By resident Gregory Carson
The Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Fortune
Now consider what Councilors Ron Dunn, Ted Combes, and Shawn Faber endured while all of this was unfolding.
There is a particularly delicious irony here. All three originally voted to hire Mulholland. They were hardly a collection of political enemies determined to sabotage someone else’s appointment. They helped put him in the job.
Yet, when serious questions arose about his conduct, they fulfilled their responsibility to investigate rather than simply accept his explanations and move along.
For their trouble, they became targets of Mulholland’s public accusations. They endured months of criticism, ridicule, and political attacks from residents who apparently believed that a Town Manager’s proclamation of innocence should carry greater evidentiary weight than an independent investigation.
Meanwhile, the Councilors were dealing with confidential personnel matters, employee complaints, witness protections, attorney-client communications, and an ongoing investigation. They could not responsibly respond to every accusation by distributing sensitive evidence during public comment accusations and across Facebook simply to win an argument.
That restraint came at a substantial political price.
While Mulholland publicly challenged their actions, they exercised discretion, protected the integrity of the investigation, and avoided compromising the Town’s legal interests. Some residents interpreted that silence as evidence that the Councilors had something to hide.
Apparently, the new standard for responsible government is that elected officials must immediately disclose confidential investigative information to satisfy the curiosity of people who have already decided they are guilty of something.
And now the independent investigation has sustained serious findings against Mulholland, including findings that directly support the concerns raised by Dunn, Combes, and Faber.
This deserves more attention than another argument about the Council’s 3-2 division.
The documents describe an administrator who publicly accused elected officials of misconduct while concealing or misrepresenting material facts, interfered with investigations into his own conduct, and acknowledged that he treated his relationship with the governing body as a personal war he intended to win.
Those are the investigator’s findings, not rumors from the local political grapevine.
Any potential civil liability, professional misconduct, or criminal violations arising from these events remain matters for the appropriate independent authorities, the Town’s legal representatives, and its insurance carrier to examine thoroughly. The investigative findings are substantial, but they are not criminal convictions or judicial judgments.
None of that prevents the public from considering what the documents already establish about the exercise of public authority and the obligation of a Town Manager to act in the Town’s interests rather than his own.
Nor should it prevent the people who eagerly repeated Mulholland’s accusations from reconsidering their conclusions.
There is nothing dishonorable about initially believing someone’s explanation, particularly when the underlying evidence cannot yet be disclosed. But once the evidence becomes public, continuing to ignore it is a choice.
And this brings us back to the potential lack of crow for those deserving a full portion.
I wonder how many of Mulholland’s supporters, including those who spent months questioning the integrity, competence, and motives of Dunn, Combes, and Faber, will now demonstrate enough intellectual honesty to acknowledge what the independent investigation found.
Will those who accused the three Councilors of engaging in a political vendetta reconsider their accusations?
Will those who repeated Mulholland’s claims against Combes and Faber correct the record?
Will those who demanded that the Council release the evidence now actually read it?
Or will we witness the familiar political spectacle in which the evidence becomes considerably less important once it fails to support the preferred narrative?
I have spent enough years in government and politics to recognize the difference between elected officials who conduct oversight and those who merely perform it for an audience.
Dunn, Combes, and Faber subjected a Town Manager they had originally supported to independent scrutiny, endured the resulting political hostility, and ultimately voted to remove him. The investigation’s subsequent findings provide substantial support for the concerns that prompted their actions.
That is a record worth examining on its merits rather than through the lens of factional loyalty.
As for the former Town Manager’s most vocal defenders, I suspect there will be no shortage of explanations for why they were right all along.
Will the voters, now given the opportunity to consider the results of an independent investigation exonerating Councilors Dunn, Faber and Combes, before next Tuesday’s general election, choose to express their opinion in the ballot box? Only time will tell, but it won’t be a long wait to know the answer.
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: Is There Enough Crow in Londonderry?
Letters to the TownUnderground