By Ryan Michaels | The Maine Mirror | October 23, 2026

BERWICK, Maine — Timothy Towne currently holds two significant municipal leadership positions: Berwick Police Chief and Interim Town Manager. He is also a candidate for Maine House District 149.

On October 23, 2026, The Maine Mirror sent Towne a written inquiry concerning two matters involving the Town of Berwick: the termination of public comment during the October 20 Select Board meeting and an unresolved discrepancy involving approximately 14 seconds of dialogue absent from Town-provided police surveillance footage.

Although both matters concern his municipal responsibilities, the inquiry was directed exclusively to Towne in his capacity as a candidate for the Maine House of Representatives.

The email was sent to his campaign address and explicitly stated that it was not an official inquiry directed to him as Police Chief or Interim Town Manager.

The purpose was to ask Towne what standards of public participation, government transparency, and accountability he believes should apply to public officials as someone seeking legislative office.

His three roles provide important context for the questions. They do not change the capacity in which those questions were asked.

Three Roles, One Clearly Defined Inquiry

Towne’s overlapping responsibilities are central to understanding the circumstances surrounding this inquiry.

As Police Chief, he leads the department involved in the September 12, 2025 incident and the subsequent surveillance footage request.

As Interim Town Manager, he was present at the October 20 Select Board meeting when Chair Mike Latterer directed him to follow up after I raised concerns about missing dialogue.

And as a candidate for Maine House District 149, he is seeking an elected position in which government transparency, public accountability, and constituent participation are relevant matters of public policy.

Those distinctions are important.

The October 20 exchange involved Towne in his municipal capacities. The October 23 correspondence sought his perspective exclusively as a legislative candidate.

The email was sent to Towne’s campaign address, towne4district149@gmail.com, with the subject:

“CANDIDATE INQUIRY ONLY — Maine House District 149 | Questions for Timothy Towne”

It opened with the following notice:

“NOTICE — CANDIDATE CORRESPONDENCE ONLY”

The message further clarified:

“This is not correspondence directed to you in your official capacity as Berwick Police Chief or Interim Town Manager.”

It also expressly stated that I was not requesting an official response on behalf of the Berwick Police Department or the Town of Berwick.

This distinction was intentional.

The questions concern circumstances involving Towne’s municipal responsibilities, but they seek his views on the standards of accountability that should apply to government officials.

(Screenshot of The Maine Mirror’s October 23, 2026 email to Timothy Towne’s District 149 campaign address, showing the subject line, recipient, and prominently displayed notice that the inquiry is directed exclusively to him as a legislative candidate, not as Berwick Police Chief or Interim Town Manager.)

Question One: Was Cutting Off Public Comment Appropriate?

On October 20, 2026, I attended the Berwick Select Board meeting after once again experiencing difficulties accessing the meeting through Zoom.

I had previously documented similar access problems, including an occasion when I remained connected to the meeting’s Zoom waiting room without being admitted.

When access problems occurred again on October 20, I ultimately traveled to the meeting in person.

I missed the first public comment period but remained for the second opportunity to speak.

During that public comment period, Chair Mike Latterer terminated my opportunity to continue speaking.

The circumstances of that exchange, including the concerns I was attempting to raise and my subsequent formal complaint, are detailed in The Maine Mirror’s October 22 reporting.

My October 23 email asked Towne:

“As a candidate seeking to represent the people of House District 149 in Augusta, do you believe the decision to end my public comment under those circumstances was appropriate? Why or why not?”

I also asked:

“More broadly, what do you believe a public body’s responsibility should be when a citizen raises documented concerns about government conduct, particularly when those concerns involve officials responsible for addressing them?”

These questions do not ask Towne to speak on behalf of the Select Board or issue an official municipal determination.

They ask him to explain his position as a legislative candidate concerning public participation and government accountability.

(Screenshot of the first substantive section of the October 23 candidate inquiry, documenting the October 20 public comment cutoff and asking Towne whether he believes the decision was appropriate, along with a broader question about government officials’ responsibility to address citizen concerns.)

Question Two: Why Are Approximately 14 Seconds of Dialogue Missing?

The second issue concerns surveillance footage from an incident at the Berwick Police Department on September 12, 2025.

That incident involved my attempt to submit an official complaint at the police station. During the encounter, department administrative staff member Denise Dunn threw my complaint paperwork onto the floor, as shown in my contemporaneous recording.

I subsequently sought the Town’s surveillance footage through Maine’s Freedom of Access Act.

After more than a year of attempting to obtain accessible footage, I received a recording that revealed another concern.

Approximately 14 seconds of dialogue audible in my contemporaneous recording were absent from the Town-provided surveillance recording.

The discrepancy and the history of my attempts to obtain the footage are documented in The Maine Mirror’s September 27 report.

The difference between the recordings does not, by itself, establish that anyone intentionally removed or altered the dialogue.

However, the discrepancy remains a legitimate subject for clarification.

