Submitted by Shaun Mulholland
10\/31\/2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shaun Mulholland Response to the Attorney Vrountas report dated October 13, 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This document is in response to the investigative report filed by Attorney Chris Vrountas regarding the
commonly referred to Second Investigation of the Town Manager.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Second Investigation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n When I look at the findings of both the first and the second investigations I see some distinct differences. The Town Council has the authority as laid out in the Town Charter to conduct such investigations. That is The Council did not vote to conduct this first investigation or to expend funds for this investigation. When This legitimized the conduct of the investigation at least from April 20, 2026, moving forward. However, Just before the Council went into non-public session on April 20, 2026, I asked Chairman Dunn if he would It is unclear as to why the Council chose to contract with a separate law firm to conduct a second In March of 2026 at the direction of the Town Council an RFQ process was initiated to select a law Councilor Paul requested that we look at a broader list and solicit other firms that might provide this The Council ultimately did not take any action on the proposals that were submitted. In July of 2026, the The Council approved an engagement letter with Shaheen & Gordon law firm for specific legal counsel to I advised them that when they vote to approve the engagement letter, they should at least make it Shaheen & Gordon did not submit a proposal in the March 2026 RFQ process. It does not appear that this When I look at the manner in which the first and second investigations were conducted there are When I told Attorney Vrountas that I was going to record the interview he pulled out his own recorder to The recording of these types of interviews is common especially due to the length of the interviews and the We do not have the ability to listen to all of the questions asked and the full responses actually provided. I was advised of the first investigation by the investigator Attorney Maher. Although the Town Council The second investigation was handled very differently.<\/strong> This investigation began secretly without any This did not make any sense to me for a number of reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kellie asked what she should do? I told her not to do anything until we found out what was going on. I I did not receive any response from Chairman Dunn until 5 days later on May 18, 2026. In that email I also asked him about what records I needed to preserve as his email did not specify which records. His Several days later (after May 18, 2026, email possibly May 22, 2026) I received a call from Attorney Bailey. The report completed by Attorney Maher is fact based on the information contained within his The interview was interrupted just after 6 pm on Sept. 21 by Chairman Dunn. Chairman Dunn brought me They told me the termination would be for cause but would not provide the reasons why. Attorney Chairman Dunn walked with me to my office where I logged out of my computer and turned over my keys. Attorney Vrountas makes statements regarding \u201cprobable cause\u201d and \u201cit appears\u201d.<\/strong> What does that On page 18 of the report Attorney Vrountas states, \u201ctold multiple employees their role was advisory only\u201d. On page 20 Attorney Vrountas references Chief Bernard\u2019s concern that the new fire chief is paid at the Hindering Investigations Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Attorney Vrountas makes several findings that I interfered with the investigations. His report leaves out Several employees came to me to discuss their concerns regarding the investigation. The important part of In each of these interactions the employee approached me, I did not approach them. Equally important, Why didn\u2019t he do that? Instead, he makes assertions in his report instead. After I was terminated on I asked Chairman Dunn to obtain the legal invoices from Attorney Vrountas regarding legal expenses for Attorney Vrountas made a different assertion. He believes without any supporting evidence that I was Attorney Vrountas makes the assertion that I knew about the second investigation, the During this time an investigation is underway by Attorney Maher regarding a complaint about the Town No notice of Vrountas investigation was provided as was the case in both of Attorney Maher\u2019s Somehow, I was supposed to come to the conclusion that the second non-public session with sealed See the email thread between Dave Wholley and I on May 15, 2026, (Page 353 of the Vrountas report). In Chairman Dunn and Attorney Vrountas apparently believed that they could somehow keep this Attorney Vrountas asserts that I have intimidated employees but does not provide any testimony from Merit Increase regarding Chief Kim Bernard<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Attorney Vrountas refers to that merit increase I provided to Chief Bernard as \u201cfake\u201d in his words. When I The evaluation was completed based upon the Chief\u2019s performance as police chief. We use the job The spike in traffic accidents involving police officers is something I needed to address. One accident in There is no secret that there have been disagreements between Chief Bernard and me. When you Chief Bernard has performed very well as police chief. I will repeat what I have said to him and to others, Attorney Vrountas never asked what factors I used to determine Chief Bernard\u2019s performance or why I Complaint regarding Councilor Bouchard<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Attorney Vrountas makes reference to a complaint filed against Councilor Bouchard in the context of the Attorney Vrountas chose not to put any of this information in his report. These are particularly important Public Safety IT Coordinator Position (Tom Roy)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n When I first came to Londonderry I reviewed the various operations of the Town.<\/strong> I looked for areas These two people were in essence employees under a contract. This situation was in direct violation of IRS I worked with Tara and made the changes necessary to end the contract with the LLC owned by Tom The Town\u2019s IT situation was not where it needed to be. We were behind where we needed to be for a I developed a plan to make the most of the IT personnel resources existing.