THE MAINE MIRROR | LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY

Ryan Michaels | October 22, 2026

An October 20 exchange raises questions about the limits of public comment, the handling of an earlier police complaint, and repeated difficulties accessing Town meetings remotely.

BERWICK, Maine — October 22, 2026 — I have formally requested an impartial review of Berwick Select Board Chair Michael Laterreur’s decision to terminate my public comment during the October 20, 2026 meeting.

I submitted the complaint to the Town Clerk on October 22, copying Interim Town Manager and Police Chief Timothy Towne and Select Board Vice Chair Linda Hutchins-Corliss.

The complaint is supported by seven exhibits of correspondence dating from October 2025 through October 2026. It also identifies the Town’s own recording of the October 20 meeting as evidence that should be reviewed and preserved.

At the center of the complaint is a straightforward question: Can a resident’s public comment be terminated because that resident is questioning the conduct or conclusions of elected officials?

(October 22, 2026 Gmail submission titled “Formal Complaint and Evidence Preservation Request — October 20, 2026 Select Board Meeting.” The email is addressed to the Berwick Town Clerk, with Chief Timothy Towne and Vice Chair Linda Hutchins-Corliss copied. It requests distribution to the full Board, preservation of evidence, and an impartial review. Personal email information has been obscured.)

The complaint began more than a year earlier

The October 20 confrontation did not occur in isolation.

On September 12, 2025, I attempted to submit a written complaint at the Berwick Police Department. The incident involved administrative employee Denise Dunn and was captured on video. I subsequently brought my concerns and supporting evidence to the Select Board during its September 16 meeting.

On October 1, Chair Laterreur acknowledged receiving my materials and explained that the Board would review the concerns at an upcoming meeting.

He also disclosed that he had recused himself from conversations involving votes or decisions about my complaint because of our previous professional working relationship.

That distinction matters. My present complaint does not claim that Laterreur personally participated in the Board’s earlier determination.

Instead, it questions what happened when I attempted to discuss that determination publicly.

(Exhibit B — Michael Laterreur.pdf — Three-page Gmail correspondence documenting my September 19 and October 1, 2025 follow-up messages to the Select Board and Chair Michael Laterreur’s October 1 response. Laterreur confirms receipt of my evidence, describes the Board’s intended review and follow-up process, and states that he recused himself from discussions involving votes or decisions concerning my complaint.)

The Board determined the complaints were unfounded

On October 16, 2025, Vice Chair Linda Hutchins-Corliss sent a written response stating that the Board had reviewed my complaint on October 7.

She wrote:

“After careful consideration we have determined that the complaints against Chief Towne, members of his department, and the Town Manager Arthur Capello are unfounded.”

Her message concluded that the Board considered the matter closed.

I responded by requesting records of the review, the materials considered, and the rationale supporting that conclusion.

These requests were significant because I continued questioning whether the evidence had been adequately reviewed, particularly the surveillance recording associated with the September 12 incident.

The Board’s conclusion is documented. What remains disputed is the adequacy of the process behind it.

(Exhibit C — Linda Hutchins-Corliss.pdf — Two-page Gmail exchange containing Vice Chair Linda Hutchins-Corliss’s October 16, 2025 statement that the Select Board had reviewed the complaint and determined it unfounded. My subsequent response requests the meeting records, evidence considered, written rationale, and clarification of the review process.)

Public access concerns were already on the record

Months before the October 20 confrontation, I had also raised concerns about meaningful access to Town discussions.

Following a May 14, 2026 budget discussion at the Berwick Public Library, I wrote to then-Town Manager Arthur Capello on May 27 asking the Town to consider live virtual participation for future public discussions.

The issue was not whether residents could watch a recording afterward. It was whether residents unable to attend physically could participate while the discussion was happening.

My correspondence specifically identified disability, transportation, financial, employment, and other barriers as reasons virtual participation could matter.

(Exhibit F — May 27, 2026.pdf — Gmail correspondence containing my May 27, 2026 request to Town Manager Arthur Capello concerning live virtual participation in public discussions. The message follows the May 14 budget discussion at the Berwick Public Library and explains why recordings made available afterward do not replace the opportunity to participate in real time.)

When I had not received a response, I followed up on June 8.

I asked whether the Town had a policy for virtual access, whether remote participation had been considered for the budget discussion, why it had not been provided, and whether future options were being explored.

(Exhibit G — June 8, 2026.pdf — Gmail correspondence documenting my June 8 follow-up to Town Manager Arthur Capello. The message requests specific answers about the Town’s virtual-access policies, the decision not to provide remote participation for the library budget discussion, and future accessibility options.)

On June 12, Town Attorney Matt Tarasevich responded on behalf of the Town.

According to that response, the Town had no policy regarding virtual access to public informational meetings and community discussions. Remote participation had not been considered for the library budget event, and the Town stated it lacked the ability to livestream outside the municipal building.

