Summary: Shaun Mulholland’s Response to Attorney Vrountas’ Investigation Report

Below Is an AI generated summary of Shaun Mulholland Response to the Attorney Vrountas report dated October 13, 2026

Source: Shaun Mulholland Response to the Attorney Vrountas report dated October 13, 2026
Dated October 31, 2026 | 15 pages

1. Overview

This document is Shaun Mulholland’s formal response to the investigative report prepared by Attorney Chris Vrountas, dated October 13, 2026, concerning the second investigation of the Londonderry Town Manager.

The central argument throughout Mulholland’s response is that Attorney Vrountas conducted an incomplete and unfair investigation, omitted important evidence and context, and made conclusions that Mulholland believes are unsupported by the facts.

Mulholland disputes several allegations involving interference with investigations, employee intimidation, retaliation, conflicts of interest, personnel decisions, and financial and administrative matters.

He also raises concerns about the Town Council’s handling of the investigations and what he describes as unilateral actions by Council Chairman Ron Dunn.

2. Major Issues and Mulholland’s Response

A. Concerns about how the second investigation was conducted

Mulholland argues that the second investigation was handled differently and less appropriately than the first investigation conducted by Attorney Eric Maher.

His concerns include:

• The first investigation was formally communicated to him, and he was asked to notify employees and ensure their cooperation.
• The second investigation began without his knowledge or formal notification.
• Employees were contacted by Attorney Vrountas before Mulholland was informed that another investigation had been authorized.
• He questions whether the Town Council properly authorized the second investigation before it began.
• He says the Council did not provide a formal document confirming the investigation’s authorization.

A significant procedural concern: Mulholland points out that Attorney Vrountas did not record employee interviews, except for Mulholland’s own interview, which was recorded at Mulholland’s insistence.

Mulholland argues that recordings are important because they preserve the exact questions, answers, and context. His own interview lasted more than five hours and was interrupted before completion.

He also says Vrountas completed his report without finishing the interview or receiving documents Mulholland had identified as supporting evidence.

B. Allegations that Mulholland interfered with the investigation

This is one of the most important sections of the response.

Vrountas apparently concluded that Mulholland attempted to interfere with or undermine the investigation by communicating with employees.

Mulholland disputes this conclusion and offers a different explanation.

He identifies several employees who, according to him, approached him voluntarily:

• Tanya Pinter: Expressed discomfort with how she was asked to attend an interview without informing Mulholland and said she felt interrogated.
• Tara Koza: Said she felt interrogated and uncomfortable about being questioned repeatedly. She also sought guidance regarding requests for additional assistance and access to Town email systems.
• Dave Wholley: Told Mulholland he did not want to participate in the investigation. Mulholland says he directed him to attend the interview.

Mulholland maintains that he did not initiate these conversations, ask employees what questions they were asked, or solicit information about their testimony.

He further argues that Vrountas provided no evidence that these conversations actually influenced or compromised the investigation.

He also disputes the interpretation of his requests for legal invoices, explaining that he needed them to close out the Town’s FY2026 budget, not to obtain information about the investigation.

C. Allegations of employee intimidation and bullying

Mulholland strongly disputes claims that he intimidated or bullied employees.

His argument is that:

• Employees disagreed with him on various matters.
• Employees expressed opposing viewpoints.
• He sometimes changed his decisions based on employee feedback.
• Neither investigation, in his view, provided actual employee testimony demonstrating that employees felt intimidated or retaliated against.

He believes Vrountas reached conclusions without sufficient supporting evidence.

D. Merit increase for Police Chief Kim Bernard

Vrountas reportedly characterized the merit increase given to Police Chief Kim Bernard as “fake.”

Mulholland rejects that characterization.

He explains that:

• Bernard received a positive performance evaluation.
• The evaluation was based on his responsibilities, job description, goals, and performance.
• Mulholland believed Bernard performed above expectations.
• The merit increase was based on that evaluation.

Mulholland acknowledges disagreements with Bernard but argues that personal disagreements should not determine an employee’s performance evaluation.

He also disputes Vrountas’ treatment of the issue, saying the investigator did not adequately examine the evaluation process or compare it with evaluations of other employees.

E. Complaint involving Councilor Bouchard

Mulholland disputes the suggestion that he treated Councilor Bouchard differently from Councilor Combes because of political alliances or personal loyalties.

He explains that these were two different situations:

• The complaint involving Bouchard concerned his private business, not his conduct as a Town Councilor.
• Mulholland says he followed the Town’s complaints and investigations policy, involved the Police Chief, and referred the matter to the Attorney General because of a potential conflict for the Police Department.
• The matter involving Combes concerned alleged violations of the Town Charter arising from his actions as a Councilor.

