By: Ryan Michaels | The Maine Mirror | September 11, 2026

Mirror Brief

Bottom Line Up Front: The Maine Mirror deliberately contacted Timothy Towne through his campaign account and explicitly approached him as a candidate for the Maine House with a documented government-accountability issue. Towne responded through that account. After two subsequent scheduling requests went unanswered—including a follow-up that acknowledged the Labor Day weekend—Berwick’s Town Attorney entered the exchange, stating he was writing on behalf of both the Town and Chief Towne. His response arrived on a separate email thread containing nine unanswered questions directed to the Select Board. The documents do not establish who requested or paid for counsel’s involvement, but they leave a clear question: when did correspondence directed to Towne as a political candidate become a matter for the Town’s attorney, and who made that decision?

BERWICK, Maine — On August 31, I sent Timothy Towne an email with a deliberately specific subject line:

“A documented Berwick issue and a question for you as a candidate.”

I sent it to towne4district149@gmail.com.

And inside the email, I explicitly explained why.

“I’m also contacting you because you are now seeking election to the Maine House of Representatives.”

I then made the purpose even clearer.

Rather than asking Towne hypothetically what he would do if someone approached him with a documented government-accountability concern, I told him I was bringing an actual situation to him.

My question was straightforward:

“Now that I have brought this matter directly to your attention, what, if anything, are you willing to do to help determine why it remains unresolved and whether the working record can finally be provided?”

There was nothing ambiguous about the capacity in which I was approaching him.

I was asking a candidate for the Maine House of Representatives how he would respond to an actual government-accountability problem.

(August 31, 2026 email from The Maine Mirror to Timothy Towne’s District 149 campaign email address. The subject line identifies it as “a question for you as a candidate,” while the email expressly states that Towne is being contacted because he is seeking election to the Maine House and presents him with an actual government-accountability issue.)

The Problem I Brought to the Candidate

The underlying situation wasn’t new.

It originated with a September 12, 2025 encounter at the Berwick Police Department involving a written complaint I attempted to submit.

I subsequently requested police video of the encounter.

Berwick’s own September 16 Select Board minutes later described evidence I presented to the Board as video documenting then-administrative assistant Denise Dunn “throwing his written complaint on the ground.”

The Town provided me with a copy of the requested recording.

It didn’t work.

I returned to the Select Board on October 7 and demonstrated the problem publicly. During that meeting, Select Board Chair Mike Laterreur directed Town Manager Arthur Capello to ensure I received a working copy.

Capello agreed.

By August 31, nearly a year after the underlying encounter, I still did not have one.

That was the real-world accountability problem I presented to Towne.

But there was an important difference this time.

I wasn’t merely asking the Berwick Police Chief about a police record.

I was presenting an unresolved government problem to someone seeking legislative office and asking what he was willing to do about it.

Towne Responded — Through the Campaign Account

Four days later, on September 4, Towne responded.

Importantly, the response came from the same campaign email account I had deliberately contacted.

Towne wrote that a new copy had been prepared “in a format that you should have no issues viewing.”

He offered an explanation for the previous problems, saying he believed two earlier copies had failed because the correct driver was unavailable.

Towne also said he had been able to view the previous copies himself.

And he told me the Town’s attorney had notified me that the video was available for pickup at the police station.

He concluded:

“I hope this satisfies your request.”

It was a substantive response to the issue I had presented.

And I treated it that way.

(September 4, 2026 response from Timothy Towne’s District 149 campaign email account. Towne states that a new copy of the recording had been prepared, discusses why earlier copies may not have worked, says he personally had been able to view them, and states that the recording was available for pickup.)

The same day, The Maine Mirror published an update reporting that Towne had responded and that a new copy had been prepared.

The next step seemed simple.

Actually obtain it.

A Straightforward Scheduling Request

At 4 p.m. on September 4, less than an hour after Towne’s response, I wrote back.

I thanked him for responding and confirming that a new copy had been prepared.

Then I asked:

“I’d like to arrange a time next week when I can come to the station and view the recording there to confirm that it works properly before leaving with the copy.”

I asked whether Tuesday would work because Tuesdays were the easiest day for me to arrange transportation.

