SATELLITE BEACH, FL — “On July 3, 2018, I appeared before council and asked for leadership and results regarding possible cancer clusters and water concerns,” Jeff Dubitsky told the council and the public that evening. “The same day council told me they were looking into it, and more importantly, pointed out that if anything was found, they would need to reach out for help because of limited resources and knowledge.”
That promise, spoken into the official record, would soon be tested. Instead of partnership and transparency, public records and sworn documents show a pattern of secrecy, manufactured opposition, and apparent misuse of city resources directed at the people who pushed for independent science and accountability. The files name city leaders who were active players in the conflict: City Manager Courtney Barker, Councilwoman Mindy Gibson (then a council member and rumored to be eyeing higher office), and councilmembers Mark Brimer, Steve Osmer, and Frank Catino. They also document the odd elevation of a private resident, Kathy Marler, into a surrogate role that blurred the line between citizen and city actor.
“We reached out to experts” and were shut out
Dubitsky’s account continues in the public record: “My organization and I reached out to experts across the country. We were fortunate enough to have Bob Bowcock and Erin Brockovich agree to visit, at no cost to us. Mr. Bowcock came, and we met to discuss our concerns and the possible solutions. Mr. Bowcock reached out to the city and offered to set up a meeting to discuss this. A meeting was set for mid-September. Upon arrival to this meeting, representatives from our environmental firm, Stel and I were denied entrance. The evening news aired a letter from Mrs. Barker stating we were ‘combative and non-productive.’”
Those lines, captured verbatim in emails and public testimony, reveal more than a bureaucratic misstep. They show how community organizers who followed city guidance to bring in outside expertise were later treated as outsiders to be excluded. The city’s public posture was that residents simply wanted “face time.” The records suggest something else: officials actively tried to steer the conversation, limit what the public and the press saw and heard, and recast concerned residents as the problem.
A city surrogate and the harassment packet
Public records indicate that Kathy Marler, described in some council meetings as “a resident” and presented to the public as a “cancer advocate,” communicated hundreds of times with City Manager Courtney Barker and Councilwoman Mindy Gibson. Internal emails identify Marler as the city’s “water guru,” show her close coordination with city staff, and document city staff helping print and edit her materials.
Dubitsky’s sworn declaration and related public records show Marler mailed an 11-page packet to community advocates that contained graphic threats, admissions of stalking, and incendiary language. Dubitsky quoted the packet at public meetings and in court filings: it compared his value to “butt-wipes,” warned “I will never leave you alone” until he surrendered data, declared “off with their heads” and included a photograph of bloody hands with the words “HELP ME.” A judge issued a temporary injunction in December 2018 protecting Dubitsky and his family from Marler’s harassment.
What makes this alarming is not only the content of the packet but the role City Hall played: records show the packet was printed at City Hall, that staff member Julie Finch assisted with the printing, and that city employees used official email accounts in communications tied to Marler. City officials even wrote letters that sought to influence the judge overseeing the injunction.
Manufacturing consent, silencing dissent
Emails and internal messages released under Florida’s Sunshine Law reveal a coordinated campaign to control public dialogue. City leaders circulated talking points, encouraged “friends of the city” to speak out at meetings against advocates, and minimized the validity of contamination concerns as “election-time misinformation” or “silly.” In one message, Courtney Barker advised recruiting people to appear at a council meeting to oppose local advocates; in another, council member Mindy Gibson wrote that giving opponents three minutes at a meeting would provide “good FaceTime” but “does not accomplish much.”
Dubitsky’s testimony summarized the pattern: his group used certified labs and presented science; instead of engaging with the findings, the city mobilized supporters, monitored online groups, and worked behind the scenes to shape public comment. Public records also describe discussions of electronic surveillance, and emails show officials sharing screenshots and coordinating responses to specific Facebook posts.
Police used to police the public
The records also indicate law enforcement became entwined in the dispute. In February 2018, the Chief of Police conducted surveillance of a non-resident’s address at the request of City Manager Barker. Police commanders reviewed Sunshine Law complaints and repeatedly came down on the side of city leaders. For residents, that was chilling: police should be neutral protectors of public safety and civil rights, not instruments used to silence critics.
As Dubitsky and others noted publicly, “The police don’t handle contamination. What they should do is uphold the law and rights, and that did not happen. Instead, the police were complicit and colluded.” The files show police involvement in monitoring and investigating citizens who raised health concerns, actions many residents viewed as an abuse of public office and a violation of the public trust.
When public resources are used to harm citizens
Taken together, the records show a municipal operation that went beyond poor communications. They document:
- City staff printing and distributing materials used to harass advocates.
- A private resident repeatedly coordinated with city officials to discredit and intimidate critics.
- City leaders are encouraging supporters to drown out science and testimony at public meetings.
- Police surveillance of those raising concerns, at the request of city management.
- Officials, excluding advocates and experts invited by residents from meetings, the city publicly claimed that the city had organized.
These actions raise multiple legal and ethical questions: did public officials misuse taxpayer resources? Were citizens’ First Amendment rights chilled? Did the city violate Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law by excluding voices it deemed inconvenient?
Voices demanding accountability
For Dubitsky and other local advocates, the fight is straightforward: “We use certified labs to perform tests to determine what may be occurring in our community,” Dubitsky told council members and the public. “Our organization has been active in attending meetings and has met with other professionals and state representatives, and senators.” Their goal has been to secure independent testing, transparent records, and, if contamination is found, remediation and protection for affected families.
For the named city officials—Courtney Barker, Mindy Gibson, Mark Brimer, and Frank Catino—the public records present hard questions about judgment, governance, and the appropriate use of power. The records show actions that go well beyond disagreement over evidence; they suggest that some officials adopted tactics intended to manage public perception rather than address public health.
Communities exposed to toxic chemicals deserve full transparency, independent science, and a government that responds to health concerns rather than suppresses them. When city offices and allied residents are used to attack or silence those raising questions, public trust breaks down. Families who worry about cancer clusters and contaminated water should not have to plead for basic protections while facing harassment and surveillance.
This case is a local test of broader principles: accountability, open government, and the obligation of public servants to prioritize residents’ safety over institutional reputation.
Editor’s note and documentation
This article is based on public records, sworn documents, court filings, and correspondence obtained through open records requests. For a complete set of the supporting documents cited in this report, see the Satellite Beach public records archive: Public Records Archive