Below is an AI generated consolidated summary of yesterdays Londonderry: Public Briefing on the Town Manager Investigation and Response
Two documents have raised important questions about leadership, accountability, and how our Town government operates:
- Attorney Christopher Vrountas’ investigation report, dated October 13, 2026.
- Former Town Manager Shaun Mulholland’s written response, dated October 31, 2026.
Both deserve to be read. Residents should understand what the investigator concluded, what Mulholland disputes, and what questions remain unanswered.
What did the investigator conclude?
The Vrountas report found:
- No unlawful harassment based on a protected characteristic, but evidence of conduct described as unprofessional, disrespectful, bullying, or intimidating.
- Probable cause supporting retaliation concerns involving Police Chief Kim Bernard and employee Tom Roy.
- Evidence that Mulholland interfered with or attempted to influence investigations involving complaints against him.
- Concerns that Mulholland involved himself in matters where he should have stepped aside because of his personal interest.
These are the investigator’s conclusions—not court judgments or final legal determinations.
What does Mulholland say?
Mulholland disputes significant portions of the report. He argues that:
- He was not properly notified when the second investigation began and initially had reason to question whether it was authorized.
- Employee interviews were not recorded, while his own interview was recorded only because he insisted on it.
- His interview lasted more than five hours, was interrupted, and was never completed.
- Important documents and context were not included in the investigator’s report.
- His decisions involving Bernard and Roy were legitimate management decisions, not retaliation.
- His actions involving Town records and employees were intended to fulfill his responsibilities, not obstruct an investigation.
These are his explanations and objections; they do not independently disprove the investigator’s findings.
What issues deserve closer examination?
Several matters call for clear answers:
- Investigation authorization: What exactly did the Town Council approve on April 20, 2026, and was the process properly documented?
- Fairness of the investigation: Was Mulholland given a complete opportunity to respond, and were all relevant documents considered?
- Employee treatment: Were employees free to participate without pressure or fear of consequences?
- Bernard and Roy: Were the personnel decisions based on legitimate operational needs, or were they influenced by disagreements with the Town Manager?
- Council accountability: Were investigations, outside legal counsel, and related public expenditures properly authorized by the full Council?
- OpenGov contract: Were the contract commitments and approvals consistent with the Town’s purchasing requirements?
What should residents expect?
Residents should not have to choose sides to expect transparency and accountability.
The Town should provide clear explanations, release records that can legally be made public, and answer reasonable questions about how these investigations were authorized and conducted.
The same standards of accountability should apply to the Town Manager, the Town Council, and individual Council members.
This is bigger than one person or one investigation. It is about the integrity of our local government, the fair treatment of Town employees, responsible use of taxpayer money, and restoring public confidence.
Londonderry residents deserve facts, transparency, and a government that is accountable to the people it serves.
This summary reflects the two identified documents. It does not make independent findings of fact or determine legal liability. The investigation report presents the investigator’s conclusions; Mulholland’s response presents his disputes and explanations.
Related Information:
Town Manager Firing Information Page
Londonderry: Public Briefing on the Town Manager Investigation and Response