I didn’t demand that Towne personally sit beside me.

I didn’t ask him to interpret the video.

I didn’t ask him to conduct an investigation.

I asked to coordinate a time to view the recording and make sure the replacement worked before leaving with it.

(September 4, 2026 reply from The Maine Mirror to Towne’s campaign account. Michaels thanks Towne for confirming that a new copy was prepared and asks to arrange a time to view the recording at the station and confirm it works before leaving with the copy, proposing Tuesday because of transportation availability.)

No response came.

Labor Day Passes — Another Follow-Up

The timing mattered.

My September 4 request came immediately before Labor Day weekend.

So I did not assume that Towne’s lack of response meant he was refusing the request.

On Tuesday, September 8, I followed up.

And I expressly gave him the benefit of that timing:

“I understand my previous email came immediately before the Labor Day weekend, so I wanted to check in before making any assumptions about your availability.”

I asked whether that Tuesday still worked.

And if it didn’t, I asked Towne to provide another time that would.

(September 8, 2026 follow-up to Timothy Towne’s campaign account. Michaels expressly acknowledges that his previous request came immediately before Labor Day weekend, says he does not want to make assumptions about Towne’s availability, and asks for another date if Tuesday does not work.)

Again, no response came.

September 11: One More Attempt

Three days later, on Friday, September 11, I followed up again.

By then, I documented the sequence directly in the email.

Towne had told me September 4 that the recording was prepared.

I had responded that same day asking to coordinate access.

I had followed up September 8 while specifically acknowledging Labor Day weekend.

Neither scheduling request had received a response.

I wrote:

“At this point, I do have a concern about the communication surrounding this matter.”

But even then, the request remained narrow.

I proposed Tuesday, September 15.

And I wrote:

“If Tuesday does not work, please provide a specific alternative date and time when I can do so.”

I ended by explaining exactly what I was trying to accomplish:

“My goal remains very simple: to view the recording, verify that the newly prepared copy works, and obtain the record.”

(September 11, 2026 follow-up to Towne’s campaign account documenting the unanswered September 4 and September 8 scheduling requests. Michaels again asks to arrange access, proposes September 15, requests an alternative date if necessary, and states that his goal is to view the recording, verify that the newly prepared copy works and obtain it.)

Towne did not respond to that email.

Later that day, however, an attorney did.

At 2:29 P.M., Berwick’s Town Attorney Responds

At 2:29 p.m. on September 11, attorney Matt Tarasevich of Bernstein Shur sent an email.

His opening sentence was significant:

“I wrote on behalf of the town of Berwick and Chief Towne.”

Tarasevich then addressed something I had not characterized as an accident: my decision to contact Towne through his campaign email.

He wrote:

“Please note that Chief Town’s correct town email address is chief@berwickmainepolice.gov. Your prior emails were sent to his personal address.”

He asked that future communications to the Town and Town officials be directed to their Town-issued email addresses.

But the emails he was discussing had not inadvertently gone to the wrong address.

The original email itself shows why.

Its subject was “A documented Berwick issue and a question for you as a candidate.”

It was sent to Towne’s District 149 campaign account.

And its text explicitly said:

“I’m also contacting you because you are now seeking election to the Maine House of Representatives.”

Towne subsequently responded through that same account.

The distinction between Towne’s roles was therefore not something constructed after Town counsel became involved.

It was written into the original inquiry.

Counsel Then Answered a Request I Hadn’t Made

Tarasevich also addressed the recording.

He wrote that the disc had been tested, was operational and remained at the police station waiting for pickup.

He said the secretary would be there Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Then he wrote:

“Neither Chief Town nor any other town official will be meeting with you to review or test the disc, as they have no obligation or duty under the FOAA act to do so.”

But that was not what my emails requested.

The September 4 email is visible above.

It asked to “come to the station and view the recording there to confirm that it works properly before leaving with the copy.”

The September 8 follow-up asked whether the proposed time worked or whether another time would.

The September 11 follow-up again requested a date and time and expressly stated the objective: view the recording, verify the newly prepared copy works and obtain it.

None of those emails asked Towne to interpret the recording.

None asked him to review its contents with me.

None asked Town officials to create another record.

