NEW FAIRFIELD — The Board of Education’s decision to forgo a final evaluation of outgoing Superintendent Alicia Roy has caused discord among board members and the public, adding to a history of contention surrounding the evaluation process.

Board members first discussed during a meeting earlier this month whether they should, or are required to, do the annual evaluation even though Roy will leave when her contract expires Saturday. Some contended it might be unnecessary given her departure, but others argued not doing so would be in violation of state and board policies.

Members seemed to decide they would evaluate Roy at this week’s meeting when an executive session about the evaluation was put on the agenda last week. But, when they emerged from the private session, they instead voted 6-2 to amend Roy’s contract and not to complete the evaluation.

“It was an exercise we didn’t need,” Board Chair Peggy Katkocin said Tuesday. “We can’t set goals for her for next year because she’s going to be gone and whether you think she did well this year is moot because she’s leaving.”

Katkocin added that the board’s attorney said placing the evaluation on the agenda and then mutually agreeing with Roy to “suspend the written evaluation process” would meet the state and board requirements.

But others argued that Roy’s departure shouldn’t have stopped the board from completing the process, especially given that the board has been criticized in the past for not providing enough details, not following the proper format, or not being transparent during the evaluation process. Both last year and the year before either no members or only a few provided comments and goals in addition to numerical scores.

The evaluation is also the first for the board since a majority of its members turned over in the November elections.

“Given that context, I believe doing an evaluation should have been weighted more heavily than a legally permissible interpretation not to do one,” said board member Rick Regan, who voted against the decision and had pushed for a more thorough evaluation during his campaign last year to join the board.

But Katkocin said other board members felt the district’s history with the evaluation process was another reason not to go through with it. She maintained that not doing an evaluation for outgoing employees would not become the norm, but that the situation with Roy was distinct.

When Roy announced she would leave the district during her evaluation last year, it was after years of mounting criticism from teachers, parents and others, including a petition and protests during Board of Education meetings.

“I received phone calls saying ‘Can’t you just let her go with dignity without putting her through another process?’” Katkocin said. “This was a particularly unique case, in my opinion, because it was made so public. After you publicly humiliate someone, you’re going to evaluate them with one foot out the door?”

But some residents contended that the possibility of another negative evaluation should not mean the board should avoid an evaluation altogether.

Laura Consiglio, a parent, said aside from just the superintendent’s performance, the evaluation could have let the public know how the year went for the district as a whole.

”I could see not setting goals for (Roy), but certainly district goals could be discussed,” Consiglio said. “...With so many new board members, I was eager to see them tackle some of the areas that have plagued the district over the last several years.”

In terms of the state statute, the law gives flexibility to individual boards of education, said Patrice McCarthy, the deputy director and general counsel for the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education.

McCarthy said she isn’t sure if New Fairfield’s decision is typical for districts with outgoing superintendents, but that in her opinion it seemed like a logical path.

“I haven’t heard one way or another...but to me it makes practical sense,” McCarthy said. “The purpose of an assessment is to look at strengths and weaknesses, set goals for the future and determine any compensation increases. All those things are moot when the employee is leaving.”

aquinn@newstimes.com