Below Is an AI generated summary of the January 1, 2026 anonymous complaint released in todays Town Press Release Press Release: October 28, 2026 Release of Investigative Reports – Town Manager Shaun Mulholland
Source: June 22, 2026 Investigation Report for Anonymous Complaint 200052891 (PDF), 61 Pages
Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire | June 22, 2026
This document details an investigative report regarding an anonymous complaint filed against Town Manager Shaun Mulholland and Town Councilor Daniel Bouchard in Londonderry. The inquiry examined multiple accusations, including whether Bouchard improperly interfered in town administration, if Mulholland fostered a hostile work environment, and whether certain staff members received preferential pay increases. Investigators reviewed relevant town policies, financial records, and calendars while conducting numerous interviews with town officials and department heads. Ultimately, the evidence gathered did not substantiate the allegations made against the officials, attributing workplace friction to differing management styles and organizational transitions rather than charter violations.
Executive summary
The report concerns an anonymous ethics complaint filed on January 6, 2026, against Londonderry Town Manager Shaun Mulholland, which also implicated Town Councilor Daniel Bouchard. The investigation was conducted by an attorney retained by Town Counsel.
The central conclusion is that the investigation did not substantiate any of the allegations in the complaint. The investigator concluded that the available evidence pointed primarily to disagreements over management style, organizational change, and policy direction, rather than violations of the Town Charter, unlawful workplace hostility, or favoritism in employee compensation.
June 22, 2026 Investigation Report for Anonymous Complaint 200052891 (PDF).pdf
1. What the complaint alleged
The anonymous complaint raised six principal concerns:
- Improper attendance at staff meetings: Mulholland allegedly invited Bouchard to meetings intended for Town employees.
- Intimidation of employees: Bouchard’s presence allegedly was used to pressure employees and discourage disagreement.
- Interference with Town operations: Bouchard allegedly participated in administrative matters in violation of the Town Charter.
- A hostile work environment: Mulholland allegedly fostered an intimidating and retaliatory workplace.
- Favoritism in compensation: Employees who supported Mulholland allegedly received substantial pay increases, while others were disadvantaged.
- Shunning and negative treatment: Employees who disagreed with Mulholland allegedly were talked about behind their backs or pressured to leave.
2. Findings on each allegation
A. Attendance at staff meetings
The investigator found no evidence that Bouchard attended regular department-head meetings. Instead, records showed that he participated in two specific working groups: the Traffic Management Working Group and the ECC Working Group. The investigator concluded that his participation was limited and consistent with the Town Charter.
B. Intimidation and interference
Witnesses did describe tension surrounding the ECC Working Group. However, the investigation did not establish that Bouchard was brought in to intimidate employees, silence dissent, direct staff, or interfere with administrative responsibilities. Employees voiced disagreements, and the proposal was subsequently put on hold after cost and feasibility concerns arose.
C. Hostile work environment
Some employees criticized Mulholland’s management style, communication, and pace of change, describing him as direct, rigid, or demanding. Nevertheless, the investigator found no evidence of conduct directed at employees because of a protected characteristic and no corroborated evidence of threats, retaliation, or other conduct sufficient to substantiate the complaint under applicable law or Town policy.
D. Pay raises and favoritism
The investigator reviewed compensation records for non-bargaining-unit employees. The documented adjustments were attributed to market compensation concerns, changes in responsibilities, or related compensation issues, rather than personal favoritism. The timing of the raises, shortly after Mulholland began his tenure, also did not support the allegation that they resulted from established personal loyalty.
E. Shunning and negative treatment
The complaint alleged that employees who spoke up were shunned or talked about behind their backs. The investigator’s overall conclusion was that the allegations were not substantiated, with no corroborated evidence sufficient to establish the alleged retaliation or misconduct. The executive summary does not provide a separate detailed finding on each of these specific claims.
June 22, 2026 Investigation Report for Anonymous Complaint 200052891 (PDF).pdf
3. How the investigation was conducted
According to the report, the investigator:
- Reviewed the original anonymous complaint.
- Examined Town calendar information and records of meetings involving staff.
- Reviewed compensation records for non-bargaining-unit employees.
- Considered relevant Town Charter provisions and Town policies.
- Reviewed other documentary materials.
- Interviewed Town officials, department heads, employees, and the individuals implicated in the complaint.
The investigation focused particularly on the two working groups attended by Bouchard because the records did not support the allegation that he attended regular department-head meetings.
June 22, 2026 Investigation Report for Anonymous Complaint 200052891 (PDF).pdf
4. Overall conclusion and significance
The report distinguishes between dissatisfaction with management and evidence of misconduct.
Its principal conclusions were:
- No substantiated Town Charter violation arising from Bouchard’s participation in the two working groups.
- No substantiated intimidation or improper interference by Bouchard or Mulholland.
- No substantiated hostile work environment under the applicable legal or Town-policy standards.
- No substantiated compensation favoritism based on the records reviewed.
- Evidence of workplace disagreement remained: Employees held differing views about Mulholland’s communication, expectations, and approach to organizational change.
The investigator expressly limited the report’s scope. It did not evaluate whether Mulholland’s management style was appropriate, whether his expectations were reasonable, or whether the initiatives he proposed were wise.
Bottom line
The June 22, 2026 report concludes that the anonymous complaint was not substantiated by the evidence gathered. Although the investigation identified workplace tension and disagreement over management practices, it did not find sufficient evidence to support the alleged Charter violations, intimidation, hostile work environment, or pay favoritism.
Important distinction: “Not substantiated” means the investigator did not find sufficient evidence to establish the allegations. It does not necessarily mean that every employee concern was unfounded or that no workplace-management problems existed.
Document note: The report is marked attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you plan to distribute or publish this summary, consider confirming the document’s disclosure status with Town Counsel.
Related Posts:
Town Manager Firing Information Page