And none asked Towne personally to sit down and test the disc with me.

The correspondence is now available for readers to examine directly.

(September 11, 2026 email from Bernstein Shur attorney Matt Tarasevich. Tarasevich states that he wrote “on behalf of the town of Berwick and Chief Towne,” characterizes Towne’s campaign address as his “personal address,” directs future Town communications to Towne’s municipal email, and states that neither Towne nor another Town official will meet with Michaels to review or test the disc.)

The Sequence Matters

Taken in chronological order, the emails establish a straightforward sequence.

On August 31, I deliberately contacted Towne through his campaign account and explicitly told him I was doing so because he was seeking election to the Maine House.

On September 4, Towne responded through that campaign account and addressed the problem.

Less than an hour later, I asked to coordinate a time to obtain and verify the replacement.

No response came.

On September 8, after Labor Day weekend, I followed up and explicitly said I did not want to make assumptions about his availability.

No response came.

On September 11, I followed up again.

Towne did not respond.

Several hours later, Berwick’s Town Attorney did.

And the attorney said he was writing on behalf of both the Town and Chief Towne.

Those facts do not establish why counsel became involved.

They do not establish who requested that involvement.

And they do not establish who paid for the associated legal work.

Those questions remain unanswered.

Another Thread, Another Set of Unanswered Questions

There is another unusual part of the September 11 response.

Tarasevich’s email did not arrive on the candidate-correspondence thread reproduced above.

It arrived on a different email chain.

That chain originated with a September 4 inquiry I sent to the Berwick Select Board titled:

“Questions for the Berwick Select Board — Chief Towne Dual-Role Plan.”

That email contained nine questions about the Board’s May 2026 decision to approve Towne’s proposal to remain Berwick Police Chief if elected to the Maine House.

The underlying public record shows that on May 5, Towne discussed concurrent service with the Board, which requested additional time and a written plan before deciding.

Two weeks later, the Board approved the arrangement 5-0.

My September 4 questions sought to understand what happened between those meetings, how the legislative schedule would interact with Towne’s full-time position, what compensation arrangement was approved, what precisely the Board authorized, and what records documented how its earlier concerns were resolved.

Tarasevich’s September 11 response was sent on that Select Board thread.

But it did not substantively answer those nine questions.

Instead, it addressed my separate correspondence with Towne through his campaign account.

Those nine questions remain outstanding.

What This Article Does — and Does Not — Establish

There is a temptation with a situation like this to jump immediately to the biggest possible question.

I’m not going to do that.

This article does not conclude that Berwick improperly used municipal funds for campaign-related legal services.

It does not conclude that Towne or the Town violated campaign-finance law.

It does not establish who requested Tarasevich’s involvement or why.

And it does not establish who ultimately paid for the work reflected in his September 11 email.

Those facts require records.

There are municipal records that may help establish who requested counsel’s involvement and how particular legal services were billed.

There are also campaign-finance filings that may provide additional context.

Those are subjects for additional reporting.

I would rather obtain those records than tell readers what I think they might say.

What the Documents Already Show

For now, something narrower is established without speculation.

I approached Timothy Towne through his campaign account.

I told him explicitly that I was contacting him because he was seeking election to the Maine House.

I presented him with an actual government-accountability problem and asked what, if anything, he was willing to do.

Towne responded through the campaign account.

When he told me a new recording had been prepared, I asked to arrange a time to access it and verify that it worked.

I received no response.

I followed up after Labor Day and expressly acknowledged the holiday weekend.

I received no response.

I followed up again.

Towne did not respond.

Then Berwick’s Town Attorney entered the situation and stated that he was writing on behalf of the Town and Chief Towne.

That response came not on the candidate-correspondence thread, but on a separate Select Board thread containing nine questions that remain unanswered.

Those are not conclusions about anyone’s motives.

They are the documented sequence.

And that sequence leaves an important question in public view:

When a municipal official is simultaneously campaigning for the Legislature, and a journalist explicitly approaches that person as a candidate, when—and on whose decision—does that candidate correspondence become a matter for the municipality’s attorney?

The documents currently available do not answer that question.

The Maine Mirror will continue seeking the records and responses that might.