beach, Florida, began demanding answers. Toxic exposure and water contamination fears were mounting, with whispers of cancers, sick children, and an unexplained rise in health issues spreading through the community. But when citizens turned to their city officials for transparency, they say they were met not with answers, but with silence, resistance, and, in some cases, surveillance.
What unfolded over the next several months, captured in public records, leaked emails, and community testimonies, reveals a troubling clash between grassroots advocates and the City of Satellite Beach. It is a story of unanswered pleas, canceled meetings, monitored Facebook groups, and a growing mistrust that continues to haunt this coastal town.Unanswered Calls for Help
Between June and September 2018, environmental advocate Stel Bailey, leader of the nonprofit Fight for Zero, sent repeated emails to City Manager Courtney Barker. Bailey asked for simple, practical steps:
- Permission to host community meetings
- Participation from city officials
- Comprehensive environmental testing
The emails were professional, measured, and persistent. None received a reply. For residents, the silence was deafening.
A Meeting That Never Happened
On July 20, 2018, a community meeting that was supposed to bring answers was abruptly canceled. Records later revealed a swirl of miscommunication and interference. On Facebook, residents clashed with city officials over who was responsible.
City Manager Courtney Barker denied that she asked for the cancellation, but admitted she tried to convince organizers to move the date. To community members already skeptical of city cooperation, this was seen as another attempt to stall.
Watching Citizens Online
By late summer, the mistrust spilled into the digital sphere. From July through September 2018, residents discovered that city officials, including Barker and council member Mindy Gibson, were monitoring their posts in private Facebook groups such as Satellite Beach Health and Hope for Tomorrow.
When the officials were accused of inappropriate surveillance, they were removed from the groups. The City, however, countered by claiming the residents themselves were spreading “misinformation.”
Internal emails later surfaced with dismissive remarks about citizens seeking “FaceTime” or exploiting the City for publicity. The tone suggested officials were not only unwilling to engage but actively hostile to those asking questions.
The Closed-Door Meeting
The conflict escalated on September 17, 2018, when water expert Bob Bowcock agreed to meet in Satellite Beach. In emails, Bowcock copied Stel Bailey and local cancer survivors who had been spearheading efforts to resolve the contamination crisis, directly inviting them to participate. But when the meeting took place, those very people were excluded.
Instead, city officials framed the event as if they had organized it themselves, never acknowledging that residents and advocates were the ones who helped bring Bowcock to the table. It was a familiar pattern: when citizens opened space for dialogue and invited officials to listen, city leaders tried to steer the agenda. Rather than hearing community concerns, they dominated discussions, downplayed health risks, and attempted to pacify residents into believing everything was under control.
Media and residents were barred from the September 17 session. Officials defended the secrecy, saying certain individuals might “make a scene” or manipulate footage. But to many, it looked like another attempt to silence the very people most affected.
Citizens filed a complaint under Florida’s Sunshine Law, which requires government meetings to remain open to the public. Police later dismissed the complaint, but the damage was done. Trust in city leadership eroded further, as residents saw the walls of secrecy close around a crisis that demanded transparency.
Police Surveillance and Collusion
Satellite Beach police officers became entangled in the controversy in ways that many residents saw as deeply troubling. In February 2018, the Chief of Police personally surveilled the home of a non-resident at the direct request of City Manager Courtney Barker. This was not an investigation into contamination or public safety. It was the surveillance of citizens that raised concerns.
Police commanders also took on the role of reviewing Sunshine Law complaints filed by residents, but instead of acting as neutral arbiters, they sided with city officials. To many, it appeared that law enforcement was not serving the public interest but protecting the city’s image.
This raised serious questions about the misuse of power. Police are sworn to uphold the law and defend the rights of citizens, including the right to free speech and the right to hold government accountable. They are not tasked with shielding elected officials from criticism or silencing valid concerns about contamination. By surveilling advocates and dismissing transparency complaints, the police appeared complicit in a broader effort to pacify dissent and control the narrative.
Residents began to ask: if law enforcement was being used to watch the people instead of investigating law violations, who was left to protect the public?
Coordinated Messaging Against Citizens
Leaked communications painted a stark picture. Internal city emails referred to certain residents as “hysterical” and warned “city supporters” to echo official talking points. Citizens and nonprofit leaders were targeted through property research and online monitoring.
One private individual, described in records as a “friend of the city,” exchanged more than 113 emails with officials. Their activities included:
- Proposing bot attacks on nonprofit ads
- Sending a cease-and-desist letter to a local advocate
- Receiving a court injunction for harassment
- Attempting to influence ongoing legal proceedings
For residents, it was proof that the City was not only dismissing their concerns but actively working against them.
Public Records Stonewalling
Transparency took another hit when the advocacy group submitted public records requests between September and December 2018. The requests were delayed, mishandled, and at times misrepresented. IT staff confirmed that the city’s systems were functioning, raising questions about whether delays were intentional.On January 4, 2019, the City Clerk responsible was fired. An apology email followed, but it offered little comfort. To many, the termination looked like scapegoating rather than true accountability.
A Community Left in the Dark
By early 2019, the residents of Satellite Beach had learned a hard lesson: their leaders were quicker to discredit their voices than to test their water. Emails revealed mockery, secrecy, and surveillance. Meetings were closed. Records were delayed. Citizens who asked questions were labeled as troublemakers.
Environmental concerns remained unanswered. For families who feared toxic exposure, the human cost was personal and urgent. But instead of collaboration, they encountered a city government seemingly more concerned with reputation than responsibility.
 |
 |
 |
| To View this Document: Click Here (or click the dates) |
 |
 |