<\/strong> The Public Safety IT The plan was to keep the Public Safety IT Coordinator in the PD budget, and the person would remain I articulated this during the FY2027 budget process in November and December of 2025 when we were Chief Bernard asked if I would meet with Tom Roy to discuss his interest in the CS Director position. The That he wanted to wait to discuss this with the Chief and Deputy Chief when they returned from the Tom Roy never submitted an application for the position. I never heard back from him again regarding the Tom Roy submitted his resignation at the beginning of April<\/strong>. He began working for a bank in Maine The Chief came to me and told me that Tom was thinking about coming back but had not confirmed it yet. I told the Chief that I wanted to meet with Tom to discuss why he wanted to come back first. The Chief There was another employee in the department who had been and would continue to assist with hands on Chief Bernard was out of the office and Deputy Chief Breen coordinated the meeting. Tom\u2019s father-in-law The meeting occurred in the conference room at Town Hall. I asked Tom what had changed and why he I urged him to reach out to Jeremy to discuss that further with him. See the memorandum from Tara Koza I told Tom that it was not practical for him to work remotely as he would be needed on premise to assist Tom stated that this would create hardship for him. I told him that I understood that. DC Breen asked I felt it was necessary to make clear what the expectations would be as the position transitioned into the Subsequently, the PS IT Coordinator position was filled by another person who works on premises at the Attorney Vrountas draws his own assertion that the purpose of the meeting was to push Tom out.<\/strong> I subsequently (after his May departure date) signed a contract for him to provide contracted services to There are repeated examples in the report submitted by Attorney Maher and the report submitted by Personal Conflict Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Attorney Vrountas states in this report that I admitted that this was personal from my perspective That information is retained in our various electronic systems. This is commonly done in all of our ADM-108 Ethics Policy<\/mark><\/strong> The example of the unfair labor practice filed by the police supervisory union was referenced by \u00a74.03 Town Attorney: The Council shall engage as needed such attorneys as are deemed in the best Attorney Bailey specializes in municipal labor law. Sections \u00a73.04, \u00a74.01 \u00a74.02 of the Town Charter I received an email from Attorney Bill Christie regarding his interpretation of the Charter provisions in this Attorney Christie in his response to the Londonderry Times right to know litigation case regarding the I contacted Attorney Bailey to represent the Town on the unfair labor practice in before the PELRB There is no indication that Attorney Vrountas in his report contacted Attorney Bailey to ascertain the Attorney Bailey later notified me that Attorney Christie contacted her and stated that he would be filing an I contacted Councilor Bouchard and asked him if the Town Council has met to approve the replacement of When I met with Chairman Dunn and Councilor Faber on the morning I addressed this issue with I asked him to make that change before the Town Council meeting that evening or I would address it with Responding to Councilor Shawn Faber\u2019s Assertions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n When I was being interviewed for the position of Town Manager, I was interviewed initially by each of the After I began work with the Town a presentation was made to the Council regarding the software. The Administrative Services Director Kirsten Hildonden negotiated with OpenGov for a lower cost which she The $212,136 was included in the proposed FY 2027 Budget that I provided to the Town Council at the end During December 15, 2025, joint meeting Councilor Faber asked what we were committed to paying The discussion regarding the software continued over several meetings. The Town Council, with advice On March 4, 2026, Councilor Faber issued his Facebook statement regarding the software and other On March 16, 2026, at the Town Council meeting (44 minutes, 10 seconds into the recoding of the It is true that I did not request approval from the Town Council to enter into the contract before I did so in Councilor Faber stated he felt caught off guard and would have appreciated being notified of the During the March 16, 2026, Town Council meeting I did not call Councilor Faber a liar. Councilor Faber I have identified various issues that bring into question the conclusions made by Attorney Vrountas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shaun Mulholland<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
The investigation conducted by Attorney Eric Maher under the direction of Attorney Elizabeth Bailey was
conducted in a quite different manner. Attorney Maher notified me that there was a complaint and that he
was investigating the complaint. He requested my assistance in notifying employees that they would be
asked to participate in the process. I notified the specified employees and directed them to participate in
the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
the Town Council acting as a body, not an individual Councilor, spending public funds to initiate such an
investigation. The complaint was received in January and the investigation launched shortly thereafter. I
notified Chairman Ron Dunn that the Council has to vote to initiate such an investigation in accordance
with the Town Charter. The Council must act as a body. This is clear in the Charter as well as State Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I brought this to Chairman Dunn attention, I advised him of the steps that needed to be taken to at least
correct the action that was taken illegally and legitimize the investigation moving forward. Chairman
Dunn consulted with Attorney Bailey and agreed to bring the matter before the Town Council in nonpublic session and for the Council vote to approve conducting the investigation. The Council met in nonpublic session on April 20, 2026, to take that action. Those minutes are sealed. Presumably they did vote
to conduct the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
as we can see from the investigative report filed by Attorney Maher the investigation was mostly complete
other than interviewing Councilor Bouchard and myself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
like a copy of the non-public minutes template for the meeting that he would need to complete. Normally I
would generate the non-public minutes utilizing this template except for obvious reasons I would not be in
the non-public session. Chairman Dunn stated, yes and asked if I could provide him with two paper copies.