Mulholland argues that the different handling of the complaints was appropriate because the circumstances and legal considerations were different.

F. Public Safety IT Coordinator Tom Roy

This section addresses allegations surrounding the restructuring of the Town’s IT operations and the circumstances surrounding Tom Roy’s departure.

Mulholland explains that he wanted to consolidate IT resources under the Cyber Services Director to improve efficiency and distribute resources across Town departments.

His account includes the following:

1. The Town had three IT personnel serving different functions.
2. Mulholland wanted the Public Safety IT Coordinator to report to the Cyber Services Director while continuing to primarily support the Police Department.
3. Tom Roy was initially interested in the Cyber Services Director position but never formally applied.
4. Roy resigned in April 2026 to take another job.
5. Roy later expressed interest in returning to his former position.
6. Roy requested the ability to work remotely four days per week and an increase in pay.
7. Mulholland says he explained that the position required regular on-site work to support the Police Department, Fire Department, and other Town operations.
8. Roy ultimately decided not to return.

Mulholland denies that he attempted to push Roy out of the organization.

He says the position was subsequently filled, and the planned IT restructuring took place on August 10, 2026.

He acknowledges that the changes resulted in an unfair labor practice complaint, which he discusses later in the document.

G. Allegations of personal conflicts of interest

Mulholland disputes Vrountas’ assertion that he had a personal conflict of interest and should have recused himself from certain matters.

He acknowledges that the investigations were personal in the sense that the complaints were directed against him.

However, he argues that retaining emails and documents related to his interactions with employees and Town Council members was not the same as conducting his own investigation or attempting to undermine the official investigations.

He also challenges the allegation concerning his use of the Town’s legal counsel.

His position is that:

• Attorney Elizabeth Bailey and her firm had historically served as the Town’s general legal counsel.
• Bailey had experience in municipal labor law.
• The Town Charter provides the Town Manager with personnel-management responsibilities.
• He believed he had authority to obtain legal advice and representation for the Town in connection with the unfair labor practice complaint.

Mulholland also raises questions about an alleged legal protocol governing when he could use Town legal counsel.

He says he was never provided with such a protocol and asks:

• When was it adopted?
• What does it say?
• When was he notified?
• Who has a copy?
• Who drafted it?

He further alleges that Chairman Dunn arranged for Attorney Bill Christie to replace Attorney Bailey in the unfair labor practice matter without obtaining approval from the full Town Council.

Mulholland says Bailey told him she had not requested to withdraw from the case.

H. Response to Councilor Shawn Faber regarding OpenGov software

This section addresses accusations concerning a software contract and an alleged $678,000 expenditure.

Mulholland disputes Faber’s claim that he buried a $678,000 expenditure in the default budget.

His explanation is:

• He signed the OpenGov contract on August 27, 2025.
• The FY2026 cost was $94,717.
• The FY2027 proposed appropriation was $212,136.
• The software costs were discussed at multiple Town Council and Budget Committee meetings.
• The contract included a non-appropriation clause, meaning the Town would not be obligated to spend additional money if future funds were not appropriated.
• The Town Council ultimately chose not to cut the proposed software funding during its budget review.

Mulholland acknowledges that he did not obtain Town Council approval before signing the original contract.

However, he argues that the expenditure was within his authority under the Town’s purchasing policy because the FY2026 expenditure was below the $100,000 threshold requiring Council approval.

He also disputes Faber’s characterization of their March 16, 2026, Council meeting exchange.

Mulholland says he did not call Faber a liar but instead presented recordings of previous budget discussions and allowed the public to draw its own conclusions.

3. Broader Concerns About Town Council Governance

Beyond the individual allegations, Mulholland repeatedly raises concerns about how the Town Council, particularly Chairman Ron Dunn, conducted Town business.

He alleges a pattern of actions taken without approval of the full Council, including:

• Initiating investigations without a formal Council vote.
• Engaging legal counsel and spending public funds before obtaining Council approval.
• Making decisions regarding legal representation without action by the full Council.
• Failing to provide appropriate documentation and communication regarding investigations.

Mulholland repeatedly cites the Town Charter and New Hampshire law to support his position that the Town Council must act as a body rather than through unilateral decisions by individual Councilors.

He also suggests that political divisions within the Council contributed to the circumstances surrounding his employment and termination.

4. Mulholland’s Account of His September 21, 2026 Termination

One of the most significant passages appears on page 4.

Mulholland states that his interview with Attorney Vrountas was interrupted on September 21, 2026, when Chairman Dunn brought him into a conference room.

