A publicly advertised 5:30 p.m. meeting, a locked entrance, an unanswered statutory question, and conflicting explanations from Town leadership raise new concerns about transparency and public accountability in Berwick.

By Ryan Michaels | Founder & Editor-in-Chief, The Maine Mirror
October 27, 2026 | Berwick, Maine

Editor’s Disclosure: The author is the resident involved in the events described and the complainant in several related matters involving the Town of Berwick. This article draws upon firsthand observations, contemporaneous recordings, official meeting materials, written correspondence, and a formal complaint submitted under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act.

---

A Public Meeting Scheduled for 5:30 p.m. A Locked Door Before It Began.

On October 27, 2026, I arrived at the Berwick Town Office several minutes before a Select Board meeting publicly advertised to begin at 5:30 p.m.

The entrance was locked.

On the opposite side of the door stood Select Board Vice Chair Cyrus Morgan. He saw me and told me that I could not be there.

He did not identify the statutory authority for excluding me, explain how I could attend the public portion of the meeting, or direct me to an alternative public entrance.

The meeting’s published agenda identified the Burgess Room at 11 Sullivan Street as its location and specifically listed the following sequence:

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Executive Session — Pursuant to Title 1 MRSA §405(6)(A), Personnel Matters
5. Adjournment

(Official Berwick Select Board/Board of Assessors agenda for October 27, 2026, identifying a 5:30 p.m. meeting in the Burgess Room at 11 Sullivan Street, Berwick, Maine. The agenda lists Call to Order, Roll Call, Pledge of Allegiance, Executive Session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. §405(6)(A) for Personnel Matters, and Adjournment. Red boxes highlight the advertised date, start time, and location. The agenda identifies the day as Monday, although October 27, 2026, was a Tuesday.)

That agenda matters.

It did not advertise a meeting that was closed to the public from the outset. It expressly listed public procedural business before the executive session.

Yet I arrived before the advertised start time and was denied entry.

How was the public supposed to observe the proceedings necessary to authorize the closed session?

That is the central question arising from tonight’s encounter.

The Question the Chair Would Not Answer

Shortly after my encounter with Vice Chair Morgan, Select Board Chair Michael Laterreur came outside.

I repeatedly asked him to identify the statutory authority the Board had invoked.

Rather than answering that question, Laterreur characterized the gathering as a closed meeting.

During the recorded exchange, he stated:

“We are meeting with a recruiter tonight. This has nothing to do with you.”

I continued asking what statute the Board had invoked.

Laterreur did not identify one.

Instead, he repeated that the meeting had nothing to do with me.

This distinction is fundamental.

Whether the executive session concerned me personally was not the question I was asking.

I was asking what legal authority the Board had invoked to conduct its meeting behind closed doors and why the publicly advertised proceedings were inaccessible.

The Chair’s explanation about a recruiter did not answer either question.

Maine Law Does Not Make Public Access Dependent on Personal Involvement

Maine’s Freedom of Access Act establishes procedures that public bodies must follow before entering executive session.

Under 1 M.R.S. §403(1), public proceedings generally must be open to the public.

Under 1 M.R.S. §405(3), an executive session must be authorized by a public, recorded vote of three-fifths of the members present and voting.

Under §405(4), the motion must identify the precise nature of the business to be discussed and cite the statutory authority permitting the executive session.

Section 405(5) further limits the closed discussion to the business identified in the motion.

The law recognizes that certain government discussions may properly occur outside public view.

But there is an important distinction between the confidential discussion itself and the public proceedings required to authorize it.

The fact that a closed discussion may be lawful does not automatically make the entire meeting private.

Nor does the public’s right to observe the required proceedings depend on whether the subject of the executive session involves a particular resident.

A resident does not need to be the subject of a personnel discussion to observe the Board’s public vote authorizing an executive session.

A resident does not need to be involved in a legal dispute to ask what statutory authority a public body has invoked.

And a resident should not have to guess where the public portion of a publicly advertised meeting is taking place.

Why the Advertised 5:30 p.m. Start Time Matters

The timing of my arrival is significant.

I arrived several minutes before the publicly advertised 5:30 p.m. start.