At the time I did not know why, however that became clear from Chairman Dunn\u2019s email that I later
received on May 18, 2026. In that email Chairman Dunn stated that the Council voted on April 20, 2026, to
conduct what is commonly referred to as the second investigation that was to be conducted by Attorney
Chris Vrountas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
investigation that involved most of the same employees and involved most of the same anonymous
allegations. Both anonymous complaints have similar word usage. It is unclear whether the complainant
is the same person. The first investigation was still ongoing when the second investigation was initiated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
firm or firms to represent the Town on legal matters. The Town received proposals from three firms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
by Attorney Elizabeth Bailey and Attorney Megan Carrier.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
code enforcement legal services.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
All three firms provide legal services for a number of municipalities and have experience in the specialized
area of municipal law. Additionally, all three firms have lawyers that have experience in municipal labor
law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
service. She provided me with a list of firms and asked questions about a number of them. She further
inquired about some of those firms. The Mitchell Group in Laconia focuses exclusively on municipal law.
She also asked about the Vrountas, Chadler and Ayer firm. I told her the Mitchell Group does have
considerable experience in municipal law and represents a large number of municipalities however they
did not submit a proposal. The Vrountas, Chandler and Ayer firm does not appear to have any municipal
law experience and also did not submit a proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Council approved the engagement letter with Sheehan & Phinney to provide general legal services to the
Town. Attorney Bailey advised the Town Council that it should obtain other legal counsel involving
matters between the Town Manager and the Town Council. She stated her firm felt that they should no
longer be involved in those matters and that the Town Council should obtain other legal counsel so that
they had confidence in the advice they were provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
advise the Town Council on matters involving the Town Manager. This engagement letter was approved
retroactively back to June 15. Chairman Dunn and Councilor Faber had engaged with the law firm of
Shaheen & Gordon and incurred cost prior to the Town Council voting to approve to expend funds to
retain this firm. I discussed this with Chairman Dunn and Councilor Faber.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
retroactive to the date they engaged the firm of Shaheen & Gordon and began to expend public funds. This
does not legitimize the action, however at least will allow us to pay the firm for that period of time which
we would otherwise be liable to pay. There is a repeated pattern of unilateral action by Chairman Dunn of
expending funds and taking action without the approval of the Town Council. The Charter and State Law
are clear that the Council must act as a body. No individual Councilor has the authority to enter into
agreements, expend public funds or take any other action on behalf of the Council without approval of the
Town Council acting as a body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
firm has any municipal law experience or municipal labor law experience. Attorney William (Bill) Christie
was the attorney assigned to provide this service from Shaheen & Gordon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
some distinct differences.<\/strong> The interviews conducted by Attorney Maher were audio recorded other than
one exception due to a technical problem with the interview with GIS Coordinator Mike Bazegian. The
interviews conducted by Attorney Vrountas were not recorded except for the interview he conducted with
me. This interview was recorded because I had my own recorder and insisted that it be recorded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
record the interview as well. He clearly had the ability to record the interviews but for some reason did
not record the interviews with other employees. In the recorded interview that I participated in with
Attorney Vrountas and his paralegal Allision, he stated several times he understood the importance of
context in the questions and the answers. This is why recording the interviews is critically important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
context of the questions asked. My interview alone was just over 5 hours at the point where it was cut off
and never finished. The ability to remember what specifically was said and the context in which it was
said is particularly important, especially with what is at stake in this matter. We do not have recordings of
the interviews with the other people interviewed by Attorney Vrountas to understand the context of the
questions asked and the answers provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We only have Attorney Vrountas recollection and the notes he generated during these interviews. I do not
know how many of these interviews that Allison or others participated in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
never provided any document to provide to the staff that there was a complaint, the Council has initiated
an investigation regarding that complaint and that they were being asked to cooperate with the
investigation. The notice and request by Attorney Maher allowed me to notify the staff that there was an
investigation being conducted and the specific staff who would be interviewed were notified and directed
to participate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
formal notice. When Deputy Town Manager Kellie Caron was contacted by Attorney Vrountas she came to
me on May 13, 2026, and asked if I was aware of who and why Attorney Vrountas was asking to meet with
her per the request of Chairman Ron Dunn regarding the Town Manager.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Attorney Maher of the law firm of Donohue, Tucker and Ciandella. Attorney Vrountas is not a
member of that firm.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
conducted by Attorney Maher.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
by the Council. This is especially important in light of the way the first investigation was initiated and
how it was corrected.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
without official notice that an investigation had been approved, was highly inappropriate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
told her this sounds like a scam. We both wondered if other employees had been contacted. I sent an
email out this same day to department heads notifying them of this. I blind copied the members of the
Town Council on this email. I did this in light of my prior experience with Chairman Dunn taking unilateral
action that could only be legally conducting by the Town Council acting as a body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chairman Dunn stated the Town Council had approved an investigation on April 20, 2026, and directed me
to send a corrected email to the department heads notifying them that there was investigation and that
they were expected to cooperate with that investigation. Further, that I was to cooperate with the
investigation and preserve documents related to that investigation. I forwarded that email to department
heads and stated that I would cooperate with the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
email did not specify what the investigation was about. I also inquired with Chairman Dunn that shouldn\u2019t
the staff preserve any relevant documents that they might have. We would need to at least have some idea
of what this investigation was about to determine what documents that would need to be preserved.
