Senate committee questions state’s use of paid administrative leave, timelines and costs

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 5 heard detailed testimony about the state’s use of paid administrative leave — termed “temporary relief from duty” by the Department of Human Resources — including how cases are investigated, who decides discipline, and why some employees remain on paid leave for months.

Commissioner Beth Bastigy, Commissioner of Human Resources, told the committee that appointing authorities (agency secretaries, department commissioners or their designees) may remove an employee from the workplace and place them on paid temporary relief from duty immediately when allegations arise and that “that is their prerogative for the first 30 days.” She said the department’s investigators then gather facts and typically aim to complete investigative reports in about 80 days before the appointing authority decides whether discipline is appropriate.

The issue matters because the process carries both financial and workforce consequences. Bastigy told senators that the Department of Human Resources’ investigative team completed more than 200 investigations in 2024 and that DHR’s calculation for 2024 payroll costs associated with temporary relief from duty was about $2,600,000 (a figure she said may be slightly higher when final pay periods are included). "We do our very best to meet that 80 days, and my investigators do an excellent job," Bastigy said.

But committee members and the legislative auditor have questioned what happens after DHR’s investigation ends. Bastigy said there is no statutory or departmental authority for DHR to impose a deadline on appointing authorities for resolving discipline decisions after they receive an investigative report; once DHR forwards findings, the appointing authority makes the legal determination. Thomas Waldman, general counsel to the department, explained the legal constraint for cases involving potential “serious discipline” (suspension without pay, demotion or termination): the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1985 Loudermill decision requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before those penalties are imposed, a process Bastigy and Waldman said can lengthen timelines because it requires scheduling multiple parties, union representation and a written 12-factors analysis by the appointing authority.

Union and employee advocates told the committee that prolonged paid leave can be punitive in practice even when employees are later cleared. Steve Howard, executive director of the Vermont State Employees Association, urged time limits and said, “We've actually asked this process to be condensed and to take less time,” noting that members who are eventually cleared can still spend extended periods off work. Howard also described cases where he said workplace politics can prolong removal from duty even after investigations conclude.

DHR officials and senators discussed options to reduce delays without eroding employees’ due-process protections. Deputy Commissioner Nicky Fuller proposed closer coordination with appointing authorities and more active follow-up by DHR field staff to keep cases moving. Committee members and DHR officials also raised prevention-focused responses: creating more performance-management specialists to help supervisors address conduct and performance issues early, reintegration support for employees returning from extended leave, and manager training to reduce escalation from performance problems to misconduct investigations.

Bastigy said DHR currently fields a team that includes six full-time investigators, three attorneys supporting general counsel Thomas Waldman, and 34 employees in field services who work with agencies on these matters. She told the committee the department is asking the legislature to approve $1,575,000 in the governor’s budget for a review of the state’s classification and compensation system; she said that broader modernization work could intersect with retention and performance-management goals.

Committee members pressed for better data. Bastigy said DHR can produce data trends but that the number of employees on paid relief ebbs and flows by year and by department. She said departments that oversee custody and care (for example, the Department of Corrections and the psychiatric hospital in Berlin within the Department of Mental Health) have a higher proportion of employees placed on temporary relief from duty because of risks to people in state custody.

No formal changes or votes were taken during the hearing. Senators signaled interest in exploring budget and policy steps, includingPilots for performance-management specialists, closer DHR follow-up with appointing authorities, and the DHR budget request during the upcoming budget cycle.

The discussion also clarified several procedural points: collective bargaining with the Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA) governs progressive-discipline rules; DHR investigators make factual findings but not legal conclusions about policy breaches; and, where appointing authorities contemplate serious discipline, the Loudermill notice-and-hearing obligations and a written 12-factors analysis apply before final action. Bastigy said DHR sometimes declines to treat complaints as misconduct when the matter is more appropriately managed as a performance issue and returns those matters to supervisors for corrective action.

The committee asked DHR to return during the budget process with additional data and to discuss the department’s classification/compensation review request and other resource needs.