A police employee throws a resident’s complaint paperwork onto the floor. The police chief declares the complaints unfounded. The Select Board closes the matter while usable surveillance footage remains outstanding. More than a year later, fourteen seconds of dialogue are missing from the Town’s recording. The resident is subsequently denied access to a public meeting. And now, the same municipal leadership has declined to investigate three new complaints—following a Sunday meeting the public has yet to see documented.

The irony is almost impossible to overlook: the people being asked to account for their conduct have participated in a process that ended with no investigations. And the explanation for that decision has introduced yet another open-government question.

BERWICK, MAINE — November 5, 2026

Imagine walking into your local police department to submit a complaint.

Now imagine a police department employee throwing that complaint paperwork onto the floor.

You record the encounter. You report it to municipal officials. You request the surveillance footage. You ask for an investigation.

The police chief declares the complaints unfounded.

The Select Board subsequently considers the matter closed.

But the surveillance recording you were supposed to receive still isn’t accessible.

You spend the following year trying to obtain a working copy.

When you finally receive one, you discover that approximately fourteen seconds of dialogue captured in your own recording are missing from the Town’s version.

You ask where those fourteen seconds went.

You ask what evidence the chief actually reviewed.

You ask how the Board could have considered the complaints resolved before you had access to usable footage.

And you continue asking.

Eventually, you file additional complaints about the handling of those records, the conduct of municipal officials, and your exclusion from a publicly advertised Select Board meeting.

Then the Town’s attorney sends an email announcing that the Board will investigate none of them.

Case closed. Again.

Except this time, the attorney reveals something else.

The Select Board reportedly met to consider those complaints on Sunday, November 1, 2026.

No publicly identifiable notice for that meeting has been established. No corresponding public meeting record has been identified. No explanation of the executive-session authorization has been provided.

And the resident who spent more than a year seeking answers only learned that the meeting reportedly happened because the attorney mentioned it while announcing that the complaints were closed.

Welcome to the accountability problem unfolding in Berwick, Maine.

September 12, 2025: A complaint literally ends up on the floor

The events began at the Berwick Police Department on September 12, 2025.

Ryan Michaels, a Berwick resident, disabled veteran, and founder of The Maine Mirror, entered the department to submit written complaint paperwork.

During the encounter, administrative employee Denise Dunn threw his paperwork through the lobby window and onto the floor, according to Michaels’ contemporaneous recording and subsequent formal complaints.

Michaels brought the incident to the attention of municipal officials and the Select Board.

On September 16, 2025, he appeared before the Board and presented supporting evidence concerning his complaints.

On September 23, Police Chief Timothy Towne communicated that the complaints were unfounded.

But Michaels questioned what evidence Towne had actually examined.

Had the chief reviewed the surveillance footage? Had the full encounter been considered? Had the complaint been investigated independently?

Those questions mattered because the person responsible for evaluating the conduct of police department personnel was the department’s own chief.

And that was only the beginning of the conflict-of-interest concerns.

October 2025: The Board closes the complaints before the footage problem is resolved

On October 1, 2025, Select Board Chair Michael Laterreur acknowledged a prior professional relationship with Michaels and stated in writing:

“Since you and I have had a previous professional working relationship, I have recused myself from any conversation around voting or decisions that may be made in the following up with your concerns to ensure there is no bias for any individuals involved.”

That was an important acknowledgment of the need for impartiality.

But questions about the review process continued.

At the October 7 Select Board meeting, Michaels raised the fact that the surveillance disc provided by the Town did not function properly.

Laterreur directed then-Town Manager Arthur Capello to obtain a working copy.

On October 16, Vice Chair Linda Hutchins-Corliss communicated that the Board had reviewed the complaints, found the allegations involving police personnel and municipal officials unfounded, and considered the matter closed.

There was just one glaring problem: Michaels still did not have a usable copy of the surveillance recording he had been requesting.

How could the public independently evaluate the adequacy of the Town’s review when the evidence at the center of the complaint remained inaccessible to the complainant?

What footage had the Board examined?

Was it the same recording Michaels would eventually receive?