Chairman Dunn never responded to the questions I asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She stated Chairman Dunn was also conferenced in this call. She confirmed that there was an investigation
being conducted by the Town Council involving a complaint against the Town Manager. She suggested
that it would make sense to have HR Director Tara Koza be the point person to coordinate interviews and
assist Attorney Vrountas with logistics regarding the investigation and wanted to know if I agreed. I said
that this made a lot of sense. I subsequently issued a directive to Tara to provide that assistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
report.<\/strong> The report by Attorney Vrountas draws conclusions that add to his personal view. I am troubled
that he includes certain information in his report and excludes relevant information that was part of my
interview that sheds a different light on the issues. I find it concerning that he completed his report
without finishing his interview with me. Further, he does not have the supporting document that I advised
him of which corroborate what I have been saying. I was not able to forward the list of documents that I
referred to in the interview.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
into the conference room where he, Councilor Faber and Attorney Bill Christie offered to pay out the
remainder of my contract through 2028 if I would resign. I told them that I would not accept that offer.
They did not provide a written offer and told me they needed an answer now because they planned to
terminate my employment at the beginning of the Council meeting 45 minutes from now at 7 pm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Christie told me that I would not be entitled to a public hearing or any other due process provisions that
are in the Charter or my employment agreement. He further stated that he was an attorney and that I
should consider his advice because this offer was in my best interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At that point I no longer had access to the files containing the documents that I stated I would provide to
Attorney Vrountas. It appears from his report that after my departure he still has not been provided with
those documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
mean? Either there is a finding on the issue or there isn\u2019t. He makes these assertions throughout the
report. Probably because it is the standard to arrest someone. It is not the standard to convict the person.
That is a much higher standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Where did he get this from? Which employee or employees stated this? His report does not say.
On page 19 of the report Attorney Vrountas states, \u201c \u2026 another described him as \u2018dishonest, unprofessional
and unfair\u2019\u201d. Which employee said this? His report does not say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
same rate he is. Chief Bernard claimed that he had more time in service. Chief Bernard also receives an
$8,000 annual stipend from the airport as part of the contract with the airport. Fire Chief Young has more
time in service as a fire chief than Chief Bernard does as a police chief. Additionally, Chief Young has a
college degree and is finishing his master\u2019s degree. Chief Bernard does not have any college degrees.
Attorney Vrountas does not include any of that information in his report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
vital information that I provided in my interview with him and makes assertions that are without basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
this that Attorney Vrountas did not put in his reports was that the employees came to me. They initiated
the discussion; I did not reach out to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
meet with Attorney Vrountas and not notify me that she was doing so. She was somehow
supposed to either leave work or not show up for work to meet him without me knowing. She did
not feel comfortable lying to me and saying she was sick or had some other reason not to be at work.
Part of her job is answering the phones and greeting people when they come to the Town Manager\u2019s
Office. I answer the phone and cover the front desk when she is not at her desk. She also stated that
she did not like how she was being treated by Attorney Vrountas. She stated she felt like she was
being interrogated. She stated this is all BS. She stated the interview was not recorded.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
when she was questioned a second time when they asked her the same questions again and appeared
to be looking for her to change her answers. She stated that she did not wish to meet with them
again. She stated there is nothing here and that I did not have to worry about this.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
guidance as to what she should do. She stated she was asked to spend a number of additional days
with Attorney Vrountas and assist them with this investigation. At that time the HR department was
handling a large volume of work that required Tara\u2019s attention. She also stated that Attorney
Vrountas wanted access to all of the Town\u2019s emails, however the request was less than clear. I asked
her where they looking to penetrate our firewall and tunnel into our email and other documents
remotely.
She did not know. I stated that would be a problem. Allowing someone from outside to gain access to
our systems is problematic for security reasons. Additionally, these requests would likely require
pulling our limited personnel resources from other critical tasks to accomplish this. We would need
to supplement our staff with outside support to offset what was being requested of us at least for a
brief period of time presumably. I told Tara this type of request goes beyond the scope of the
directive I gave to her to assist Attorney Vrountas. I told her I would reach out to Chairman Dunn to
get further clarification.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
none of them discussed the questions they were asked, the answers they gave or said anything about the
allegations that they might have been told about. Attorney Vrountas glosses over and does not believe that
I did not approach the employees. He speculates in his report that I solicited information from these
employees. Attorney Vrountas provides no evidence that this is the case. There is no indication he
reached back to these employees and asked them questions to determine that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
September 21, he had a chance to ask questions of those employees to verify this and determine whether
these discussions actually tainted or in any way interfered in the investigation. Attorney Vrountas
provides no evidence that the interactions listed above actually influenced the investigations. He makes
assertions instead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
the months of April, May and June 2026. We needed to close out the FY2026 budget year which ended at
the end of June. Chairman Dunn stated he would do so. Chairman Dunn did not get back to me on this, so I
asked him again to make the request. Chairman Dunn never got back to me after the second request. I
asked Comptroller Sarah Lee to reach out to Attorney Vrountas directly to obtain those invoices. We never
received the invoices we requested. We had to close out the FY2026 budget at the end of August 2026.
