From the Londonderry Times
Paul Conyers
10\/11\/2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Public frustration over the dismissal of former Town Manager Shaun Mulholland continued to intensify at the latest Londonderry Town Council meeting, where residents sharply criticized council leadership over legal spending, transparency concerns, and the process used to remove the town\u2019s top administrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The meeting on Monday night drew a significant public response, with numerous residents speaking during public comment and others carrying signs expressing their opposition to the council\u2019s decision. Much of the criticism centered not only on Mulholland\u2019s dismissal itself, but also on the actions leading up to the vote and the growing legal costs associated with the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn case you\u2019re not aware, you do not have an open checkbook,\u201d said resident Michelle Swartz, who was particularly critical of legal expenses related to the investigation into the Town Manager after costs exceeded the legal line item in the current town budget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cTo be informed that you have chosen to hire multiple law firms to support your agenda and run up bills that have exceeded our town budget is very concerning,\u201d Swartz said. \u201cIt almost seems like you did not get what you wanted from the first law firm, so you chose to hire another to see if you could get a different answer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beyond financial concerns, residents repeatedly questioned the transparency of the process that led to Mulholland\u2019s termination, arguing that the public and even some members of the Town Council were left with limited information regarding the investigation and its findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe elected five council members. Only three council members deemed it necessary to conduct an investigation,\u201d said resident Jane Cooper. \u201cThere\u2019s no transparency here.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Several residents also expressed concern about the potential for future litigation and the financial burden that could place on taxpayers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf this ends up in court, as I suspect it will, who will get stuck paying the legal bills? That\u2019s right, it would be us, yet again,\u201d said resident Clarissa Navarro. \u201cIn any situation, in any job in this country, you have to have written documentation before you can fire someone. I don\u2019t see any documentation, and you have not been willing to provide it. If you have it, cough it up, because there\u2019s no way you can terminate somebody.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The vote to remove Mulholland was not unanimous. Town Councilors Ron Dunn, Shawn Faber, and Ted Combes voted in favor of termination, while Councilors Deb Paul and Dan Bouchard opposed the action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Supporters of the dismissal have argued that Mulholland failed to follow directives issued by the Town Council. Dunn has maintained that the former Town Manager repeatedly \u201cdefied\u201d instructions from the council. Faber has also indicated that factors beyond public discussions contributed to the decision, including anonymous complaints that were reviewed during the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Councilors Paul and Bouchard, meanwhile, have consistently maintained that their concerns center on the process used to reach the decision rather than solely the decision itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis is not about whether the Town Manager should or should not have been fired, but about the process and the validity of the process that was used by three councilors,\u201d Bouchard said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bouchard also criticized Dunn and the legal subcommittee that was formed to address the initial allegations against Mulholland, arguing that the subcommittee failed to keep the full council informed throughout the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt has not saved us any legal costs; it\u2019s generated more legal costs,\u201d Bouchard said. \u201c\u2019The subcommittee will be interacting with the council,\u2019 you said. This has not happened. \u2018The subcommittee will send out emails.\u2019 This has not happened. \u2018The subcommittee will review documents, limit costs, and share information with the council.\u2019 This has not happened.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The disagreement prompted a lengthy exchange between council members over the authority of the subcommittee and the handling of legal matters related to the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bouchard further alleged that Dunn failed to provide a legal opinion regarding whether the subcommittee was authorized to operate in the manner it did. Dunn disputed that assertion and maintained that the requested legal guidance had been provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cTerminating the Town Manager was never discussed with the entire Town Council prior to the Sept. 21 meeting. The special committee expended funds without the approval of the entire council,\u201d Bouchard alleged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The discussion later shifted to concerns over the town charter. Bouchard questioned a legal opinion suggesting portions of Article Four of the charter may conflict with state law and urged the council to seek a second opinion before taking further action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A motion seeking an additional legal review was ultimately voted down. Another motion to reinstate Mulholland also failed, receiving support only from Bouchard and Paul.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As tensions continued to rise, Dunn eventually called for a recess after Bouchard refused to yield the floor during the discussion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following the break, debate resumed but no additional action was taken regarding the former Town Manager.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite the council\u2019s vote, the controversy surrounding Mulholland\u2019s dismissal appears far from settled. Residents continued pressing officials for answers throughout the meeting, and several speakers indicated they expect the issue to remain a topic of public discussion in the weeks ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dunn later declined to answer questions regarding the legal opinions that played a role in the council\u2019s deliberations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n