Londonderry: Public Briefing on the Town Manager Investigation and Response

Below Is an AI generated comparision of Shaun Mulholland Response to the Attorney Vrountas report dated October 13, 2026 and Attorney Christopher Vrountas’ investigation report, dated October 13, 2026.

Purpose: To help residents understand the major issues raised in the investigation report and Town Manager Mulholland’s written response, what remains disputed, and what questions deserve answers.

This briefing is intended to be neutral. The investigation report presents the investigator’s findings and conclusions; Mulholland’s response presents his objections and explanations. Neither document, by itself, should be treated as a court ruling or as final proof of every disputed allegation.

Documents reviewed

1. Why this matters

The investigation and the response describe serious disagreements about the Town Manager’s conduct, the treatment of Town employees, the handling of internal complaints, and the relationship between the Town Manager and Town Council.

At the center of the dispute is a basic question: Were the Town Manager’s actions legitimate management decisions, or did some of those actions cross the line into retaliation, intimidation, or interference with investigations?

The documents also raise questions about how the Town Council authorized and managed the investigations, how employees were asked to participate, and whether the Town’s procedures were followed consistently.

These issues matter beyond the individuals involved. They concern public trust, employee confidence, responsible use of taxpayer funds, and the way Londonderry’s government operates.

2. What the investigator concluded

The Vrountas report examined allegations involving workplace conduct, retaliation, interference with investigations, and conflicts of interest.

Its principal conclusions included:

Workplace conduct: The investigator did not find unlawful harassment based on a protected characteristic. However, the report described conduct it considered unprofessional, disrespectful, bullying, or intimidating under Town policies.
Retaliation: The investigator found at least probable cause to support retaliation concerns involving Police Chief Kim Bernard and employee Tom Roy. This is an investigative assessment, not a court finding.
Interference with investigations: The investigator concluded that there was credible support for allegations that Mulholland interfered with or obstructed investigations involving complaints about him.
Conflicts of interest: The report concluded that Mulholland should have stepped away from matters involving complaints against him, rather than involving himself in the process.
Town policies: The investigator identified several Town policies that he believed Mulholland’s conduct violated.

The report also acknowledged that some requested documents had not been provided when the investigator completed his work and reserved the ability to revisit findings if additional evidence became available.

3. What Mulholland says in response

Mulholland disputes important parts of the report. His October 31 response argues that the investigation was incomplete, did not adequately reflect his explanations, and drew conclusions without considering all relevant context.

His main arguments are:

The investigation process was different from the earlier investigation. He says he was not formally notified when the second investigation began, that employee interviews were not recorded, and that his own interview lasted more than five hours before it was interrupted and never completed.
He had legitimate reasons to question the investigation. He says he did not initially have confirmation that the investigation had been authorized by the full Town Council and believed he was protecting the Town from an improperly initiated process.
He did not intend to retaliate. He says his decisions involving Bernard and Roy were based on management authority, job responsibilities, performance, and operational needs.
He was not conducting a personal investigation. He says he was preserving and collecting records to document events involving his own work and interactions with the Council.
The report omitted important context. He identifies statements and documents he says would have helped explain his decisions and challenge the investigator’s interpretation.

These are Mulholland’s explanations and objections. They are not, by themselves, independent proof that the investigator’s conclusions were wrong.

4. The major disputed issues

A. The May 13 email calling the investigation a possible “scam”

The investigator’s account: After Deputy Town Manager Kellie Caron told Mulholland that Vrountas had contacted her, Mulholland sent an email to department heads suggesting the investigation might be a scam and directing employees not to provide information. The investigator concluded that this undermined the investigation and could discourage employees from cooperating.

Mulholland’s account: He says he had not been formally notified of a second investigation and had reason to question whether it had been properly authorized. He says he was concerned about employees being asked to discuss personnel matters without official notice.

What residents should understand: The email itself is not disputed. The central disagreement is whether it was a reasonable response to uncertainty about the Council’s authorization or an attempt to discourage cooperation with a legitimate investigation.

B. Police Chief Kim Bernard

The investigator’s account: The report describes a confrontation over Bernard’s acceptance of Tom Roy’s attempt to withdraw his resignation. It says Mulholland became angry, threatened Bernard with termination for insubordination, and demanded that he reverse his decision. The investigator considered this part of the basis for the retaliation concern.

Mulholland’s account: He says the disagreement concerned who had authority to accept Roy’s rescission. He also points to Bernard’s positive performance evaluation and merit increase as evidence that he was not retaliating against the Chief.

What residents should understand: The issue is not simply whether Bernard received a good evaluation. It is whether the surrounding conduct and personnel decisions were appropriate and whether they were influenced by Bernard’s disagreement with the Town Manager.

C. Tom Roy and the proposed IT restructuring

The investigator’s account: The report questions whether Roy was effectively pushed out after attempting to withdraw his resignation. It points to proposed changes to Roy’s job, the restriction on remote work, and the fact that a position with substantially similar responsibilities was later filled.

Mulholland’s account: He says the Town was reorganizing its IT operations under a new Cyber Services structure. He argues that the job required regular on-site work and that Roy’s preference to work remotely most of the week did not meet the Town’s operational needs.

The report also notes that the dispute became the subject of an unfair labor practice complaint involving the union and the proposed job changes.

What residents should understand: The key question is whether this was a legitimate operational restructuring or whether the changes were used to force Roy out. The union complaint is a separate labor matter; its existence does not, by itself, establish that the investigator’s interpretation is correct.

D. Collecting documents and managing employee cooperation

The investigator’s account: The report says Mulholland involved himself in the investigation, restricted the coordination of document collection, and created circumstances that made employees reluctant or uncomfortable about participating.

