TOWNSEND — The State Ethics Commission has issued a decision finding that Townsend Water Department Superintendent David Vigeant twice violated the conflict of interest law.
The Ethics Commission said Vigeant provided the plans for a town water main project to a local business owner, Gary Shepherd, who is also the fire chief in town, and to an employee of one of his companies before the project went out to bid.
Shepherd’s business was subsequently the low bidder and was awarded the $4.7 million contract for the project. The decision orders Vigeant to pay $10,000 in civil penalties.
Vigeant said the town has a Townsend-first policy to give priority to local contractors for work, and he just emailed Shepherd a note reminding him the bid process was about to start on the project, and included the map of the area where the water main would be built, with directional drilling notations on it. He said it’s the same map that is in the town’s master plan, which is available to all contractors and is public information.
“I’m not corruptible, everyone knows that. I was raised to be a priest,” Vigeant said. He noted how he served in the Army where he was twice commended for his service, and also pointed out that the Townsend Water Department was just recognized by the state Legislature, receiving its 2025 Public Water Systems Award. He also said he helped save the town millions of dollars on recent water main replacement projects and the construction of the new Townsend Water Department building, in part by doing a lot of the work himself that other towns would hire expensive contractors to do and working extensive overtime hours.
Vigeant said he is looking into appealing, but is only hesitating because of the cost involved, as he’d have to pay a lawyer to take it to the Superior Court, as that’s the only recourse to appeal a decision from the State Ethics Commission.
“I can prove everything (was done legitimately),” Vigeant said. “You can tell I’m very upset with this because I’m being ram-rodded. … What did I do wrong? I did everything by the book.”
“We are aware of his situation at this time,” said interim Town Administrator Kieran Meehan, who said he spoke to the members of the Select Board about it, and, “The town has no comment. Mr. Vigeant has an appeals process.” Meehan indicated the town would not do anything in regard to the ruling until the time for any possible appeals had run out.
The decision found that the material facts in the case establish that Vigeant, by providing the water main project plans to Shepherd and to an employee of one of his companies, and not to any other prospective bidder before putting the project out to bid, twice violated the conflict of interest law’s prohibition against municipal employees using their official positions to obtain for themselves or others unwarranted privileges of substantial value.
“Substantial value” is defined by regulation as $50 or more.
“In sum, [Vigeant] gave Shepherd preferential treatment, which amounted to an unwarranted privilege …” the decision states. “The logical conclusion to be drawn from the evidence … is that having the plan drawings for a multi-million-dollar project weeks in advance of any other prospective bidder was an advantage worth at least $50.”
After deciding in 2021 to construct a new water treatment plant and water main extension, the Townsend Water Department hired an engineering firm to create plan drawings and specifications to enable the Water Department to put the project out to bid. On Jan. 27, 2023, within minutes of receiving near-final draft plans from the engineering firm, Vigeant forwarded the plans to the private business email accounts of Shepherd, owner and operator of Townsend businesses Overall Directional Drilling and Shepco Inc., and Shepherd’s son, a Shepco project manager.
On Feb. 2, 2023, Vigeant also forwarded the plans to an employee of Overall Directional Drilling. Vigeant did not forward the plan drawings to any other prospective bidder.
In late February 2023, Vigeant placed an ad in the Groton Herald announcing the water main project was available for bid and the project was also announced in the commonwealth’s Central Register.
Shepherd submitted a $4.7 million bid on behalf of Shepco, which was received by the Water Department on March 30, 2023, and was about $600,000 lower than the next lowest bid. On May 3, 2023, the Water Department awarded the contract to Shepco for $4.7 million.
A separate State Ethics Commission complaint was filed against Shepherd in November in relation to his bid on the water main project by his private company while serving as the town’s fire chief, which Shepherd is fighting.
Vigeant said that he thought that Shepherd also hadn’t done anything wrong.
The decision rejects Vigeant’s argument that he sent the project plans to Shepherd because, as fire chief, he “had an interest in fire prevention and suppression.” The decision notes that Vigeant did not send the plans to Shepherd as fire chief or to his town email address but instead “sent them to email addresses associated with Shepherd’s businesses.”
According to the decision, the commission decided that a civil penalty of $5,000 for each of Vigeant’s violations, totaling $10,000, was appropriate because there was no evidence in the summary decision record that Vigeant “personally benefitted, whether financially or otherwise, from sending the plan drawings to Shepco and Overall.”
The commission’s Enforcement Division filed an order to show cause against Vigeant on June 18, 2025, initiating the adjudicatory proceeding. On Sept. 19, the Enforcement Division filed an amended order to show cause and, on Sept. 29, a motion for summary decision. The commission heard the parties’ arguments on the motion on Feb. 26. The issuance of the decision on Wednesday grants the motion for summary decision and concludes the commission’s adjudicatory proceeding against Vigeant. Vigeant has 30 days within which to file an appeal in the Superior Court.
Vigeant said he never had a full hearing to give his side of the story to the State Ethics Commission, and that a full hearing should have been held instead of the issuance of the summary judgment.