Londonderry Still Left In The Dark On Details Of Town Manager's Termination

By ZACH LAIRD, InDepth NH

LONDONDERRY, NH — Drama and secrecy go hand-in-hand in Londonderry Town Council meetings lately, as the public has still not been given any more information about the sudden firing of Town Manager Shaun Mulholland.

Mulholland was officially terminated as the Town Manager during the Sept. 21 council meeting following multiple investigations, and quickly replaced with Police Chief Kim Bernard as acting town manager. Neither Mulholland nor the public have been given information regarding the findings of the two investigations or what they were about.

Councilor Dan Bouchard said during Monday night’s meeting that it’s not about whether the Town Manager (Mulholland) should or should not have been fired, “but about the process of how this was done, and the validity of the process that was used by three councilors (Chair Ron Dunn, Vice Chair Shawn Faber, and Ted Combes),” Bouchard said.

Bouchard said when Dunn formed his legal subcommittee in June that Dunn stated it would save the town legal costs, but instead the process has drawn up even more legal costs. Bouchard noted Dunn said the subcommittee would interact with the council (and) sent out emails to councilors, but neither has happened.

He said the subcommittee was also supposed to review documents regarding the investigations against Mulholland, limit the cost and share the information with the council, which has also not happened. Dunn responded that the subcommittee’s legal opinion has been shared, but Bouchard and Councilor Deb Paul stated neither of them had received it.

Bouchard reiterated that terminating the Town Manager was never discussed with the entire council prior to the last meeting on Sep. 21, and that the special committee — which requested a legal opinion regarding the proper procedure for terminating Mulholland’s employment — expended funds without the approval of the entire council.

“When the council put out a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and we were looking to hire a legal firm, we had three firms submit the information under the RFQ, all with municipal law experience. I asked for another legal opinion when we got this legal opinion. When we received legal opinions in the past, you (Dunn) have allowed Councilor (Shawn) Faber to get a second opinion.

“But in this case, where you have a legal opinion from your handpicked attorney — with no municipal law experience — that says our town charter is wrong, you refuse my request. I find it interesting that the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office recently reviewed the charter, and nothing was brought up about this being wrong, unenforceable, illegal, or the state statute superseding what we have in our charter since 1996,” Bouchard said.

Bouchard then made a motion for the Town Council to receive a second legal opinion on the matter. As he was going through reading the motion aloud, Dunn attempted to say Bouchard had gone over his five-minute limit.

Paul interjected that council rules do not state that a councilor has a limited time.

“As the Chair, I can override him,” Dunn said.

Paul then stated Dunn was violating free speech before the council went on to vote on Bouchard’s motion. Paul supported it, but it ultimately failed when Dunn and Combes voted against it.

Dunn attempted to call a recess after trying to move on with the next item on the meeting’s agenda, and walked away as Councilor Combes followed. Bouchard and Paul stayed put, though moments later the microphone feed was cut off, then the video.

When the meeting resumed with all councilors minus Faber (who was not in attendance), Bouchard referenced the Town Charter regarding a councilor’s objection.

“There’s nothing in the charter, nothing in the council rules that says that privilege objection cannot be used on a personnel matter. There’s nothing in the charter or the Town Council rules that says the Chair can refuse the councilor’s objection either,” Bouchard said before asking if Dunn had also received a legal opinion on this prior to the Sept. 21 meeting.

When Bouchard asked Dunn why he allowed other councilors in the past yet refused him Dunn did not respond.

Bouchard says any town employee in Londonderry has a due process that is followed when their actions need to be corrected. He said if they do something wrong, they allow them the opportunity to be heard, and present their case before any termination. He said Dunn, Faber and Combes decided to “ignore this process, and probably are not even aware of when they voted to fire the town manager.”

He then made a motion to reinstate Mulholland so the town could follow the due-process as described in the charter, which was seconded by Paul, but ultimately failed also with ‘no’ votes from Dunn and Combes.

Earlier in the meeting, residents concerned about the situation spoke up during the public comment segment to voice their support for Mulholland and a lack of transparency regarding his termination.

“We elected five council members, and only three council members deemed it necessary to do an investigation, excluding the other two as well. That does not seem to me that there’s any justification for that at all, except if you do all have a hidden agenda that you don’t want the other two to know about, then that would make sense to me,” Jane Cooper said.

Another resident Clarissa Navarro said, “I am disgusted by the complete lack of transparency surrounding the investigation and termination of our town manager… From where I’m sitting, you have now managed to raise serious questions about both the hiring process and the firing process. You signed a contract that spelled out a very specific process for terminating the town manager. Yet, based on what we’ve been told, none of that happened. If you did, then stop hiding and tell us explicitly what happened.”

Dunn and Combes did not return requests for further comment.

This story was originally published by InDepth NH.