The attorney also indicated that the Town was open to exploring future options, subject to budget and technological considerations.

(Exhibit H — June 12, 2026.pdf — Gmail correspondence containing Town Attorney Matt Tarasevich’s June 12 response on behalf of Berwick. The response states that the Town had no virtual-access policy for informational meetings, had not considered remote participation for the library budget discussion, and was open to exploring future options subject to available resources.)

The library discussion was not a formal Select Board meeting, and the applicable requirements may differ. Nevertheless, this correspondence establishes that public-access concerns had been brought directly to Town officials months before October 20.

The Town acknowledged an earlier Zoom failure

The access concerns continued into August.

Following difficulty accessing the August 4 Select Board meeting remotely, Attorney Tarasevich acknowledged on August 12 that the Town’s remote access had not worked as expected because of a technical problem.

He stated that the issue had been remedied and that residents should be able to attend future Select Board meetings through the publicly provided link.

On August 13, I followed up with detailed questions about what had gone wrong, who was responsible for admitting participants from the Zoom waiting room, and what residents should do if the problem happened again.

I also explained why I had been repeatedly trying to attend the meetings: I wanted answers about the unresolved September 12 recording.

(Exhibit D — Correspondence with Town Attorney.pdf — Two-page Gmail exchange containing Attorney Matt Tarasevich’s August 12 acknowledgment of a technical problem affecting remote access to the August 4 Select Board meeting and my August 13 follow-up. My message requests details about the malfunction and explains my intention to address the September 12 recording during public comment.)

October 20: Another access problem, followed by an interrupted comment

On October 20, I again attempted to attend the Select Board meeting through Zoom.

At 6:37 p.m., I emailed Town officials documenting that I remained in the waiting room despite the host having joined.

The message displayed on my screen read:

“Host has joined. We’ve let them know you’re here.”

I requested assistance and preservation of any relevant waiting-room records, host activity logs, and communications.

(Exhibit E — October 20 Zoom Access.pdf — One-page Gmail record of my October 20, 2026 email sent during the Select Board meeting. The message documents the Zoom waiting-room problem, references the similar August 4 failure, requests immediate assistance, and asks the Town to preserve relevant access records.)

I ultimately attended the meeting in person.

During public comment, I questioned the earlier determination that my complaints were unfounded and the handling of the related recording.

Chair Laterreur stated that he had not watched the footage and had not participated in the earlier determination.

I then turned toward Vice Chair Hutchins-Corliss to reference her written statement communicating the Board’s conclusion.

Before I could complete that explanation, Laterreur interrupted and terminated my opportunity to continue.

When I asked why, he stated:

“Because right now you are accusing the board of something.”

He also stated:

“A public comment is just a public comment. There’s no facts.”

Those remarks are central to my complaint.

The issue is not whether officials must agree with my concerns, nor whether public-comment rules can exist. The issue is whether a resident may be prevented from completing a comment because that comment questions official actions.

The complete October 20 meeting recording is maintained by the Town and is identified as Exhibit A in the complaint. It was not necessary for me to attach a copy of evidence already in the Town’s possession.

What the formal complaint requests

My October 22 complaint asks the Town to conduct an impartial review of the interruption and identify the specific rule applied, the conduct alleged to have violated that rule, the speaking time allotted and used, and whether the same standard is applied to comparable speakers.

It also requests preservation of the original meeting recording and associated metadata, relevant Zoom records, meeting notes, and communications concerning the interruption.

Finally, it asks for a substantive written response addressing the findings and any corrective measures.

Because Chief Towne was involved in the underlying complaint, I specifically requested that he not serve as the sole reviewer.

(Three-page formal complaint dated October 22, 2026, addressed to the Berwick Select Board. The document presents the chronology of the September 2025 complaint, the Board’s determination, public-access correspondence, Zoom difficulties, and the October 20 interruption. It requests an impartial review, evidence preservation, clarification of applicable rules, and a written response, with an exhibit index identifying Exhibits A through H.)

This is about more than one interrupted statement

For me, this is not simply about being interrupted at a meeting.

It is about what happens when a resident repeatedly attempts to use established processes to raise concerns, obtain records, ask questions, and participate in local government.

The record shows that I submitted evidence, received assurances of review, was informed that my complaints were unfounded, sought clarification, raised public-access concerns, and documented difficulties accessing meetings.

The October 20 incident represents another point in that documented sequence.

It is important to distinguish what the evidence establishes from what remains unanswered. The correspondence confirms that access problems were reported and that the Town acknowledged an earlier technical failure. It does not, by itself, establish that anyone intentionally excluded me from Zoom.

Likewise, the interruption and Chair Laterreur’s stated justification warrant scrutiny, but a finding of improper conduct should follow an impartial review of the complete recording and applicable meeting rules.

Accountability requires more than reaching a conclusion. It requires a process that can withstand reasonable questions about how that conclusion was reached.

