Notice of Intent to Request Hearing on City of St. Augustine's Envirohnmental Violations

Dear Ms. Johnson:

Thank you for forwarding the two proposed consent orders, and for your courtesies and those of others in FDEP..

This letter is to notify FDEP that I intend to petition for an administrative hearing on the two proposed consent orders.


Our St. Augustine City Hall officials ordered the illegal excavation of the old city dump, illegal dumping of its contents in the Old City Reservoir by the City of St. Augustine, involving $47,248 in penalties, with no personal liability or admissions of who ordered the excavation and dumping and why.. None of our questions have been answered by City Hall since February, 2006 -- some 286 days ago. The consent order proposal was delayed until after the election. Without an open public hearing, our city would be sweeping its wrongdoing under the rug, with taxpayers paying the price. This is unacceptable.

"As Mr. Justice Brandeis correctly observed, 'sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants,' New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 305 (1964)(Goldberg, J., concurring), citing Freund, The Supreme Court of the United States (1949), p. 61. "Justice must not be done in a corner, nor in any covert manner." State ex rel Herald Mail Co. v. Hamilton, 267 S.E.2d 544,548 (W.Va. 1980), citing 1676 Charter of Fundamental Laws of West New Jersey, Ch. XXIII.

As Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote, when "government becomes a lawbreaker," it promotes disrespect for the law, and anarchy. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (dissenting) (1928). Our City of St. Augustine is a lawbreaker and a public hearing is required on the proposed consent decrees so that the public may hear all about it.

There is a strong public interest in exposing governmental wrongdoing. See, e.g., Baldassare v. State of New Jersey, 250 F.3d 188, 200 (3d Cir. 2001); Hitchens v. County of Montgomery, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2803 (E.D.Pa. 2002). See also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S.c. 683 (1974), holding that "the law is entitled to every [person's] evidence"; University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (1990)(rejecting asserted university privilege to keep secret all manner of evidence regarding academic tenure decisions).


Please advise me if and when the proposed orders become final so that I may file a petition requesting an administrative hearing.

Thank you.

With kindest regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Ed Slavin
Box 3084
St. Augustine, Florida
904-471-7023
904-471-9918 (fax)