Did the Board review the complete encounter?

The Town’s closure announcement did not resolve those questions.

And the recording problem would continue for nearly another year.

September 2026: More than a year later, the missing fourteen seconds

By July 23, 2026, Michaels was still contacting the Town about the promised recording.

His email asked:

“May I ask where the video is you all promised me on record?”

On September 3, 2026, Town Attorney Matthew Tarasevich confirmed in writing that Chief Towne had informed him another copy was available for pickup.

On September 22, 2026, Michaels finally obtained a playable Town-provided recording.

That was more than a year after the September 12, 2025 incident.

But obtaining a working copy did not end the dispute.

It exposed another one.

When Michaels compared the Town’s footage against his own contemporaneous recording, he identified approximately fourteen seconds of dialogue present in his recording but absent from the version supplied by the Town.

This is a specific discrepancy between two recordings of the same encounter.

The cause remains unresolved. The available evidence does not establish whether the omission resulted from an export problem, processing, redaction, or deliberate alteration.

But Michaels has repeatedly requested the complete original footage, relevant preservation and production records, and an explanation of the discrepancy.

As of this report, he has not received an explanation accounting for those fourteen seconds.

Consider the chronology.

A police employee allegedly discards a resident’s complaint paperwork.

The police chief finds the complaints unfounded.

The Board closes the matter.

The resident spends more than a year trying to obtain usable footage.

The footage finally arrives with an unexplained discrepancy.

And the Town still has not provided an account that resolves it.

What exactly was investigated before the Town originally declared the complaints unfounded?

That is not a rhetorical accusation of criminal conduct.

It is an evidence-based question about the adequacy and independence of the Town’s own review.

One man, three roles—and an obvious accountability concern

During this period, Timothy Towne was Berwick’s chief of police.

He subsequently also became interim town manager.

And during the 2026 election cycle, he was a candidate for Maine House District 149.

Three prominent public roles connected to the same individual.

Following the election, Towne continued serving as police chief and interim town manager.

The political candidacy is relevant context, but the more immediate issue concerns the overlap between police authority and municipal administration.

When the chief of police is the subject of a formal complaint, and that same chief also serves as interim town manager, who independently oversees the handling of that complaint?

Who controls the relevant records?

Who determines what evidence should be examined?

Who ensures that a complaint against the chief does not become a process managed by the very official whose conduct is being questioned?

Michaels raised these concerns explicitly in his October 20, 2026 formal complaint.

He requested that the matter be handled independently of Towne’s authority or direction.

That request was not an attempt to predetermine the outcome.

It was an attempt to establish a process in which the outcome could be trusted.

The Town has now declined to authorize the requested investigation.

And the attorney’s response does not explain what independent examination, if any, preceded that decision.

October 20–23: Complaints about accountability reach the people responsible for accountability

By October 20, Michaels’ concerns extended beyond the original police encounter.

He was also challenging the Town’s handling of public comment, public access, municipal records, and the conduct of Select Board officials.

On October 22, he submitted a formal complaint concerning the termination of his public comment at the October 20 meeting.

On October 23, Attorney Tarasevich acknowledged that the Board had received complaints involving Chief Towne and the Select Board.

The attorney stated that the Board intended to meet at its next meeting in executive session with counsel to consider its legal options and obligations.

Michaels responded with detailed written questions.

He asked how the Board intended to ensure impartiality when its own members and municipal officials were subjects of the complaints.

He raised Laterreur’s prior written recusal.

He also asked whether the proposed executive session would involve confidential legal consultation under 1 M.R.S. §405(6)(E) or complaint-related proceedings under §405(6)(A), which can involve different statutory participation rights.

Michaels expressly recognized that qualifying attorney-client consultation could lawfully occur in private.

He was not demanding access to privileged legal advice.

He was asking the Town to identify and follow the applicable procedures.

That distinction becomes critical in what happened next.

October 27: A public meeting behind a locked door

On October 27, Michaels arrived before the publicly advertised 5:30 p.m. Select Board meeting at 11 Sullivan Street.

He encountered a locked entrance.

