Published: August 13, 2026
By Ryan Michaels | The Maine Mirror

This is a developing accountability story. This article does not allege that Berwick Police Chief Timothy Towne influenced Representative Thomas Lavigne’s treatment of me. The evidence currently available does not establish that. What it does establish is a documented intersection between two public officials whose names have independently surfaced while I have sought answers concerning government conduct in and around Berwick, Maine. I intend to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Two Public Officials. Two Different Roles. A Growing Set of Questions.

One day after Maine State Representative Thomas Lavigne provided a remarkable written explanation for why he had not responded to hundreds of emails involving me, another public official entered the conversation.

That official is Timothy Towne, Chief of the Berwick Police Department, who is also running for the Maine House of Representatives.

The timing is noteworthy.

But timing alone proves nothing.

What matters is what happened, what was actually said, and what the documentary record may eventually establish.

That distinction is important because this investigation is not about starting with a conclusion and working backward.

It is about documenting connections as they emerge, asking questions when those connections warrant them, and giving the people involved an opportunity to answer.

And right now, I have questions.

The Thomas Lavigne Story Changed the Context

On August 10, 2026, I submitted a Freedom of Access Act request to Representative Thomas Lavigne seeking public records concerning me.

Lavigne responded that morning.

His response revealed something I had not previously known.

Lavigne acknowledged that he had been copied, along with numerous others, on what he characterized as “hundreds of emails” involving my efforts.

He then acknowledged:

“I haven’t responded to a single one.”

More importantly, he provided a reason.

Lavigne identified a Facebook post as the “single reason” he had not responded and characterized what he believed I had written as “personally offensive and deceptive.”

When I pursued the underlying record through my FOAA request, Lavigne produced the screenshot.

It raised an immediate problem.

The Facebook post itself was authored by another individual, Don Hall. Statements Lavigne had attributed to me were either absent from my actual words or appeared within Hall’s characterization of me.

That exchange became the subject of my August 13 investigation:

“Thomas Lavigne, Maine Representative, Says He Ignored Hundreds of Constituent Emails After Relying on Misattributed Facebook Post.”

Among the questions I subsequently put to Lavigne were whether he verified the third-party allegations before relying upon them and when he first encountered the January 14 Facebook post relative to the hundreds of emails he says he did not answer.

Those questions remain important.

But another conversation was developing at almost exactly the same time.

Timothy Towne and a Conversation About Berwick

I had publicly approached Timothy Towne with a straightforward invitation:

“Would love to talk more about this as it pertains to Berwick. Would you be up for a chat?”

Towne responded positively.

He wrote:

“Ryan, I’m happy to speak with you.”

He then immediately mentioned Representative Lavigne:

“Are you aware that Tom Lavigne is your representative — Thomas Lavigne Maine State Representative District 148.”

Towne added that, if elected, he would represent part of North Berwick and part of South Berwick.

That reference caught my attention for another reason.

I had recently encountered both men’s names while researching an older Berwick matter involving Bruce Plante.

So I asked Towne about it directly.

(PUBLIC EXCHANGE WITH BERWICK POLICE CHIEF TIMOTHY TOWNE: Facebook conversation in which Ryan Michaels asks Timothy Towne to discuss issues pertaining to Berwick. Towne agrees to speak and identifies Thomas Lavigne as Michaels’ current representative. Michaels then asks about court records concerning Bruce Plante that referenced information involving both Towne and Lavigne and asks whether Berwick Police communicated with Lavigne about the Plante matter. Towne says he cannot discuss the matter in an open forum but subsequently provides an email address so the conversation can continue privately.)

The Bruce Plante Question

My response to Towne was specific:

“Thank you, Chief. I came across the Plante v. Long case while researching some older Berwick municipal issues. The court record indicates that both you and Tom Lavigne provided information concerning Bruce Plante.”

I then asked:

“Since you mentioned Tom Lavigne, can you tell me what your relationship with Tom was at that time, how both of you became involved in the Plante matter, and whether you or anyone at Berwick PD interviewed or communicated with Tom about it?”

Towne did not answer those questions publicly.

He replied:

“I’m sorry Ryan, I cannot discuss any of that with you in an open forum.”

That response should be characterized fairly.

Towne did not refuse to communicate with me.

In fact, the opposite happened.

I told him that I completely understood his reluctance to discuss the matter publicly and reminded him that he had originally offered to speak with me.

I asked whether he would be willing to continue privately.

Towne responded by providing an email address.

That matters.

Accountability journalism requires reporting responses accurately even when they do not fit neatly into a predetermined narrative.

At this stage, Towne has shown a willingness to communicate.

What remains unknown is what he will say when presented with the larger context.

Why Thomas Lavigne and Timothy Towne Now Appear in the Same Investigation

This is where precision becomes essential.

I am not reporting that Timothy Towne caused Thomas Lavigne to ignore my communications.

I am not reporting that the two men coordinated regarding me.

I am not reporting that their apparent involvement in the older Plante matter has anything to do with Lavigne’s later treatment of my communications.

I currently do not have evidence sufficient to establish any of those propositions.

What I do have is enough to ask questions.

These are two individuals who have occupied positions of significant public trust in the same geographic area.

One is my current state representative.

The other is Berwick’s police chief and is seeking elected legislative office.

During my own attempts as a citizen to understand government conduct, their names have now intersected in more than one area of inquiry.

That makes the relationship between the available records worth examining.

It does not make a conclusion appropriate before the evidence exists.