According to Mulholland:

• Chairman Dunn, Councilor Faber, and Attorney Bill Christie offered to pay the remainder of his employment contract through 2028 if he resigned.
• Mulholland declined the offer.
• He says they told him he needed to decide immediately because they planned to terminate him at the beginning of the Council meeting approximately 45 minutes later.
• He says he was told the termination would be for cause but was not given the reasons.
• He says Attorney Christie told him he was not entitled to a public hearing or other due-process protections under the Charter or employment agreement.

Mulholland states that he subsequently surrendered his keys and lost access to Town records and documents he had intended to provide to Vrountas.

This is important because Mulholland uses the circumstances of his termination to explain why he believes the investigation was incomplete.

5. Main Arguments and Themes

The following table captures the principal positions advanced throughout the response.

Issue	Mulholland’s position
Second investigation	It was improperly initiated and lacked transparency.
Investigation procedures	Interviews should have been recorded; his interview was incomplete.
Interference allegations	Employees approached him; he did not solicit information.
Employee intimidation	The reports do not establish actual intimidation or retaliation.
Police Chief merit increase	It was based on a legitimate, positive performance evaluation.
Bouchard complaint	It was different from the Combes matter and handled appropriately.
Tom Roy’s departure	The decision was based on operational needs, not retaliation.
Personal conflicts	Retaining documentation was not conducting a competing investigation.
Legal representation	He believed he had authority to use the Town’s general counsel.
OpenGov contract	The costs were disclosed, discussed, and handled under the purchasing policy.
Town Council authority	Individual Councilors repeatedly acted without full Council approval.

6. What Is Particularly Important About This Document?

There are five particularly significant aspects of Mulholland’s response.

1. He challenges the credibility and completeness of the investigation.

His strongest procedural argument is that the investigator did not record employee interviews, did not finish Mulholland’s interview, and allegedly omitted information and documents that could have provided important context.

2. He offers alternative explanations for conduct characterized as interference or intimidation.

Rather than simply denying the allegations, he provides specific examples involving employees and explains why he believes their interactions with him were misinterpreted.

3. He raises questions about the authority and conduct of the Town Council.

A recurring theme is that Chairman Dunn allegedly took actions that required approval of the full Council.

4. He disputes the conclusions rather than simply the underlying events.

In several instances, Mulholland acknowledges that certain events occurred but disputes the investigator’s interpretation of why they occurred.

For example, he acknowledges the IT restructuring and the circumstances surrounding Tom Roy’s attempted return but disputes that the purpose was to force Roy out.

5. He connects the investigation to his termination.

Mulholland suggests that the investigation was conducted in a manner that disadvantaged him and that his termination prevented him from providing additional evidence.

7. Overall Assessment

This document is essentially a point-by-point rebuttal to Attorney Vrountas’ October 13 investigation report.

Mulholland’s overarching position is that the investigation presented a one-sided account of events, omitted relevant context, and drew conclusions that were not adequately supported by evidence.

He attempts to establish that his decisions were made in the ordinary course of managing the Town, that his interactions with employees were mischaracterized, and that several actions by Town Council leadership were procedurally improper.

An important distinction: This is Mulholland’s response and his version of the events. The document does not independently establish that his allegations about the investigation, the Town Council, or the other individuals involved are accurate. Nor does it establish that Vrountas’ findings are incorrect.

To evaluate the competing positions, this response should be read alongside Attorney Vrountas’ October 13 investigative report, the underlying interview records, emails, Town Council minutes, employment agreement, and relevant Town policies.

8. Questions Worth Examining Further

If this document is being considered as part of the broader controversy surrounding the Town Manager’s investigation and termination, I would pay particular attention to these questions:

1. Authorization: Was the second investigation properly authorized by a vote of the full Town Council before Attorney Vrountas began interviewing employees?

2. Evidence: Did Attorney Vrountas have documentary or testimonial evidence supporting his conclusions, and did he adequately consider evidence that contradicted those conclusions?

3. Employee interactions: Did Mulholland’s conversations with employees actually compromise the investigation, or were they ordinary workplace interactions?

4. Due process: Was Mulholland entitled to a public hearing or other procedural protections under his employment agreement and the Town Charter?

5. Legal authority: Did the Town Manager have authority to retain and direct legal counsel for the Town in the unfair labor practice matter?

6. Termination: Was the decision to terminate Mulholland based on substantiated findings, and was the process followed consistent with applicable Town requirements?

My recommendation: The most important next step is to compare this response directly with Attorney Vrountas’ October 13 report. That comparison would help distinguish factual disagreements, omitted evidence, disputed interpretations, and allegations that may have documentary support.

Related Information:
Town Manager Firing Information Page