By resident Gregory Carson
The Mulholland Investigation, the Politics of Personal Destruction, and Three Councilors Who Refused to Back Down
Londonderry may soon face an agricultural crisis of historic proportions. I am not sure there is enough crow in Rockingham County to feed everyone who spent the last several months defending former Town Manager Shaun Mulholland while ridiculing the three Town Councilors who dared to question his conduct.
The October 28 release of the Town’s independent investigations should make for some particularly uncomfortable reading among Mulholland’s more enthusiastic defenders. Those who previously demanded evidence now have hundreds of pages of it. Unfortunately, the evidence does not make particularly flattering reading for the man they insisted was the victim.
And this is not simply a political disagreement about management styles, personalities, or which three Councilors formed a majority.
Attorney Christopher Vrountas’s investigation sustained findings of bullying, intimidation, interference with investigations, conflicts of interest, failure to recuse, and lack of candor toward the Town Council. It also found sufficient evidence to support probable cause for retaliation against Town employees.
Apparently, what Mulholland regarded as strong leadership looked rather different when an independent investigator began examining the documents, interviewing witnesses, and comparing his explanations with what actually happened.
Consider some of the findings.
When employees filed complaints about Mulholland in January 2026, the very person being investigated involved himself in coordinating the investigation, communicating with witnesses, and overseeing the collection of evidence. This was contrary to the Town’s conflict-of-interest and recusal policies, some of which Mulholland himself had adopted.
The most shocking revelation appears to establish Mulholland’s tendency toward improper conduct through much of his tenure as the Londondery Town Manager.
It is reported that Mulholland, through the town’s contracted outside counsel, hired Attorney Eric Maher to investigate employee complaints about none other than himself and that he had a prior professional working relationship with Maher.
On March 3, 2026, while Maher was investigating complaints against Mulholland, Mulholland personally emailed Maher an offer to solicit the Town’s outside legal services contract. And interestingly enough, Maher initially indicated that his firm intended to submit a response.
On March 25, 2026, upon reflection, Maher reversed that decision, explaining:
“Submitting a response to the RFQ would create an appearance of impropriety and partiality that may undermine the work that we have been hired to perform.”
Mulholland responded, “Understood.”
(Vrountas Investigation Report 24 n.2 (Oct. 13, 2026); accompanying exhibits, pp. 336–37.)
The invitation alone establishes a legitimate question of independence regarding the Maher investigation. It may warrant a referral to the NH Attorney General’s Office for an investigation of Mulholland for potential criminal violations of RSA 640:2, I(a) Bribery in Official and Political Matters, a Class B felony, and RSA 640:3, I(b) Improper Influence, a Class B felony, both of which carry a maximum penalty of up to seven years incarceration and a $4,000 fine.
It is clear Maher recognized the implications of such an offer; why did a supposedly experienced town manager, not to mention a former law enforcement officer, fail to recognize the impropriety? You can draw your own conclusions, but it stretches credulity to think he didn’t know what he was doing.
When a second investigation was authorized in April, this time by independent attorney Christopher Vrountas, Mulholland was denied the opportunity to manage the investigation into himself. He responded by warning Town employees that the investigation might be a “scam” and discouraging their cooperation.
Mulholland later admitted that he deliberately chose not to contact Council Chairman Ron Dunn to verify the investigation because doing so would have interfered with his efforts to build a case against the Council.
Again raising the question of civil and possibly criminal conduct, and possible referral to the NH AGs for investigation and possible criminal charges of Official oppression: RSA 643:1, a misdemeanor, and Tampering with witnesses and informants: RSA 641:5, another Class B felony.
That is quite an interpretation of transparency and good government.
When Councilor Ted Combes made a 59-second telephone call to Deputy Fire Chief Philip LeBlanc to clarify that the investigation was legitimate, Mulholland turned that conversation into a public accusation that Combes had violated the Town Charter, potentially warranting removal from elected office.
The independent investigation found that Combes had merely corrected Mulholland’s misleading information. No employee had complained about the call.
This instance raises the possibility of both civil and Criminal defamation charges under RSA 644:11, should Councilor Combes choose to pursue remedies, given that the investigation reports may rise to the level of such acts, knowing the falsity and malice of Mulholland’s public accusations.
Councilor Shawn Faber received similar treatment and has equal remedies as Combes against Mulholland after Faber questioned a substantial software contract that Mulholland executed without prior Council authorization; Mulholland publicly accused him of lying. His supporting evidence consisted of videos of Council discussions held months after the contract had already been signed. In addition to the potential claims Faber has as those of Combes regarding defamation, one might also include: Falsifying physical evidence: RSA 641:6, and Tampering with public records or information: RSA 641:7
Apparently, under the Mulholland School of Municipal Administration, subsequent discussion constitutes prior authorization. One wonders whether that principle also applies to speeding tickets—I’m just asking for a friend.
Then there was Police Chief Kim Bernard, threatened with termination over a disagreement concerning an employee’s rescinded resignation, and longtime employee Tom Roy, whose proposed return to work was complicated by significant changes to his working conditions. Roy ultimately left, and the resulting dispute produced an unfair labor practice complaint.
And when that matter reached the Public Employee Labor Relations Board, Mulholland attempted to influence which attorneys would represent the Town, expressly acknowledging his personal interest in selecting counsel he believed would better protect him.
Leading to a much longer list of potential wrongdoing by Mulholland, including: Official oppression: RSA 643:1, Falsifying physical evidence: RSA 641:6, and Tampering with public records or information: RSA 641:7, Whistleblower retaliation; wrongful discharge through constructive discharge; contractual or collective-bargaining violations, etc.
The Vrountas investigation also documented repeated interference with the production of records, improper communications concerning witness interviews, and attempts to obtain information concerning an investigation in which Mulholland was the subject. Again, potential actions rising to the level of civil and criminal violations mentioned previously.
The common thread is difficult to miss. A public employee entrusted with administering the Town repeatedly placed his personal interests in conflict with those of the municipality that employed him.
The information posted above was submitted by a Londonderry resident. The views and opinions expressed are not necessarily the views and opinions of the TownUnderground Staff and should not be considered an endorsement by the TownUndeground.
Related Information:
Resident: The Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Fortune
Letters to the TownUnderground
Comment