SANFORD — Councilor Alan Walsh told reporters he has been vindicated in connection with his May 15 interaction with police after a Breathalyzer test showed his blood alcohol level was under the legal .08 limit for impairment.

Walsh made the comment during an interview after a tense Town Council meeting Tuesday. Tempers flared at the meeting as councilors discussed a review of the incident to be supervised by the town’s attorney.

Walsh acknowledged that the issue has been divisive. He said he hopes the council’s planned upcoming self-evaluation will clear the air and allow the council to heal from the upset that occurred following the incident.

Walsh said he received no special treatment from police, but believes that the officer who initiated the arrest had the fact that he was a councilor in his mind.

He maintained his earlier stance that he was targeted by police that night, either because of his votes on police union contracts or because he had told the same officer, a supervisor, that two officers had acted unprofessionally earlier when they answered a noise complaint at a party Walsh was attending, and that he intended to report them.

Although Walsh said he had been satisfied after meeting with Police Chief Thomas Connolly about the incident on the Friday following the May 15 incident, he acknowledged that he was upset when he later learned the primary officer involved was part of a flag-raising ceremony at the dedication of the new police station. Walsh said he believed having the officer take part in the flag raising was inappropriate.

“I feel worse than anyone this whole mess happened ”¦ I have no reason to bring this up ”¦ I did nothing wrong, I have been vindicated ”¦ I have zero to gain by this,” said Walsh, in part, in an interview Tuesday with the Journal Tribune and the Sanford News.

Walsh said he struggled with what to do about the matter.

“I don’t know if I should just shut up and leave it alone,” he said. “I believe I have an obligation as a councilor if I feel something inappropriate has happened I had to bring it to someone’s attention.”

The council appears fractured over the incident and its aftermath.

During the interview with Walsh, reporters reviewed two DVDs that showed his interaction with police on two of three occasions May 15. The first interaction with police was not recorded on DVD because it was at a party where police answered a noise complaint and out of the range of the police cruiser’s video recorder.

During one interaction with the police supervisor outside the party, Walsh said the officer could not have smelled alcohol on his breath because he was smoking a cigarette and the smoke was drifting into the cruiser and the officer asked him to dispose of it.

Walsh had driven into the driveway of his home shortly after 11 p.m. May 15 and got out of his vehicle. A police cruiser drove into the driveway, and an officer, identified on the DVD as Corporal Matthew Jones, questioned Walsh about whether he had been drinking and initiated a multi-part field sobriety test. Following the test, the officer said he believed Walsh had too much to drink. Walsh was handcuffed and taken to the police station, where he took an breath test and then was released. Documents viewed by the Journal Tribune show Walsh’s blood alcohol level was .06 percent, indicating he was not intoxicated.

The DVD shows the officer asking Walsh how much he’d had to drink and Walsh responded that he had probably consumed five beers. He told police he was taking medication and that his recollection was that the use of alcohol should be cautionary. While the next sentence in the tape was inaudible, Walsh on Tuesday said he offered to let police go into the house to view the prescription bottles.

He told the newspapers he had gone to the party a bit before 5 p.m. The police stop in his driveway was at 11:03 p.m.

Councilors have been talking about the situation, primarily in e-mail correspondence, virtually since it happened. Councilor Gordon Paul has repeatedly pressed for a closed door session to discuss the incident, saying rumors were rampant. Chairman Joseph Hanslip has contended that the issue could not be considered a personnel matter under the state’s freedom of access act, which outlines what subjects may be discussed behind closed doors.

A week ago, the council voted in favor of a review of the facts in the case to be supervised by town attorney Bryan Dench.

The mood was tense at Tuesday night’s council meeting when Dench asked for clarification. Councilors questioned whether Dench’s request for more clarity about the scope of his task should have been on the agenda. Paul said Dench could have consulted Hanslip about what needed to be clarified and that Hanslip could have sought the opinions of other councilors. Hanslip said he believed that would amount to circumventing the public meeting. After a lengthy and heated discussion, a motion to overrule Hanslip’s decision to put the item on the agenda failed.

Ultimately, the council agreed that Dench would supervise a review of the facts and that the review would be conducted by an individual independent of the attorney’s law firm.

Walsh suggested a formal review may not have been needed ”“ that the town manager could brief the council on what had transpired and if the council was satisfied at that point, they could move on.

At one point, during a brief recess, acrimonious comment continued to flow and Councilor Anne Marie Mastraccio, who was leaving the room during the break, extended her middle finger in response to a comment from Councilor Bradford Littlefield.

Walsh, during the interview with the newspapers, said he had considered suing the town but that decision is now on hold. He said he hoped the review would put the matter to rest.

— Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be reached at 324-4444 or twells@journaltribune.com.