Vice Chair Cyrus Morgan was visible inside and told him:

“Ryan this is not for you.”

Chair Laterreur subsequently came outside.

When Michaels questioned the statutory authority for excluding him, Laterreur explained:

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

Michaels was not admitted.

But under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, the public’s right to observe required public proceedings does not depend on whether the subject of the meeting personally concerns a particular resident.

The Town’s subsequent minutes recorded a public call to order at 5:37 p.m.

The original version also recorded the motion to enter executive session at 5:30 p.m.—seven minutes before the meeting supposedly began.

After Michaels challenged that contradiction, the executive-session time was revised to 5:42 p.m.

A twelve-minute change to the official record.

The revised minutes also documented the Board’s approval of a contract with First Choice Recruitment and Consulting, LLC, to assist with the town manager search.

The approval was listed as public business, but no time was assigned to that vote.

The revised chronology still placed public proceedings during the period Michaels documented being denied entry.

Michaels filed a formal complaint that evening and submitted a detailed supplement on October 30.

He requested the original records, an explanation of the conflicting timestamps, and an examination of the denial of access.

These were not allegations invented months afterward.

They were documented contemporaneously.

Yet the Town has now declined to investigate.

November 1: Apparently, the Board had already met

Now comes the development that makes this story especially troubling.

On Thursday, November 5, at 4:31 p.m., Attorney Tarasevich sent Michaels an email titled Complaints re Town of Berwick.

He acknowledged three complaints, dated September 22, October 20, and October 27.

Then he wrote:

“The Select Board met on November 1, 2026, with legal counsel, and reviewed the three complaints and whether investigations of the allegations in those complaints is warranted.”

November 1 was a Sunday.

This was not the publicly identified November 2 executive session Michaels attended.

It was a different date.

And until this email arrived, Michaels had not been informed that the Board reportedly met on November 1 to review his complaints.

The attorney did not identify where the Sunday meeting took place.

He did not identify the public notice.

He did not provide the minutes.

He did not identify the public motion or recorded vote authorizing an executive session.

And he did not explain when the decision to decline investigations was formally approved.

Instead, he announced the result:

“The Select Board declines to proceed with your request for investigations into your complaints and will take no action with regard to any of those complaints. The Select Board considers these matters to be closed.”

(Town Attorney’s Dismissal Email: Screenshot of the November 5, 2026 email sent at 4:31 p.m. by Berwick Town Attorney Matthew Tarasevich. The attorney states that the Select Board met with legal counsel on Sunday, November 1, to review three formal complaints and whether investigations were warranted. He then announces that the Board will authorize no investigations, take no action, and considers the matters closed. The email does not identify the meeting’s public notice, location, minutes, or executive-session authorization.)

Think about that.

A resident has repeatedly challenged the Town’s compliance with public-meeting requirements. The Town’s attorney then discloses a previously unidentified Sunday meeting during which the Board considered those complaints—and announces that no investigation will take place.

The Town may have records establishing that the Sunday meeting was properly noticed and conducted.

The attorney may have misstated the date.

But neither explanation has yet been provided.

And without the records, the public cannot independently determine what happened.

The question practically asks itself:

How is the public supposed to attend the legally required public portion of a meeting it does not know is happening?

November 2: The attorney witnesses another challenged executive-session motion

The chronology becomes even more revealing when November 2 is considered.

At 11:45 a.m., Michaels sent the Town a written notice identifying the statutory requirements for entering executive session.

He specifically cited 1 M.R.S. §405(3) and §405(4).

Those provisions require a public, recorded vote and a motion identifying both the precise nature of the business and the statutory authority.

That evening, Michaels attended the public opening of the scheduled executive-session proceedings.

Attorney Tarasevich was physically present.

According to Michaels’ recording, Vice Chair Morgan moved:

“I make a motion that we enter into executive session under MRSA 4056E.”

The motion cited the statute but did not identify the particular business to be discussed.

Michaels attempted to ask about that omission.

Before he could finish, Tarasevich responded:

“Then you have been asked to leave.”

Michaels complied.

