Jeffrey Parfitt, a state-employed social worker indicted on a felony charge of unlawful sexual contact, was hired for his job not once, but twice.
Department for Children and Families (DCF) Commissioner David Yacovone said no red flags came up during Parfitt’s hiring process, which included a background check. But Beth Pelczar — a longtime DCF employee and Parfitt’s competition for the Rutland caseworker job — is convinced the department handled the process improperly.
Parfitt, a 26-year-old Middlebury resident, allegedly “performed an unnecessary and inappropriate examination” of a child in Maine, who had been one of his cases. Parfitt, who is on paid administrative leave, pleaded not guilty to the felony charge on Sept. 11, according to WABI-TV.
More than a year earlier, Parfitt, just several months into the new job at that point, was caught in the crosshairs of a legal dispute between Pelczar and the state.
After DCF hired Parfitt during the winter of 2011-2012, Pelczar filed a grievance, arguing she hadn’t been given a fair shot at the position.
Pelczar has worked for the department for roughly two decades and is currently a benefits programs specialist for DCF. She had also applied for another caseworker position earlier that summer, with the same result — no interview.
The state conceded that Pelczar, who met the minimum qualifications, should have been interviewed for the job Parfitt currently held.
By failing to do so, it had violated Article 18 of its collective bargaining agreement, and the state’s personnel policy. Article 18 states, “The Appointing Authority or designee shall consider all certified applicants” and dictates how long positions are posted.
The position was reopened in June 2012, and the department held a runoff between the two. Parfitt was selected a second time.
Pelczar filed another grievance with the Vermont Labor Relations Board. In August, the state settled with her for $6,200.
The VSEA provided legal counsel to Pelczar throughout her dealings with the state. Two days after she withdrew her grievance with the Labor Relations Board — because a settlement had been reached — the Bangor (Maine) Police Department issued a media release announcing Parfitt’s indictment. The VSEA is now representing Parfitt. But, VSEA spokesperson Doug Gibson explained, now that Pelczar’s case has concluded, the union is no longer representing her legally.
DCF Commissioner Dave Yacovone declined to comment on the hiring process, citing the department’s confidentiality policy for personnel matters.
Steven Collier, general counsel for the Vermont Department of Human Resources, confirmed the details of the settlement, but said it didn’t necessarily mean Pelczar’s complaint was valid.
“The fact of settlement should not be construed as a statement of the state that the claims were legitimate or that they were not,” Collier said. “Unfortunately sometimes it is, in fact, a better use of taxpayer money [to settle].”
Pelczar declined to be interviewed for this story, but she provided a statement through Gibson. Pelczar said she doesn’t know why she was turned down but she suggests one possible explanation — her involvement in union activities. The grievance mentions that Pelczar is president of VSEA’s Rutland chapter and “was also very active in making complaints and raising awareness of a sarcoidosis outbreak in the Bennington State office building.”
The statement reads, “After two years trying to find out, I honestly still don’t know why I was repeatedly passed over for the position. Was it because I took a leadership role in getting employees out of the sick Bennington office building, or my subsequent election as VSEA’s Rutland Chapter President, was it something else entirely? I never found out. It was upsetting for sure and, eventually, the process of trying to find out why exhausted me, and I threw in the towel, deciding instead to accept a settlement offer from the State, which really only came, in my opinion, to stop me from asking about why I was passed over.”
Pelczar’s second grievance alleges that Parfitt had been an external candidate with fewer qualifications and less education. The Attorney General’s Office denied those allegations, including the charge that Parfitt had been an external candidate. It clarified that he was not from the “classified service.”
Pelczar has worked for the department since 1995, with the exception of a three-month period during which she resigned from one position and reapplied for the position she currently holds. The Attorney General’s office confirms, in its response to the grievance, that her performance evaluations have been “satisfactory” during her employment.
The grievance describes Pelczar as “eminently qualified” for the position and alleges that the state violated multiple provisions of its personnel policy, among them an article that states, “As far as is practicable and feasible, a vacancy shall be filled by promotion of a qualified employee based upon individual performance, as evidenced by recorded performance evaluation reports, and capacity for the new position.”
The Attorney General’s Office denied this, too, stating that the accusation calls for “legal conclusion.”