At the October 20 Select Board meeting, I asked a straightforward question:

“Why are those 14 seconds gone?”

Rather than receiving an explanation during that exchange, I heard Chair Latterer direct the following statement specifically to Towne:

“If there is anything that needs to be given, can you just make sure that it’s followed up with?”

At that meeting, Towne was present in his municipal capacities, including as Interim Town Manager.

That is an important distinction from the correspondence I sent three days later.

Chair Latterer’s October 20 direction was addressed to Towne as a municipal official. My October 23 questions were addressed to Towne as a legislative candidate.

The first exchange concerned an unresolved matter involving Town records. The second sought his perspective on the standards of transparency and accountability that should apply when such questions arise.

(Screenshot of the second section of The Maine Mirror’s candidate inquiry, describing the approximately 14-second discrepancy between the contemporaneous and Town-provided recordings, quoting the question raised at the October 20 meeting, and documenting Chair Latterer’s follow-up request directed specifically to Towne.)

A Question About Accountability, Not Just a Recording

The October 23 candidate inquiry presented Towne with three questions concerning the surveillance footage:

1. Do you believe the public deserves an explanation for why approximately 14 seconds of dialogue are present in one recording but absent from the Town-provided recording?
2. What responsibility do you believe public officials have to address documented discrepancies in government records when citizens repeatedly request clarification?
3. Given that Chair Latterer directed his follow-up request specifically to you, do you believe his response adequately addressed the question I raised? Why or why not?

These questions were deliberately framed around Towne’s positions as a legislative candidate.

They do not request confidential information, presume that the discrepancy resulted from intentional misconduct, or ask him to produce municipal records through his campaign.

The correspondence also acknowledges that questions concerning official Town records may require a municipal response.

I made that distinction explicit:

“I understand that questions concerning official Town records may require a municipal response. However, this correspondence seeks only your perspective as a legislative candidate on the principles and circumstances described above.”

There is a meaningful difference between asking a municipal official to provide a government record and asking a legislative candidate what standards of accountability should apply when questions about government records remain unresolved.

The inquiry seeks the latter.

(Screenshot of the concluding portion of the October 23 inquiry, displaying the three questions concerning the missing dialogue, the explicit separation between Towne’s campaign and municipal responsibilities, links to The Maine Mirror’s previous reporting, and the closing signature identifying Ryan Michaels as Founder and Editor-in-Chief.)

Why These Questions Matter Beyond Berwick

For more than a year, I have attempted to obtain records, explanations, and meaningful responses concerning the September 12, 2025 incident and the Town’s subsequent handling of my complaints.

That process has involved repeated correspondence, Select Board appearances, public records requests, and published reporting.

I have also documented the personal toll of attempting to navigate these processes while living with disabilities.

My experience is the reason I am asking these questions, but the underlying issues extend beyond any one individual or municipality.

When a citizen raises a concern about government conduct, what responsibility does a public body have to ensure that concern receives meaningful consideration?

When a governing board directs an official to follow up, what responsibility does that board have to verify that the requested follow-up actually occurs?

When two recordings of the same incident contain different amounts of dialogue, what steps should public officials take to establish why?

And when someone holding municipal leadership positions seeks legislative office, what principles of transparency and accountability do they believe should guide government?

These are questions that can be examined independently of political affiliation.

They are also questions on which candidates can provide their positions without being asked to disclose protected records or speak on behalf of a municipal government.

An Opportunity to Respond as a Candidate

The Maine Mirror’s October 23 correspondence provides Towne with an opportunity to explain his positions as a candidate for House District 149.

It also invites factual corrections, clarifications, and additional information.

The inquiry does not presume what Towne believes or how he will respond.

Nor does it suggest that his municipal responsibilities and political candidacy are legally interchangeable.

Instead, it acknowledges the three roles he holds while maintaining a clear distinction between the capacity in which the October 20 events occurred and the capacity in which the October 23 questions were directed.

As of the preparation of this article on October 23, the inquiry had been sent. No response is documented in the materials available for this report.

Any substantive response received may be addressed in follow-up reporting.

The purpose of asking these questions is not to tell readers what to think about Timothy Towne. It is to give him an opportunity to explain his positions, document his response, and allow readers to evaluate the information for themselves.

That is the responsibility I believe independent journalism should fulfill.

Support Independent Journalism — Subscribe Below for Free

The Maine Mirror is committed to truth, transparency, and accountability through independent, nonpartisan journalism.

Our mission is not to tell readers what to think, but to provide the documentation, context, and reporting necessary for them to examine the evidence and draw their own conclusions.

Stories like this require time, persistence, and a willingness to keep asking questions even when answers are difficult to obtain.

If you believe independent journalism matters, please support The Maine Mirror by subscribing below for free.

Your free subscription helps our reporting reach more people, keeps you informed about developing stories, and supports our continued commitment to transparency and accountability.

Subscribe below for free and help keep independent journalism moving forward.