Unfortunately, these expenses which should have been charged to the FY2026 budget would now have to
be charged to the FY2027 budget that began on July 1, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
seeking these legal invoices to find out information regarding the conduct of the investigation. He did not
include any of my explanation in his report of why we were seeking the legal bills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
investigation he was conducting prior to him contacting Kellie Caron.<\/strong> If we look at the context in
which that occurred a different rational explanation emerges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Manager. I am aware of this on May 13, 2026, when Kellie comes into my office seeking guidance as to
how to respond to Attorney Vrountas\u2019s request for an interview. Attorney Maher has conducted two
investigations that the Town has contracted to conduct. The first was the complaint filed by former Town
Councilor John Farrell regarding Deb Paul just prior to me starting employment with the Town that was
determined to be unfounded by Attorney Maher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
investigations. There was no engagement letter on file contracting with Vrountas, Chandler and Ayers firm
to provide services. I later had to tell Chairman Dunn that he needed to obtain a letter of engagement
which he later did and has portions redacted within it as to what tasks he was to perform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
minutes that I do not have access to resulted in a vote by the Town Council to engage Attorney Vrountas in
an investigation involving me. One has to wonder why the Town Council did not issue a letter signed by
the Council that Attorney Vrountas could have provided to those employees he intended to interview that
there was a legitimate investigation authorized by the Town Council, that he was engaged to conduct that
investigation and requesting or directing their cooperation\/participation in accordance with the Town
Charter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
that email I respond to Dave\u2019s question by saying staff should not participate in any discussions without
direction from me or a signed document from the Town Council<\/strong>. Attorney Vrountas does not reference
the phrase that is bold in this report. Instead, he asserts that I attempted to interfere in the investigation
and to disrupt the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
investigation secret and did not contemplate that the approach they used would not create questions and
uncertainty with staff. This seems rather unrealistic as it turned out to be. It is unclear what level of
experience Attorney Vrountas has with similar investigations, especially in a municipal setting where
transparency is a significant factor unlike a private sector work environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
employees that they felt they were bullied or intimidated. In fact, the evidence from employee testimony
in both reports, particularly the first investigation indicates the contrary. Employees can and did provide
opposing viewpoints on several of those situations, I changed the direction I was going in on several of
these issues. He provides no actual employee testimony that they felt I intimidated or bullied them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
look at the section of the report where he makes this statement, I find a lack of supporting information for
this assertion. I showed Attorney Vrountas a copy of the Chief\u2019s most recent personnel evaluation that I
completed of his performance. The evaluation was a positive performance evaluation after which I issued
the full merit increase to Chief Bernard in which he would be entitled to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
description of the position as well as the goals, objectives and tasks for the evaluation period. The
evaluation I completed regarding the Chief\u2019s performance was not fake. It was appropriate as it relates to
his performance as the police chief. Londonderry has a very high performing police department. The
Chief\u2019s leadership of the department is noteworthy and deserving of the full merit increase that he was
provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
particular (referred to by Attorney Vrountas) I asked the Chief to take a closer look at and the
determination of the cause of that accident which indicated the person who was hit from behind by a
police cruiser that was operating above the speed limit responding to a call without emergency lights or
sirens activated. The Chief did that and took the necessary corrective action involving that officer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
complete a personnel evaluation, you review the performance of the employee over the entire evaluation
period. You focus on what their job function is and what was expected of them. You do not focus on areas
you disagree with. You do not hold that against the employee. There are situations in which the employee
should have done things differently or could have done them better. You take those situations and you put
them in the context of the employee\u2019s overall performance over the full evaluation period. You focus on
those things they have done well, and you address areas they need to work on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
that Chief Bernard is a very good police chief. He performed above expectations and that shows in the
level of performance of our police department.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
issued the full merit increase. There is no indication that he spoke with anyone else or obtained any
documents that would indicate how the evaluation was created or anything to refute the evaluation and
merit increase. It does not appear that he examined how evaluations of other employees were conducted,
some of whom did not receive a full merit increase. It appears that he simply jumped to a convenient
conclusion that fit a narrative that it was fake and served my needs to cover my tracks that would refute
allegations of bullying and retribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
MFR I submitted to the Town Council regarding the Charter violation committed by Councilor Combes. He
infers that I treated Councilor Bouchard differently as he is perceived as a supportive of my cause as
opposed to Councilor Combes who is on the other side of the two factions within the Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