The entrance I approached was already locked.

Vice Chair Morgan saw me and told me I could not be there.

I did not witness the public call to order, motion, or vote authorizing executive session.

From outside the locked entrance, I could not determine exactly when the Board convened or whether another public entrance had been designated.

Those facts must be established through the Town’s records.

But the circumstances raise two distinct possibilities.

If the Board had already convened and voted to enter executive session before 5:30 p.m., the Town must explain how the public was afforded access to proceedings occurring before the advertised start time.

If the Board had not yet convened or voted, the Town must explain why I was denied entry before the scheduled meeting began.

Neither possibility is resolved by telling me that the meeting had nothing to do with me.

The locked entrance and refusal of access do not, standing alone, establish exactly when the Board convened or whether the statutory procedures were followed.

They do, however, establish the circumstances I personally encountered and the questions the Town must now address.

Four Days Earlier, the Town Attorney Described a Different Purpose

The October 27 encounter becomes even more significant when examined alongside correspondence from four days earlier.

On October 23, Town Attorney Matt Tarasevich emailed me to acknowledge the Select Board’s receipt of two formal complaints.

One concerned Berwick Police Chief Timothy Towne, who is also serving as Interim Town Manager.

The other concerned the Select Board’s conduct during a recent public meeting.

Tarasevich wrote:

“The Select Board intends to meet at its next meeting in executive session with Town counsel to consider its legal options and obligations regarding those complaints.”

He further indicated that he anticipated the Board would provide guidance and direction concerning next steps after that meeting.

(October 23, 2026, email from Berwick Town Attorney Matt Tarasevich to Ryan Michaels acknowledging receipt of two formal complaints concerning Police Chief Timothy Towne and the Select Board. Tarasevich states that the Board intends to meet at its next meeting in executive session with Town counsel to consider its legal options and obligations regarding those complaints, and anticipates subsequent guidance regarding next steps.)

That same afternoon, I responded with a Supplemental Evidentiary Record and supporting exhibits.

I specifically requested clarification about the statutory authority governing the anticipated executive session.

Would the Board be consulting counsel under §405(6)(E)?

Would it be considering complaints under §405(6)(A)?

Would different portions of the proceedings involve different statutory provisions?

These questions were important because §405(6)(A)(4) provides certain attendance protections for individuals bringing charges, complaints, or allegations of misconduct against the person under discussion.

I expressly acknowledged that this provision does not automatically entitle a complainant to attend privileged legal consultations.

My objective was to understand the procedure before arriving at the meeting.

I sought clarification four days in advance.

I received no clarification before the October 27 encounter.

Then, upon arriving at the advertised meeting location, I encountered a locked entrance and was told that the meeting concerned a recruiter and had nothing to do with me.

The Town may have changed its plans, scheduled different business, or intended to address multiple subjects.

Those possibilities have not been resolved.

But they do not eliminate the need to explain the discrepancy between the attorney’s October 23 representation and the Chair’s October 27 statement.

Nor do they eliminate the independent public-access questions arising from the locked entrance.

A Longer History of Unanswered Questions

Tonight’s incident did not occur in isolation.

For more than a year, I have documented disputes involving the Berwick Police Department, the handling of citizen complaints, access to public records, and the Select Board’s treatment of public participation.

In September 2025, I brought concerns involving the Police Department to the Select Board.

The ensuing proceedings and correspondence raised questions about how those complaints were evaluated and how the Board reached its determination that they were unfounded.

Another dispute involved police lobby footage requested following an encounter at the department.

After more than a year of efforts to obtain the recording, I received footage in September 2026.

A comparison with my contemporaneous recording raised questions about approximately 14 seconds of dialogue absent from the Town-provided video.

The reason for that discrepancy remains unresolved.

On October 20, 2026, I again appeared before the Select Board and questioned officials about the missing dialogue and their handling of my concerns.

During that meeting, Chair Laterreur ended my public comment. When I questioned the decision, he referred to my accusations against the Board.

I subsequently submitted formal complaints concerning the public-comment incident and the handling of the underlying matters.

On October 23, Town Attorney Tarasevich acknowledged those complaints and described an anticipated executive session concerning the Board’s legal options and obligations.