The attorney who had received written notice of the exact statutory concern witnessed the challenged motion, responded to the resident’s attempted clarification, and three days later announced that the Board would not investigate the complaints.

And now we know that, according to the attorney, the Board had also met on November 1.

The obvious questions are whether that earlier meeting was properly authorized and when the Board actually decided the complaints would be closed.

A November 2 executive-session vote could not retroactively authorize an improperly conducted November 1 meeting.

What Maine law actually requires

Maine law permits qualifying confidential consultations between public bodies and legal counsel.

But it does not permit public bodies to bypass the procedures governing executive sessions simply because an attorney is present.

Under 1 M.R.S. §§403–406, public proceedings are generally open, public notice is required, and executive sessions must be authorized through the statutory process.

Section 405(3) requires a public, recorded vote.

Section 405(4) requires the motion to state the precise nature of the proposed business and cite the authorizing law.

Section 405(2) prohibits final approval of official action during executive session.

A Sunday meeting is not inherently unlawful.

Nor does the absence of a publicly posted video establish that a meeting violated FOAA.

But if the Select Board convened on November 1 without adequate public notice or without the required public authorization for executive session, that raises a serious statutory issue.

And if final official action was approved behind closed doors, that raises another.

The Town’s attorney has now placed the existence of the reported meeting into the written record.

The next step is straightforward: identify the records establishing how it was conducted.

The people being questioned are the people deciding whether questions deserve answers

This is the central irony running through the entire sequence.

The original police complaint concerned the conduct of a police employee.

The chief determined the complaints were unfounded.

The Board closed the matter while the surveillance-recording problem remained unresolved.

The resident later identified missing dialogue and requested an independent examination.

The chief was also serving as interim town manager.

Separate complaints then arose concerning the conduct of Select Board members, public access, and executive-session procedures.

Those complaints went before the same municipal governing body whose conduct was being challenged.

And the Board decided not to authorize investigations.

Of course the public should question that arrangement.

An investigation is supposed to establish facts—not merely confirm the preferences of the people whose conduct is being examined.

An independent review is especially important when the individuals who would ordinarily oversee the process are themselves implicated in the allegations.

There is no need to presume every allegation is true to recognize the problem.

There is also no need to accept a finding of “unfounded” as a substitute for examining the evidence that supposedly supports it.

Michaels has repeatedly requested that examination.

The Town’s latest response offers closure instead.

No independent investigative findings were identified.

No account of the fourteen missing seconds was provided.

No explanation of the October 27 exclusion was included.

No substantive explanation of the November 2 motion was offered.

And no records documenting the November 1 meeting accompanied the attorney’s announcement.

The Town has told the complainant what it will not do. It has not answered the central questions about what it already did.

The pattern extends beyond these three complaints

The supporting evidentiary record also identifies additional discrepancies in the Town’s executive-session documentation.

On October 9, 2025, minutes recorded a 6:23 p.m. call to order for a meeting advertised at 6:30 p.m., followed by an executive-session motion at 6:25 p.m.

On January 20, 2026, minutes recorded a 4:52 p.m. opening for a meeting advertised at 5:00 p.m.

On September 29, 2026, minutes recorded a 5:55 p.m. opening for a meeting advertised at 6:00 p.m., with an executive-session motion at 5:59 p.m.

Other records contain inconsistent dates, duplicated timestamps, and apparent clerical errors.

These discrepancies do not independently prove deliberate misconduct.

But collectively they raise a serious question about the accuracy of the Town’s meeting records and whether residents were consistently afforded a meaningful opportunity to observe required public proceedings.

The November 1 disclosure now adds another date requiring examination.

At some point, repeated documentary inconsistencies deserve more than another assurance that everything has been handled appropriately.

They deserve verification.

November 5: The resident responds in 37 minutes

At 5:08 p.m., Michaels replied to Tarasevich.

Rather than argue over the Board’s characterization of his complaints, he focused on the new disclosure.

He asked four direct questions:

1. Was November 1 the correct meeting date?
2. Where and when was the meeting publicly noticed, convened, and recorded?
3. What public motion and recorded vote authorized any executive session?
4. When, where, and through what official action did the Board decide to close all three complaints?