complaint that Attorney Maher was investigating which is discussed in Attorney Mahers report.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
were related to the business he operates. They did not involve violations of the Town Charter.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Policy, ADM-126. I notified the police chief and we both agreed this matter should be forwarded to
the Attorney General\u2019s as the police department would have a conflict. The police department took
an initial report, and the matter was turned over to the AG to take any action they deemed appropriate. I notified the members of the Town Council including Councilor Bouchard as to the actions I had taken.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
distinctions. I never stated to Attorney Vrountas that I wanted to \u201csurprise\u201d the Town Council. That is an
assertion that he makes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
that presented various levels of risk. The situation involving fire dispatch was one of these high-risk
issues. I also looked at where efficiencies could be made and how I could maximize resources. One of
those areas is the IT function. The Town had three people performing IT functions. One was an employee,
the Public Safety IT Coordinator in the police department (Tom Roy). The other two were contracted
through an LLC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
regulations and did not meet the multi part test under federal or state labor law that would allow them to
qualify as contractors. They were in essence employees and needed to be retained as such. This issue was
identified before I began working for the Town. Former Town Manager Mike Malaguti and Tara identified
this issue prior to my arrival. They began the process to address the issue which stopped when Mike left
employment with the Town.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hodge (one of the two contracted IT staff). We began the hiring process for the Cyber Services Director
(Jeremy Spaulding was hired to fill this position) and subsequently the Systems Administrator position
(Tom Hodge was later hired to fill this position).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
municipality of our size to provide modern efficient services. Limited staffing and lack of adequate
financial investment in software were apparent as the primary reason. Additional staffing for the IT
function was not a realistic possibility in the present budget nor was it likely to be added to the FY 2027
budget due to competing resource priorities that I identified in other departments\/functional areas of the
Town.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Coordinator in the police department provided services to that one department and not the rest of the
Town. One department had the dedicated resources of one full-time person while the other departments
of the Town had to share the other two positions. My plan was to aggregate those resources under the
Cyber Services Director. The Public Safety IT Coordinator would answer to the CS Director. This would
allow IT resources to be directed as needed to address priorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
housed in the police station. This position would primarily serve the needs of the PD and assist with the
needs of the fire department and back up the other two positions as needed, covering the rest of the Town.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
working through the budget. There are video recordings of these budget meetings with the Town Council
and Budget Committee in which I state the plan and that the funds for the Public Safety IT Coordinator
would remain in the PD budget and would not be transferred to the Cyber Services budget. Attorney
Vrountas makes an assertion to the contrary that I planned to transfer these funds to the Cyber Services
budget however he provides no evidence as to how he came to this assertion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chief coordinated the meeting in his conference room in the PD. I met with Tom Roy and outlined my
vision of the position and what the IT function would become. I felt that he was a strong candidate and
had a very good chance of being selected for the position. Tom asked a number of questions and stated
that he was interested in the position. I received an email from Tom stating that he spoke with his wife
and that he was interested in the position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
conference. Tom subsequently provided feedback on a google questionnaire document that Systems
Engineering provided to get an assessment of what the Town\u2019s IT infrastructure was at present. System
Engineering provided a technical advisor to assist us with interviewing candidates for the position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
position. I asked the Chief about this. He stated that Tom told him that he did not like the direction the IT
function was going in and was not interested in the position. He subsequently hired Jeremy Spaulding as
the CS Director, and he began employment in February 2026. I have discussed with Jeremy my plans to
aggregate the IT personnel resources under the CS Director. We both agreed that Jeremy had just started
and it would be some time before he was in a position to begin such a transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
close to where he lives. At this time, he was on terminal leave using up his leave time that would end
during the first week of May 2026. We began the hiring process to hire someone to fill this position. A
number of candidates were selected for interviews. Tom Roy agreed to assist the PD with those interviews
that had already been scheduled. Sometime around the end of April Tom met with the Chief and expressed
his interest in coming back to work for the Town in his old position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I asked the Chief what has changed? Why does he want to come back? He is aware of the plan and that
plan has not changed. The Chief stated that the job with the bank was not what he thought it would be. He
had only moved recently, within the last couple of months to Maine on a permeant basis from his residence
in NH. I asked the Chief if he was aware of Tom seeking other employment other than the bank. The Chief
stated he was unaware that Tom sought other employment. I asked the Chief to check with him on that.