Four days later, I arrived early for a publicly advertised meeting and was denied entry.

These incidents involve distinct factual and legal questions. But their chronology raises a broader concern about the Town’s communication with residents who seek explanations, records, and accountability.

The issue is not whether officials are required to agree with my allegations.

They are not.

The issue is whether residents can expect clear explanations of government procedures, meaningful access to public proceedings, and a fair process for addressing documented concerns.

A New, Independent FOAA Complaint Filed October 27

Following tonight’s encounter, I submitted a new, standalone formal complaint under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act to the Berwick Town Clerk, copying the Maine Public Access Ombudsman.

The complaint concerns the October 27 denial of public access.

It is expressly separate from, and does not amend or replace, any complaint I previously submitted.

The complaint states:

“This is a new, independent formal complaint concerning the October 27, 2026 Select Board meeting. It is separate from, and does not amend or replace, any complaint I have previously submitted.”

It documents the advertised meeting time, my early arrival, the locked entrance, Vice Chair Morgan’s refusal of access, and Chair Laterreur’s failure to identify the statutory authority when repeatedly asked.

It also requests a written accounting of the meeting’s actual commencement time, the public proceedings, the motion and recorded vote authorizing executive session, the entrance designated for public attendance, and the circumstances surrounding the refusal of access.

The complaint requests preservation of relevant evidence, including meeting notices, minutes, recorded votes, available audio and video, building-access records, entrance-camera footage, and communications concerning the meeting’s public accessibility.

I have preserved my contemporaneous recording of the encounter.

(Formal Complaint Under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, submitted October 27, 2026, by Ryan Michaels to the Berwick Town Clerk, with the Maine Public Access Ombudsman copied. The two-page complaint independently challenges the denial of access to the publicly advertised 5:30 p.m. Select Board meeting, documents the locked entrance and statements by Vice Chair Cyrus Morgan and Chair Michael Laterreur, cites 1 M.R.S. §§403, 405, and 409, requests a detailed accounting of the public proceedings and executive-session authorization, and formally requests preservation of relevant records.)

This complaint does not depend on establishing what the Board discussed behind closed doors.

It concerns the public’s ability to attend the proceedings that Maine law requires to be open.

The Town has been asked to establish the relevant facts and explain whether its procedures complied with the law.

At the time of publication, I have not received a substantive response to the newly filed complaint.

Public Government Is the Public’s Business

There is a fundamental difference between government officials exercising lawful authority and government officials telling a resident that a meeting has nothing to do with them.

Public-access rights do not belong only to individuals personally affected by the subject of a meeting.

They belong to the public.

The October 27 encounter raises a question that should be answerable through the Town’s own records:

If the Select Board meeting was publicly advertised for 5:30 p.m., and a resident arrived early only to find the entrance locked and be denied entry, how was the public afforded access to the proceedings required to authorize executive session?

The official agenda identifies the advertised time, location, and sequence of proceedings.

The Town Attorney’s correspondence establishes what I had been told to expect four days earlier.

My contemporaneous recording documents the encounter with Board leadership.

And my newly submitted FOAA complaint formally requests the records necessary to determine what occurred.

These materials do not yet establish every fact needed for a final legal determination.

But they establish a specific, documented concern that warrants a substantive response.

My position is straightforward: A public official’s assertion that a meeting has nothing to do with a particular resident is not a substitute for compliance with Maine’s open-government requirements.

The Town should explain what happened, produce the relevant public record, and address any failure to provide access.

Because public government is not the private business of those elected to administer it.

It is the public’s business.

---

Support Independent Journalism

The Maine Mirror is committed to documenting matters of public interest through firsthand reporting, public records, contemporaneous recordings, and evidence-based examination of government accountability.

Truth | Transparency | Accountability

Help support independent local journalism by subscribing below for free.

Your free subscription helps independent reporting reach more Maine residents and keeps important questions about public accountability in the public eye.

The Maine Mirror
themainemirror.com

Legal references: 1 M.R.S. §§401, 403, 405, and 409. The allegations described remain subject to the Town’s response and examination of the official meeting record.