The complaint has now been submitted. The next question is how the Town will respond.

Follow the Record: Previous Reporting on Berwick Accountability

The October 20 incident did not emerge in isolation. The Maine Mirror has published extensive reporting documenting the original September 12, 2025 police department incident, the Select Board’s subsequent determination, delayed access to surveillance footage, differences between recordings, public participation concerns, and broader questions involving Town leadership.

Readers are encouraged to review the reporting, examine the underlying documentation, and draw their own conclusions.

The September 12 Incident, Surveillance Footage, and Public Records

These articles most directly trace the events that led to the October 22 formal complaint.

• Berwick Select Board Promised a Working Recording. Nearly 11 Months Later, Where Is It? — August 31, 2026
• Timothy Towne Faces Real-World Accountability Question Before Election — September 2, 2026
• UPDATE: Towne Responds, Working Copy Prepared — September 4, 2026
• A Year to See the Record: Berwick Police Footage, an “Unfounded” Finding, and New Questions About What the Town Produced — September 22, 2026
• Berwick Police Video: The Complaint, the Long Wait, and the Dialogue Missing From the Town’s Copy — September 27, 2026

Public Participation, Accessibility, and Town Transparency

These reports provide additional context about access to Town discussions, government responsiveness, and the distinction between watching a meeting afterward and participating while it is happening.

• When “Public Participation” Isn’t Truly Public in Berwick — May 28, 2026
• The Budget Discussion That Ended Before the Answer Arrived — June 12, 2026
• Mr. Capello, You Say Berwick Will Remember Your Transparency. I Remember Something Different. — September 17, 2026
• Berwick Denied a $50 Fee Waiver. An Outside Attorney Delivered the Answer. Residents Are Asking Why. — September 28, 2026

Police Leadership, Legal Representation, and Government Oversight

The following reporting addresses related questions involving Chief Timothy Towne’s public responsibilities, Town leadership, legal representation, and the handling of resident concerns.

• Two Public Roles, One Police Chief: Timothy Towne Plans to Serve Berwick and the Maine Legislature — August 31, 2026
• New Records Reveal Thomas Lavigne’s Role in Timothy Towne’s Berwick Police Chief-Legislature Plan — September 3, 2026
• Can Berwick’s Police Chief Also Serve in the Maine Legislature? Maine Law Raises Questions Worth Answering — September 4, 2026
• From Candidate Inquiry to Town Attorney: The Documented Timeline of Timothy Towne’s Response — September 11, 2026
• MIRROR UPDATE: Berwick Declines to Answer Nine Questions About Chief Towne’s Proposed Dual Role — September 21, 2026
• Towne Campaign Reports No Legal Expense After Berwick Attorney Entered Candidate Correspondence — September 24, 2026
• From Two Roles to Three: Berwick Police Chief Timothy Towne Named Interim Town Manager as Questions Remain Unanswered — October 14, 2026

Additional Reporting Involving Berwick Officials and Accountability

These articles address separate but related matters involving Berwick officials, police department accountability, and public oversight.

• One Day After Thomas Lavigne Explained His Silence, Berwick Police Chief Timothy Towne Entered the Conversation — August 13, 2026
• Federal Case Update: Attorneys for Town of Berwick and Amy Cilley Seek Additional Time to Respond — September 30, 2026
• Sanford YMCA Documented It. It Was Reported to Berwick Police Department. What Happened Next? — October 14, 2026
• From “Another Lewiston” to “Top-Notch”: Two Berwick Meetings, Two Very Different Messages — October 15, 2026

The purpose of making this reporting accessible is not to ask readers to accept a predetermined conclusion. It is to make the documented history available for independent examination.

The October 22 complaint is one part of that record. The Town’s response—and whether it addresses the questions raised—will become another.

Editorial Disclosure

Ryan Michaels is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Maine Mirror and the individual directly involved in the events described in this article.

This reporting concerns my own interactions with the Town of Berwick, including the underlying September 12, 2025 police department incident, subsequent correspondence, public-access concerns, and the formal complaint filed October 22, 2026.

My personal involvement is disclosed so readers can evaluate the reporting with full awareness of my role. The article incorporates my firsthand account, correspondence, official statements, and identified documentary evidence. My allegations, the Town’s documented responses, and questions that remain unresolved are distinguished wherever possible.

The complaint represents my request for an impartial review, not a finding that misconduct or a legal violation has occurred.

The Maine Mirror remains committed to transparency, evidence-based reporting, corrections when warranted, and giving readers the opportunity to examine the record for themselves.

Support Independent Journalism

Local accountability reporting takes time, documentation, persistence, and a willingness to ask questions that may be uncomfortable but deserve answers.

If you believe residents should be able to examine public records, question government decisions, and understand how their local institutions operate, please support The Maine Mirror by subscribing below for free.

Independent journalism works best when the public has access to the evidence and the opportunity to evaluate it for themselves.