The Chief later did and confirmed that Tom had applied for the IT Director position in Bedford NH.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
agreed and stated he would set up the meeting. The Chief copied me on a subsequent email replying to an
email from Tom that he was rescinding his letter of resignation that the Chief originally accepted. My
response to the Chief is documented by email to him. The Chief also relayed to me that Tom proposed to
work from home four days per week remotely and that he asked for an increase in pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
work that needed to occur when Tom was working remote. See the memorandum from Tara on page 364
of the Vrountas report. Attorney Vrountas does not discuss this document from Tara in his report; he adds
it as an addendum. He also does not provide any discussion or make any reference in his report of my
statements to this effect that occurred in my interview<\/p>\n\n\n\n
passed away at the end of April. He told DC Breen that he would make arrangements to come. I suggest
that the meeting be delayed until the week after, which would give him time to be with his family. DC
Breen replied back and stated that Tom would be in the day after the funeral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
wanted to come back. He stated his situation had changed and wanted to come back. I reiterated the plan
for the IT function moving forward and how this would impact this position. I also said that there was not
a date certain when the transition would occur. I stated that Jeremy was still new in his position and not in
a position to begin the transition. He had only been on the job for over two months, and it would be some
time before the transition would occur that I could not confirm when.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
on page 364. I explained this to Attorney Vrountas in my interview however he did not include my
statements in his report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
staff within the FD and back up the rest of the IT needs for the Town. I also said department heads
determine when their employees can work remote however this was not practical for this position. I had
discussed this issue with Jeremy who agreed that it would not be practical for him to work remotely on a
consistent basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
when Tom needed to get back to me if he still wanted to return to his job. I told DC Breen in the meeting
that Tom did not need to get back to me. That he already provided his intent to come back to work next
week and that my expectation was that he would return to work next week unless he chose not to. Tom
subsequently decided that he would not return to his position and submitted an email to that effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
new IT (Cyber Services) operation. It would have been unfair for Tom to come back and not have an
understanding of the change that would occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PD five days per week and the planned transition for that position occurred on August 10, 2026, in
accordance with the transition plan proposed by Jeremy. The job description was changed to reflect the
transition and was in the process of approval after meeting and conferring with the union. This resulted in
the unfair labor practice that is discussed in the letter and as I discuss further in this response memo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That is not the case. He does not identify anyone involved in this matter who made a statement to that
effect in his report. There is no rationale motivation for me to push him out. He had a solid reputation for
performing well in the PD from PD staff. When Tom provided contract services for the rest of the Town in
the past. No one on staff had anything negative to say about his performance when he was doing that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
the PD. Attorney Vrountas references this and states this was done because the PD needed him. That is
very true. We do not have sufficient IT personnel resources and the person who replaced Tom was still
new to the position. Unfortunately, we did lose a good employee, Tom Roy. However, the operational
needs of the Town have to take priority. I could not agree to allowing him to work remote four days per
week based on the operational needs of the Town.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney Vrountas that staff members have disagreed with me on different matters. None of them felt they
were retaliated against for expressing a different opinion or disagreeing with me. That is other than
possibly Chief Bernard although no example of retaliation was actually provided in either report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
and that I should have recused myself in various parts of this report.<\/strong> He states that I was conducting
my own investigation. What he did not say, and he did not ask about is how and why I collected various
documents. It is personal in that the complaints are against me. My interactions with staff by their very
nature include documents and emails. In those circumstances I documented those interactions either with
relevant documents and\/or emails.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
interactions and particularly so in the political environment in Londonderry. We have deep factions on the
Town Council. We have illegal actions that have occurred in the past and continue. It is rather apparent
that some members of the Town Council do not want me to be serving as the Town Manager. It is prudent
for me to retain the relevant documents for the relevant actions that a portion of the Town Council took in
terminating my employment. That is vastly different than me conducting my own investigation to
somehow subvert or undermine the two Town Council investigations that were underway. See the
definition of Personal Interest below,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3.6 Personal Interest; Any direct non-financial benefit or personal interest in the outcome of a matter
that could influence an employee\u2019s official actions. Examples include family, employment, or business
relationships that could bias decision-making against the public interest<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney Vrountas as a personal conflict. Attorney Bailey of Sheehan & Phinney served as general legal
counsel for the town for many years. The Town Council reaffirmed this with the approval of the July 2026
engagement letter they approved. The section of the Town Charter articulates the how Town legal counsel
is engaged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
interest of the town to provide legal advice to the Council, Manager, town departments, and other or
agencies and represent the Town in any legal proceeding, criminal prosecutions, and traffic violations.<\/em>
Such attorneys shall, on Council direction, perform any other duties prescribed by this Charter or by
ordinance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
articulate the authority and responsibility of the Town Manager regarding personnel matters. There are
no provisions in the Town Charter that require the Town Manager assistance from the Town\u2019s general
legal counsel to represent the Town or seek advise on legal matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
regard and that he felt that only the Town Council could approve in each instance when the Town Manager
needed to use legal counsel. I emailed him back and stated I had questions about his interpretation. He
agreed to speak with me. I proposed several dates\/times for a phone conversation. He stated he would be
on vacation during those periods. I proposed new dates\/times. He never responded back to me again
regarding my request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
release of the investigative reports in late September that one of the reasons constituting cause for the
termination of the Town Manager was a failure to comply with protocols regarding use of legal counsel. I
have never been provided with any such legal protocol from the Town Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
counsel?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
because she is the general legal counsel for the Town. She has extensive experience in municipal labor
matters of this nature. Tara and I reviewed unfair labor practice complaint with Attorney Bailey. She
believed that the actions that I had taken regarding who the Public Safety IT Coordinator would answer to
were within the rights of management. That this was within the Town Manager\u2019s authority. She filed an
appearance on behalf of the Town and began providing a response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
process of how she became involved in the case and the legitimacy of the actions that I had taken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
appearance and representing the Town on this matter and that she should file her notice to withdraw from
the case. She stated that Attorney Christie would be in contact with Tara and I regarding the matter.
