By Ryan Michaels | The Maine Mirror | October 15, 2026

Two public meetings, months apart, reveal contrasting assessments of Berwick’s police department as its chief assumes additional municipal responsibilities.

BERWICK, Maine — In October 2025, residents attending a public meet-and-greet with then-Town Manager Arthur Capello at the Berwick Public Library expressed frustration with the Berwick Police Department.

Their concerns included the quality of police service, the taxes residents paid in relation to the services they received, and an account from one resident who said police had declined to respond because they believed he lived in a neighboring municipality.

The resident clarified that his criticism concerned the police department. He then warned that, without action, Berwick could face “another Lewiston.”

The statement was made publicly, in the presence of the town manager, and captured on video.

The reference to Lewiston was the resident’s own warning. It was not an official assessment of a threat, and the available record does not establish that the resident was identifying a specific, imminent danger.

The Maine Mirror has not identified a subsequent public municipal statement directly addressing that warning.

Months later, however, another public meeting presented a notably different characterization of the department’s leadership.

From Public Frustration to Public Praise

On May 5, 2026, the Berwick Select Board considered a request from Police Chief Timothy Towne to continue serving as the town’s full-time police chief while potentially holding a seat in the Maine House of Representatives.

During that discussion, Select Board Chair Mike Laterreur publicly characterized Towne’s work as “top-notch” and “amazing.”

But the discussion also included practical concerns.

The department had an open officer position, Captain Jerry Locke was approaching a December 2026 retirement, and the chief’s proposed legislative responsibilities raised questions about how his time would be divided.

The board deferred its decision that evening.

The contrast between the two public meetings deserves attention.

In October 2025, residents questioned the quality and availability of police services. In May 2026, municipal leadership publicly praised the chief responsible for that department while acknowledging staffing and scheduling concerns.

These statements are not necessarily contradictory. Residents and municipal officials may evaluate police performance using different experiences, information and criteria.

But together, they raise a question: What information did municipal leadership use to evaluate police performance, and how were the concerns expressed by residents incorporated into that assessment?

Two Meetings. Two Perspectives. One Public Record.

The Maine Mirror has combined excerpts from both public meetings into a single video so readers can examine the statements in chronological order.

The video begins with the October 2025 public library meeting, where residents expressed dissatisfaction with police services and one resident issued the warning referencing Lewiston.

It then transitions to the May 2026 Select Board meeting, where Laterreur praised Towne’s performance while discussing concerns about the chief dividing his time between municipal and potential legislative responsibilities.

Each segment is clearly labeled with its respective meeting and date.

The recordings are presented together to document the contrast in public statements—not to suggest that either meeting establishes wrongdoing or that the October complaints caused the subsequent decisions.

(October 2025 Berwick Public Library meeting followed by May 2026 Berwick Select Board meeting. Both segments are individually labeled within the video.)

From Two Potential Roles to Additional Municipal Responsibilities

On May 19, 2026, the Select Board approved Towne’s proposed arrangement to continue serving as police chief if elected to the Legislature.

Towne subsequently continued campaigning for Maine House District 149, a district outside Berwick.

As The Maine Mirror previously reported, this creates a geographic distinction: District 149 voters will determine whether Towne serves in Augusta, while Berwick residents rely on his leadership of their municipal police department.

That proposed arrangement became more complicated in October.

Following Capello’s departure, Towne was named interim town manager, reportedly effective around October 10, 2026.

Towne therefore has two municipal leadership responsibilities while also actively campaigning for a potential third role in state government.

The question is not simply whether a public official can assume additional duties. It is how those duties are allocated, documented and evaluated—particularly when concerns about police staffing and service have already appeared in public meetings.

A Wider Record of Litigation and Public-Records Questions

The leadership developments have unfolded alongside other matters involving Berwick’s municipal government.

In 2026, the Town of Berwick was named as a defendant in federal civil-rights litigation, including Guay et al. v. Town of Berwick, No. 2:26-cv-00179, involving disputes over property abatement, demolition and related municipal actions.

The lawsuit includes claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original defendants included Towne and former Town Manager Capello, although the status of individual defendants has changed during the proceedings.

These are allegations in litigation, not findings that the Town or any individual violated federal law. The litigation is separate from the October 2025 library remarks, and no causal connection is asserted here.

Separately, The Maine Mirror has documented disputes concerning access to municipal records.

In one matter, a September 2025 request for Berwick Police Department surveillance footage led to repeated follow-up efforts after the initial copy could not be accessed. On October 7, 2025, the Select Board chair directed Capello to ensure a working copy was provided.

A playable copy was eventually accessed on September 22, 2026. A comparison with a contemporaneous recording identified approximately 14 seconds of dialogue present in one recording but absent from the Town-provided version, with surrounding dialogue remaining.

The underlying reporting and video comparison are available here.

The discrepancy does not establish that the recording was intentionally altered. Its cause remains an evidentiary question.

Additional reporting has examined municipal counsel’s involvement in correspondence initially directed to Towne as a legislative candidate. Towne’s September 22 campaign-finance filing did not identify a legal-services expenditure or debt associated with that correspondence. Those facts do not establish a campaign-finance violation or determine who paid for the attorney’s work.

These matters involve distinct circumstances and should not be treated as evidence of a single coordinated course of conduct.

They do, however, demonstrate why accessible public records and clearly documented municipal decisions matter.

What Has Been Answered—and What Has Not?

The public record establishes that residents voiced concerns about police service in October 2025.

It establishes that municipal leadership subsequently praised the chief’s performance while discussing staffing and scheduling concerns.

It also documents a proposed expansion of Towne’s responsibilities, followed by his appointment to an additional municipal leadership position.

What remains less clear is how those decisions were evaluated against the service concerns previously expressed by residents.

Did the Town formally review the complaints raised at the October 2025 library meeting?

What staffing and service measures supported the May 2026 assessment of police leadership?

What written arrangements now govern Towne’s responsibilities as police chief and interim town manager?

And what safeguards distinguish municipal responsibilities from campaign activity?

These questions do not presume misconduct. They concern the public’s ability to understand decisions made by officials exercising authority on its behalf.

The Record Is Public. The Questions Remain.

The October 2025 library exchange and the May 2026 Select Board discussion deserve to be viewed together—not because one proves anything about the other, but because both document how Berwick residents and officials publicly discussed police service and leadership.

The contrast is straightforward.

Residents raised concerns about the department. Municipal leadership later praised its chief. Additional responsibilities followed.

Whether those decisions were justified is a question that should be evaluated using the complete record, including meeting recordings, staffing information, appointment terms, municipal correspondence and any substantive responses from the officials involved.

The combined video allows readers to hear the statements themselves, in chronological order, rather than relying exclusively on anyone else’s characterization.

The public should not have to choose between taking residents at their word and taking officials at theirs. It should be able to examine the evidence behind both.

The Maine Mirror encourages readers to watch the recording, review the linked reporting and supporting documents, and reach their own conclusions.

Support independent, document-driven journalism in Maine. Subscribe to The Maine Mirror below for free and help keep public accountability visible.