He also formally requested the existing records under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act and demanded preservation of relevant documentation.

His response included this statement:

“A decision to close my complaints does not resolve the Town’s independent statutory obligations.”

(Formal Response and FOAA Records Request: Screenshot of Ryan Michaels’ November 5, 2026 reply to Town Attorney Matthew Tarasevich, sent at 5:08 p.m. Michaels asks four specific questions concerning the previously undisclosed November 1 meeting, including whether the date is correct, where public notice was issued, what executive-session motion and vote occurred, and when the Board officially decided to close the complaints. The email also requests existing records under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act and preservation of relevant evidence.)

That is the issue in one sentence.

The Town may decide not to undertake an investigation it has discretion to authorize.

But that decision does not eliminate its obligations to maintain and disclose nonexempt public records, follow applicable public-meeting procedures, or answer legally enforceable requests.

Nor does it resolve a documented discrepancy between two recordings.

A year of unanswered questions. Another meeting. Another declaration of closure.

The most striking feature of this story is how often the same sequence repeats.

A resident identifies a problem.

He documents it.

He requests records.

He submits a complaint.

The Town announces that the matter is closed.

But the underlying evidentiary questions remain.

First, the complaint paperwork ended up on the police department floor.

Then the complaints were found unfounded.

Then the Board closed them.

Then the surveillance recording remained inaccessible.

Then a playable copy arrived more than a year later with fourteen seconds of dialogue unaccounted for.

Then a resident was denied access to a publicly advertised meeting.

Then the Town’s minutes required a material correction.

Then a recorded executive-session motion raised the precise statutory issue the Town had been warned about.

And finally, the attorney announced that the Board had reviewed three complaints at a Sunday meeting and decided not to investigate.

The latest attempt to close the matter has created another matter requiring an explanation.

That is the irony.

The public does not need to decide in advance that every official involved acted unlawfully.

But it should not be asked to accept a closed file as proof that the underlying conduct was lawful, either.

Berwick, the question is no longer whether you want to investigate

The Select Board has communicated its decision.

It does not intend to authorize the requested investigations.

That position is now documented.

But several questions remain entirely separate from the Board’s willingness to investigate itself.

Where is the complete surveillance recording?

Why does the Town’s version omit dialogue present in Michaels’ recording?

What evidence supported the original determination that the police complaints were unfounded?

Why was a resident denied access to the October 27 public proceedings?

What records supported the subsequent correction of the meeting minutes?

Why did the November 2 executive-session motion omit the particular business proposed for discussion?

And what, exactly, happened on Sunday, November 1?

The answers should not depend on whether the officials involved find the questions convenient.

They should depend on the records, the facts, and the law.

A government does not establish accountability by declaring that it has investigated itself sufficiently—or by declining to investigate at all.

It establishes accountability by following lawful procedures, preserving evidence, providing required records, and making its public actions independently verifiable.

The closing question

For more than a year, Michaels has been asking Berwick officials to account for what happened when his complaint paperwork was thrown onto the police department floor.

He is still asking where fourteen seconds of dialogue went.

He is still asking why the Town’s public-meeting procedures have produced documented access disputes and contradictory records.

Now he is asking how a Select Board meeting reportedly took place on a Sunday without any publicly identified record of its authorization.

And the Town’s answer to the complaints?

No investigations. No action. Matters closed.

The Maine Mirror has a different question:

If the Town of Berwick has followed the law throughout this process, why has obtaining the evidence necessary to verify that become a year-long struggle—and why does its latest explanation raise yet another question about whether the law was followed?

The complaints may be closed in the Town’s eyes.

The public record is not.

---

The Maine Mirror
Truth | Transparency | Accountability

Reporting note: This article draws upon formal complaints, dated municipal correspondence, meeting agendas and minutes, and the complainant’s descriptions of contemporaneous recordings. The cause of the fourteen-second discrepancy and the legality of the reported November 1 meeting remain unresolved. The Town has been asked to provide records and clarification. A complaint determination or the absence of an investigation does not itself establish that misconduct occurred or did not occur.