So I Sent Chief Towne the Thomas Lavigne Investigation

On August 13, I followed up privately using the email address Towne provided.

Rather than duplicate pages of documentation and attempt to summarize the entire Lavigne matter again, I sent him the published investigation.

I asked him to read it before we speak.

And I explained exactly what concerned me.

Lavigne had acknowledged receiving hundreds of emails involving me.

He acknowledged responding to none.

He identified a Facebook post as the “single reason” for that silence.

He described what he believed I had written as “personally offensive and deceptive.”

But when the underlying record was produced, the Facebook post itself had been authored by someone else, and significant statements attributed to me did not match what my actual statement said.

I told Towne that I had subsequently asked Lavigne whether he had verified those third-party allegations or sought clarification before reaching his conclusion.

I also told him about the chronological question:

When did Lavigne first encounter the January 14 post, and how many of the “hundreds” of emails he referenced had already been received before that date?

Then I asked Chief Towne something broader.

(AUGUST 13, 2026 EMAIL TO CHIEF TIMOTHY TOWNE: Follow-up email sent after Towne invited private communication. Michaels provides Towne with the published Thomas Lavigne investigation, summarizes Lavigne’s acknowledgment that he had received hundreds of emails without responding, explains the apparent misattribution revealed by the FOAA-produced Facebook screenshot, and asks Towne what a concerned citizen should do when an elected representative has formed a negative opinion based upon information that appears to have been misattributed.)

A Question From One Citizen to Another Public Official

I asked Towne:

“What should a concerned citizen do when an elected representative acknowledges receiving hundreds of communications but says he responded to none because he had formed a negative personal opinion of that citizen based on information that, when produced, appears to have been misattributed?”

The wording was deliberate.

I did not ask Towne to condemn Thomas Lavigne.

I did not ask him to adopt my conclusions.

I did not ask him to speak on Lavigne’s behalf.

In fact, I expressly told him:

“I’m not asking you to speak for Representative Lavigne or reach a conclusion about him.”

Instead, I asked what he believes the appropriate path forward is for a citizen who still needs meaningful access to representative government under those circumstances.

That is a question someone seeking legislative office should be capable of considering.

And Towne’s answer deserves to be heard in full.

This Investigation Is Not Going to Get Ahead of the Evidence

There is a temptation whenever multiple names begin appearing across records to immediately connect every dot.

I won’t do that.

A responsible investigation has to distinguish between four very different things:

documented facts, reasonable questions, unverified hypotheses, and established conclusions.

Right now, the documented facts justify further inquiry.

They do not justify claiming that Towne was responsible for Lavigne’s conduct.

If records eventually establish communications relevant to that question, those records should be published and evaluated.

If they establish no such connection, that should be reported too.

And if Towne provides information that changes my understanding of these events, readers deserve to hear that information.

The purpose of an investigation cannot be proving the reporter right.

The purpose has to be discovering what happened.

The Plante Records May Be the Next Place to Look

The older Bruce Plante matter now deserves closer examination for a straightforward reason.

It may help establish what relationship, if any, existed between Lavigne and Towne in their respective public capacities and whether communications occurred between Lavigne and the Berwick Police Department.

That inquiry should be document-driven.

What did the court actually say?

What information was attributed to Towne?

What information was attributed to Lavigne?

In what capacities were they acting?

Were their roles independent?

Did either communicate with the other?

Are records of those communications preserved?

Those questions should not be answered by assumption.

They should be answered with records.

Timothy Towne Has an Opportunity Thomas Lavigne Did Not Take

There is already one significant difference between these two interactions.

When I approached Towne, he responded.

When he believed the subject was inappropriate for an open Facebook discussion, he said so.

When I asked whether we could continue privately, he provided an email address.

That deserves acknowledgment.

Now he has the Lavigne article.

He has my question.

And he has an opportunity to provide his perspective.

What he does with that opportunity will become part of this story.

Public Office Requires Accountability Even When the Questions Are Uncomfortable

This investigation is ultimately about something larger than Thomas Lavigne, Timothy Towne, Bruce Plante or me.

Government only works when citizens can ask questions of the people exercising authority over their communities.

Sometimes those questions will be uncomfortable.

Sometimes the citizen asking them will be persistent.

Sometimes an official will disagree with that citizen.

Sometimes the official may even dislike him.

None of those circumstances eliminate the need for accountability.

Thomas Lavigne’s own email provided an unusual glimpse into what can happen when a public official’s personal judgment about a citizen intersects with requests for governmental assistance.

Now another public official—and candidate for legislative office—has been asked what he believes a citizen should do under those circumstances.

I am interested in his answer.

And I am equally interested in what the records show.

What Happens Next

This is not the conclusion of the investigation.

It is the beginning of another documented line of inquiry.

I will continue examining the available public and court records concerning the Plante matter.

I will continue seeking records capable of establishing whether communications occurred among the relevant public officials and agencies.

I will give Timothy Towne a reasonable opportunity to respond to the questions I sent him.

If he responds, his substantive response will be reported fairly and in context.

If records contradict my current understanding, I will correct that understanding.

If records establish connections that are not presently known, those records will be published.

And if the evidence establishes no connection beyond what is already documented, readers deserve to know that too.

That is what independent journalism should be.

Follow the documents. Preserve the timeline. Ask the uncomfortable questions. Separate evidence from suspicion. And let the public see the records.

This investigation will continue as additional evidence and responses become available.

If you believe independent, evidence-based reporting and government transparency matter, support The Maine Mirror by subscribing below for free.