Below Is an AI generated summary of the October 13, 2026 anonymous complaint released in todays Town Press Release Press Release: October 28, 2026 Release of Investigative Reports – Town Manager Shaun Mulholland
Summary of the October 13, 2026 Londonderry Investigation Report, 10/13/2026
Source: October 13, 2026 Investigation Report for Anonymous Complaint 2000563733 (PDF), dated October 13, 2026. The report is 423 pages long and is marked “Confidential Privileged Attorney Client Communication.”
An investigation report from October 2026 details allegations and findings concerning Shaun Mulholland, the Town Manager of Londonderry. The inquiry determined that claims of unlawful harassment were unsubstantiated, but found probable cause to sustain allegations of retaliation against employees. Furthermore, the report revealed substantial evidence supporting charges of unprofessional conduct, bullying, intimidation, dishonesty, and conflicts of interest in violation of the Town Charter and policies. Mulholland was also found to have interfered with multiple investigations into his own behavior and exhibited a lack of candor toward the Town Council and the public.
1. The bottom line
The report concludes that the allegations of unlawful harassment were not substantiated, but substantial evidence supported allegations of bullying, unprofessional conduct, interference with investigations, conflicts of interest, and lack of candor by Town Manager Shaun Mulholland. The investigator also found probable cause to sustain allegations of retaliation involving two Town employees.
The report was prepared by attorney Christopher T. Vrountas of Vrountas, Ayer & Chandler, P.C., after the Town Council authorized an investigation in April 2026.
The investigator’s principal findings are summarized below. These are the investigator’s conclusions, not a court judgment.
Harassment allegations: Not substantiated
The investigator found no credible evidence that Mulholland engaged in unlawful harassment based on a protected characteristic, such as race, sex, religion, age, or disability.
Retaliation allegations: Probable cause to sustain
The report found sufficient evidence to support retaliation allegations concerning Police Chief Kim Bernard and employee Tom Roy.
Policy, ethics and Charter violations: Substantial evidence
The investigator found credible evidence of bullying, intimidation, unprofessional conduct, interference with investigations, conflicts of interest, failures to recuse himself, and misleading communications.
Source: Report, pages 1–11, particularly the Executive Summary and Summary Determination.
2. The major findings
A. Interference with investigations of complaints against himself
This is one of the report’s central concerns.
Two anonymous complaints were filed in 2026:
- January 6, 2026: An earlier complaint alleging issues including favoritism, bullying and intimidation.
- March 30, 2026: The complaint covered by this report, alleging bullying, retaliation, misleading statements, a hostile work environment and interference with an investigation.
Town policy required complaints concerning the Town Manager to be handled through Town legal counsel, with the Town Manager removed from the investigation because of the obvious conflict of interest.
The investigator concluded that Mulholland nevertheless involved himself in both investigations and repeatedly attempted to influence or control the process.
The report identifies several examples:
- He directed the investigation of the January complaint, despite being its subject.
- He sent department heads an email describing the March investigation as a possible “scam,” even though he could have verified its legitimacy with Town Council Chair Ron Dunn or Town counsel.
- He instructed employees not to participate in discussions with the investigator without his direction.
- He interfered with the collection and production of documents, which the investigator said delayed production by at least two months.
- He sought information about the investigation and received updates from employees about their interviews.
- He attempted to control the Town’s choice of legal counsel in a labor matter involving allegations about his own conduct.
The investigator characterized these actions as interference, obstruction, and failures to comply with Town conflict-of-interest and recusal requirements.
Source: Report, pages 6–11 and the detailed discussion beginning on page 71.
B. Treatment of Police Chief Kim Bernard and Tom Roy
The report describes a series of events in April 2026 that raised concerns about possible retaliation.
Kim Bernard
After IT Coordinator Tom Roy sought to withdraw his resignation, Bernard accepted that withdrawal. Mulholland became angry and threatened to fire Bernard for insubordination.
During a meeting, Mulholland reportedly told Bernard:
“You’re that close to being terminated for insubordination.”
The report says Deputy Town Manager Kellie Caron considered Mulholland’s conduct unreasonable and extreme, while Human Resources Director Tara Koza understood how Bernard could have found it intimidating.
Tom Roy
Roy had submitted his resignation in March and later sought to rescind it. At a meeting on April 29, Mulholland told Roy that his job responsibilities would change and that remote work would no longer be permitted.
Roy understood the changes to be immediate and declined to return under those conditions. However, the Town subsequently hired someone to perform the same job, with the same title, responsibilities and supervisor. According to the report, the job remained substantially unchanged until August 1, 2026.
The investigator concluded that Mulholland’s communications were misleadingly ambiguous and appeared intended to persuade Roy to leave under false pretenses.
The report also notes that Roy’s union filed an unfair labor practices complaint concerning the meeting, union representation and proposed changes to his position. That labor proceeding is distinct from this investigation.
Source: Report, pages 3–5 and 9–11.
C. Misleading statements to the Town Council and public
The investigator identified two particularly significant examples.
1. The March 2026 contract dispute involving Councilor Shawn Faber
Mulholland accused Faber of lying about a contract being executed without prior voter approval or Town Council knowledge. According to the report, Mulholland presented video footage of later meetings as though those discussions had occurred before he signed the contract.