Attorney Christie never contacted me about this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney Bailey with Attorney Christie on this matter. He stated not to his knowledge. He later got back to
me and stated he reached out to Chairman Dunn and asked him about how this happened. Councilor
Bouchard stated that Chairman Dunn told him that Attorney Bailey did not want to be involved in the case
and wished to withdraw. Councilor Bouchard stated that Chairman Dunn asked Attorney Christie to
represent the Town on this matter. I called Attorney Bailey and she stated that it is not correct. She stated
that she did not ask to be removed from this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chairman Dunn. I asked him to allow Attorney Bailey to represent the Town on this matter as she has
experience with municipal labor matters and Attorney Christie does not. I stated to him that it appears
that he took unilateral action to remove Attorney Bailey from the case and replace her with Attorney
Christie. I reminded him that he does not have the authority to act as an individual Councilor, that the
Town Council must act as a body when making decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
the full Town Council. He stated he would and asked that I be available at 6 pm to meet with the Town
Council. He stated they would be discussing how legal bills were calculated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Town Councilors separately. Councilor Faber asked a number of questions, some of which were related to
digital transformation of functions. I discussed the OpenGov permitting & licensing software as well as the
asset management software. He stated he was a software engineer. We had a somewhat lengthy
discussion regarding software, and he expressed interest as well as the need to modernize the Town\u2019s
software.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Council approved increases in the building permit fees that had not been increased in years. The increase
in fees approved by the Council was intended and did subsequently cover the cost of the software over the
period of implementation and moving forward for the annual license fees for the software. The purpose
was to ensure the cost of the software was paid for by developers and people applying for building
permits. The people actually utilizing the software and not the property taxpayers as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
was successfully able to do so. I signed the OpenGov contract on August 27, 2025. The software
implementation would cover a four-year period. The cost in the FY2026 budget was $94,717 for license
fees, software purchase and implementation costs. In the FY2027 budget $212,136 would need to be
appropriated for that phase of the project implementation. The cost to complete the implementation in
the subsequent years is detailed in the contract and would require appropriations for each of those years
during the budget process for each of those years. The contract includes a non-appropriation clause, see
page 209 of the Vrountas report containing the contract with OpenGov in section 6.4 of the agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
of October 2025. The budget process began in November 2025 through January 2026. The FY2027
Budget year begins on July 1, 2026. Budget discussions regarding the software and the costs were
discussed on November 17, 2025, December 11, 2025, December 15, 2025, and into January 2026 joint
Town Council\/Budget Committee meetings and finally at Deliberative Session of Town Meeting in
February 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
regarding the proposed appropriation in the FY2027 Budget. I told him \u201cZero\u201d. There was a nonappropriation clause in the agreement. If the Town does not appropriate the funds we are not committed
to expending any additional funds. Councilor Faber stated that he knew we needed it, but could the
implementation be delayed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
from the Budget Committee, made a number of budget cuts to the then proposed FY2027 Budget. The
Town Council chose not to cut the funds for the OpenGov software. During the Deliberative Session of
Town Meeting (February of 2026) the software funds proposed in the budget for the OpenGov software
were discussed. Councilor Faber stated that the decision was made for us and that we (the Council) do
have a choice in the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
matters. This post stated the Town Manager buried a $678,000 expenditure in the default budget. This
statement is not correct. The cost was not buried in the budget. It was $212,136 in the budget which had
been discussed at multiple meetings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
meeting) I discussed and presented video segments of the FY2027 meetings involving the discussions of
the OpenGov software and the proposed appropriations in the FY2027 Budget for the software
implementation. This was the issue that I was addressing. I was not addressing the signing of the contract
on August 27, 2025, I was addressing the FY2027 Budget appropriation only.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
August of 2025. The reason I did not do that is because I was not required to do so. I was in compliance
with the Town\u2019s purchasing policy. Expenditures over $100,000 require Town Council approval. The
expenditure in the FY2026 budget was $94, 717. The contract has a non-appropriation clause. Funds
would need to be appropriated in the FY2027 Budget to continue the project as I have discussed above for
the FY2027 Budget process. If the funds from the proposed FY2027 Budget were cut the contract would
terminate and the Town would have no other financial obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
agreement. Subsequent to the Town Council discussed changes to the purchasing policy, TC-910. The
Council for a period of approximately one month made a temporary requirement that the Council approval
for expenditures on software and other items that require over $15,000 Council approval. During that
period of time, I presented those cost items for approval, all of which they approved. Ultimately the
Council chose not to make changes to the purchasing policy and the temporary limits expired. TC-910
remains in effect today from its original approval in 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
stated that I was a liar. I presented the actual videos of those meetings in which the FY2027 Budget
appropriations were discussed. I stated Councilor Faber\u2019s statements were incorrect. I did not make
assertions, I left that up to those listening to make their own conclusions as to whether he was,<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n