Mulholland’s account: He says employees approached him with concerns about the investigator’s methods and that he was responsible for directing Town employees and protecting Town technology and records. He denies trying to obstruct the process.

What residents should understand: This dispute raises two important questions: who was responsible for coordinating Town employees and records during an investigation of the Town Manager, and what safeguards should have been in place to keep the subject of an investigation from influencing it?

E. Councilor Ted Combes and Deputy Fire Chief Phillip LeBlanc

The investigator’s account: The report questions Mulholland’s involvement after Combes contacted LeBlanc about the legitimacy of the investigation. It describes efforts to obtain a memo from LeBlanc and use the matter in connection with an allegation that Combes had violated the Town Charter.

Mulholland’s account: He says the Combes matter was separate from another Councilor’s complaint and involved a distinct question about possible Charter violations.

What residents should understand: The issue is whether the matter was handled through a fair and appropriate process or whether the Town Manager became involved in a matter connected to his own investigation.

F. The OpenGov contract and Councilor Shawn Faber

The investigator’s account: The report questions the handling and presentation of the OpenGov contract, including whether the contract was divided into agreements that raised questions about the Town’s $100,000 approval threshold. It also questions statements made during public discussion about when the Council considered the contract.

Mulholland’s account: He says the relevant FY2026 budget expenditure was $94,717, below the approval threshold, and that a non-appropriation clause meant future spending depended on future budget approval. He also disputes that he called Faber a liar.

What residents should understand: The financial question requires examining the signed agreements, the actual payment obligations, the purchasing policy, and the applicable budget approvals. The budgeted amount and the total contractual commitment may not be the same measure.

G. Town Council authority and legal representation

Mulholland raises a broader concern that Council Chair Ron Dunn took actions or incurred legal expenses without approval by the full Council. He also questions the selection and authorization of legal counsel.

The investigator’s report, meanwhile, describes the Council’s April 20, 2026, nonpublic vote to authorize the second investigation and concludes that the Town Manager should not have involved himself in an investigation concerning him.

What residents should understand: These are important governance questions, but the allegations about unilateral action by the Council Chair should be independently checked against the Charter, Council minutes, engagement letters, and financial records. They should not be treated as established facts simply because Mulholland raised them.

5. What remains unanswered

The two documents leave several questions that deserve clear, documented answers.

Was the second investigation properly authorized? What exactly did the Town Council approve on April 20, 2026, and what do the relevant minutes and legal records show?
Was Mulholland given a fair opportunity to respond? Why was his interview interrupted, why was it not completed, and were the documents he says he intended to provide later obtained and reviewed?
Were the investigation procedures appropriate? Why were employee interviews not recorded, and what notes, recordings, or other records exist to document what witnesses actually said?
Were employees free to participate without pressure? What instructions were given to employees, and what safeguards were in place to protect them from actual or perceived retaliation?
What happened in the Bernard and Roy matters? What do the relevant emails, evaluations, meeting records, job descriptions, union documents, and personnel records show about the decisions and their timing?
Were Town policies applied consistently? What do the policies require when a complaint concerns the Town Manager, and who is responsible for coordinating the investigation?
Were Council actions and legal expenses properly authorized? What approvals were obtained for the investigators, outside legal counsel, and related expenditures?
What happened with the OpenGov contract? What were the full contractual obligations, what approvals were required, and what did the Council know and approve at the time?
Have any findings changed since the original report? The investigator stated that some documents were outstanding and that findings could be revisited if additional evidence became available. Residents should know whether that review occurred and whether conclusions were changed.

6. Records that could help answer these questions

A transparent review would include, at a minimum:

The April 20, 2026, nonpublic Council minutes and records documenting authorization of the investigation, to the extent legally releasable.
The investigators’ engagement letters, invoices, and scope of work.
The May 13 and May 18 emails concerning the investigation.
Relevant document requests, production records, and communications about employee cooperation.
The records concerning Bernard’s evaluation and the Roy resignation, rescission, job changes, and transition plan.
The union’s unfair labor practice filing and any subsequent disposition.
The LeBlanc memo and related Council communications concerning Combes.
The OpenGov agreements, purchase approvals, invoices, budget records, and relevant meeting recordings.
Council minutes, legal engagement letters, and records of approvals for outside legal counsel.

Some records may be confidential or legally protected. That does not eliminate the value of explaining, in a public and lawful way, what decisions were made and what process was followed.

7. What residents should take away

This dispute is about more than whether one person was right or wrong. It raises questions about leadership, accountability, employee treatment, the authority of the Town Manager, and the responsibilities of the Town Council.

The investigator reached serious conclusions about retaliation and interference with investigations. Mulholland disputes those conclusions and raises legitimate questions that deserve examination, particularly concerning the investigation’s process and completeness.

At the same time, questions about the Town Council’s own actions should be examined with the same care and standards applied to the Town Manager.

Residents do not need to choose a side before asking for answers. They can reasonably expect the Town to explain how the investigations were authorized, how the evidence was evaluated, whether Town policies were followed, and what steps will be taken to ensure accountability and restore confidence in local government.

The most constructive path forward is a fact-based review, supported by records, clear explanations, and a commitment to fair procedures for employees, elected officials, and residents alike.

This briefing summarizes the two identified documents. It does not make independent findings of fact, determine legal liability, or substitute for a court, labor-board, or other formal decision. Allegations, investigative conclusions, and the Town Manager’s responses are identified separately so readers can distinguish them.

Related Information:
Town Manager Firing Information Page

Uncategorized