The investigator concluded that the presentation was misleading and did not establish that Faber had lied.
2. The May 2026 “scam” email
Mulholland described the authorized investigation as a possible scam and directed department heads not to cooperate without his direction. When Ron Dunn clarified that the Council had authorized the investigation, the report says Mulholland did not promptly correct the record.
The investigator considered these incidents evidence of a lack of candor, transparency and accountability.
Source: Report, pages 9–11 and 73.
D. Conflicts of interest and failure to recuse himself
The report repeatedly emphasizes that Mulholland was required to remove himself from decisions and investigations involving complaints about his own conduct.
The investigator found that he instead participated in the January and March complaint investigations, sought information about them, and attempted to influence the Town’s legal representation in a related labor matter.
The report identifies potential violations of:
- ADM-100 — Employee Code of Conduct.
- ADM-108 — Ethics Policy for Town Employees.
- ADM-111 — Anonymous Hotline Policy.
- ADM-126 — Complaints and Investigations.
- Title VI, Chapter XXVI — Code of Ethics.
- Applicable provisions of the Town Charter and Mulholland’s employment agreement.
These are the investigator’s findings about compliance with Town rules; they are not, by themselves, judicial determinations of liability.
E. The dispute involving Councilor Ted Combes
The report also addresses Mulholland’s response to Councilor Ted Combes contacting Deputy Fire Chief Phillip LeBlanc to clarify that the investigation was legitimate, rather than a scam.
According to the report, Mulholland subsequently accused Combes of violating the Town Charter and sought an investigation into Combes’s conduct. The Town Council rejected the proposed investigation.
The investigator found that Mulholland’s actions further illustrated his involvement in matters where he had a personal interest and his attempts to undermine the investigation into his own conduct.
Source: Report, pages 7–8.
3. What policies did the investigator conclude were violated?
The report identifies conduct that it says violated, or appeared to violate, several Town policies and Charter provisions.
| Area | Investigator’s conclusion |
|---|---|
| Professional conduct | Evidence supported unprofessional and disrespectful behavior. |
| Workplace bullying and intimidation | Substantial evidence supported the allegations. |
| Retaliation | Probable cause to sustain allegations involving Bernard and Roy. |
| Investigative independence | The Town Manager improperly involved himself in investigations concerning him. |
| Conflicts of interest | Repeated failures to recuse himself from matters involving personal interests. |
| Candor and transparency | Misleading statements and communications to the Council, employees and public. |
| Employment agreement | The investigator concluded that the conduct failed to comply with contractual requirements, including compliance with Town policies and providing candid feedback. |
Source: Report, pages 2, 10–11.
4. Important limitations and qualifications
The report is critical of Mulholland, but several qualifications matter when interpreting it.
- Harassment was not substantiated. The investigator did not find credible evidence of harassment based on a protected characteristic under the applicable policy and law.
- Retaliation was assessed as probable cause to sustain. That is the report’s stated finding, not a court ruling.
- The investigation was not necessarily complete in every respect. The investigator stated that some requested records had not been produced and expressly reserved the right to modify findings if additional evidence emerged.
- Some allegations in the original anonymous complaint were not independently established simply because they were alleged. The report distinguishes between the original accusations and findings supported by interviews, documents and credibility assessments.
The investigator interviewed Town employees and officials, including Bernard, Caron, Roy, Koza, Combes-related witness LeBlanc, and Mulholland himself, and reviewed extensive correspondence, Town policies, contracts and meeting recordings.
5. What does the report mean for Londonderry?
The central issue is not merely whether the Town Manager’s management style was forceful or unpopular. The investigator’s conclusion is that certain actions crossed the line from management discretion into conduct inconsistent with the Town’s rules governing professional behavior, retaliation, investigative independence, conflicts of interest and candor.
For Town Council oversight, the report provides a documented basis to consider:
- Whether the substantiated policy and Charter findings warrant formal action under the applicable employment agreement and Town procedures.
- Whether the Town’s anonymous complaint process needs stronger safeguards to prevent a person who is the subject of a complaint from influencing its investigation.
- Whether the outstanding documents and any additional evidence could affect the findings.
- Whether the Town should separately address the labor complaint involving Roy.
One important distinction: The report’s findings do not, on their own, establish what formal action the Town Council ultimately took or what number of votes would be required for any particular action. Those questions require examination of the applicable Charter, employment agreement and subsequent Council actions.
Overall assessment
The report is a serious adverse investigative assessment of Shaun Mulholland’s conduct as Town Manager. It rejects the unlawful-harassment allegations while finding substantial evidence of bullying, unprofessional conduct, interference, conflicts of interest and lack of candor, as well as probable cause to sustain retaliation allegations involving two employees.
Its most consequential theme is the investigator’s conclusion that Mulholland repeatedly involved himself in investigations concerning his own conduct, despite Town policies requiring him to recuse himself, and took actions that undermined those investigations.
If you are evaluating this for TownUnderground, I would focus first on the report’s formal findings and supporting chronology, then separately document any subsequent Town Council decisions. That distinction will help readers understand what the investigation established versus what elected officials did with its conclusions.
October 13, 2026 Investigation Report for Anonymous Complaint 2000563733, 423 Pages
10-13-2026 – Investigation Report and Exhibits
Related Posts:
Town Manager Firing Information Page