📰BIDDEFORD | UNE President Calls for Independent Mediator

April 27, 2026, the following letter was sent this evening to Biddeford Mayor Liam LaFountain from University of New England President Dr. James Herbert.

In the letter, Dr. Herbert writes to the Mayor to discuss "current inability of the City leadership and the University to work together constructively."

Later in the letter, Herbert reminds LaFountain, "As you know, you are in receipt of correspondence from UNE on April 15 requesting that you agree to an independent mediator to address current disagreements and active litigation."

We have included the full letter below:

Dear Mayor LaFountain,

I write to address a matter of urgent concern: the relationship between the City of Biddeford and the University of New England is broken.

The current inability of the City leadership and the University to work together constructively is detrimental to the health, welfare, and long-term success of both the City and UNE. It diverts valuable time, energy, and resources away from initiatives that should be focused on elevating and strengthening Biddeford and UNE alike. Rather than collaborating on opportunities that can expand economic growth, improve community well-being, and enhance the City's future, both entities are increasingly forced into conflict, distraction, and reaction.

The University and the City are inexorably linked. The success of one is closely tied to the success of the other. UNE is one of Biddeford's most important institutions- an economic engine, a major employer, an educational and healthcare leader, and a source of investment, innovation, and civic engagement. Likewise, Biddeford's strength as a vibrant, well-managed and welcoming city directly affects UNE's ability to attract students, faculty, staff, and investment. Neither entity benefits when mistrust and dysfunction define the relationship. It is in that spirit that I write to address one of the growing obstacles to constructive dialogue and sound public decision-making: the increasing use of anonymous digital communications to shape public narratives, influence policy discussions, and undermine productive engagement.

Digital communication has dramatically lowered the barriers to participation in civic affairs. While this has expanded access and engagement, it has also enabled a form of advocacy that operates without transparency. In recent months, City officials, legislators, regulatory agencies, and media outlets have received communications formatted as press releases or forma submissions from sources that cannot be identified or verified. These communications are often sent from generic email accounts such as publicaffairsinfo@gmail.com, mooringowners@gmail.com, unepierreview@yahoo.com, officialmainedocuments2017@gmail.com, mainemom20@yahoo.com fishingwoes@gmail.com, and publicdocumentsnow@yahoo.com.

Similar emails purporting to be from residents come from names and email addresses that cannot be found or verified. They rarely respond when we attempt to contact them to discuss their concerns and gross misstatements of facts. Despite repeated invitations to meet, discuss concerns, or provide clarification, there has seldom been any response from the individuals or entities behind these messages. On the rare occasion when emails to any of these addresses do result in a response, it continues to be from the same anonymous address and without willingness to meet

This dynamic creates a structural imbalance in the public process. Institutions are expected to respond transparently, substantively, and in good faith, while the source of the allegations remains unknown and unavailable for dialogue. Without identifiable authorship, it is not possible to assess whether the individuals raising concerns are residents, directly impacted stakeholders, or even real individuals. It also prevents any meaningful effort to verify claims, correct misunderstandings, or resolve issues through discussion.

Anonymous and unattributable communications create an environment in which disgruntled individuals, those pursuing personal agendas, or actors with less transparent or even illicit intent can insert claims into the public record without accountability. Digital anonymity allows a small number of individuals to create the appearance of broader opposition, to amplify unverified or misleading assertions, and to avoid scrutiny that would accompany identifiable advocacy.

At the same time, institutions are held to a markedly different standard. Universities, municipalities, and other organizations are expected - appropriately---to operate with full transparency, to substantiate their claims, and to be accountable. This asymmetry creates a fundamentally uneven playing field; a single individual or small group of agitators can disseminate false or misleading information widely, while the institution must respond carefully, factually, and publicly, often to allegations that cannot be traced, tested, or directly addressed. The result is that misinformation can circulate without consequence, while those adhering to established standards of accountability bear the burden of disproving claims that, may have no credible origin.

Constructive dialogue depends on transparency, accountability, and the ability to engage directly with stakeholders. Anonymous communications do not advance understanding or improve outcomes. Instead, they limit the ability of all parties--City officials, institutions, and the public--to evaluate claims on their merits and to work toward informed decisions The goal in raising these concerns is not to limit participation or silence criticism. UNE welcomes honest engagement and understands that major projects and institutional actions often generate strong opinions. But criticism should be accountable, factual, and transparent. Public policy and regulatory decisions should be informed by verifiable information and direct dialogue, not by anonymous allegations or orchestrated campaigns designed to distort public perception.

We remain committed to rebuilding a productive and collaborative relationship with the City of Biddeford. That begins with restoring trust, improving communication, and ensuring that public discourse and decision-making are grounded in fairness, accountability, and fact.

As you know, you are in receipt of correspondence from UNE on April 15 requesting that you agree to an independent mediator to address current disagreements and active litigation. Very importantly, we do not want to see the City waste taxpayer dollars on unproductive litigation or to divert UNE funds to pay lawyers when it would be better spent on producing talented graduates. We sincerely hope you will agree to work with us to address outstanding issues, rebuild trust and move forward together collaboratively.

We continue to stand ready to engage directly and constructively in partnership with you anc the city.

Sincerely,

James D. Herbert

President, University of New England