Howard County Board of Education member Virginia W. Charles yesterday publicly accused her fellow board members of "deliberately and willfully attempting to subvert the meaning and intention" of two Maryland laws by extending the school superintendent's contract at a closed board meeting.

The other members and the board's general counsel suggested that there had been a misunderstanding.

Charles accused board members James P. O'Donnell, Patricia S. Gordon, Sandra H. French and Chairman Jane B. Schuchardt and Superintendent John R. O'Rourke of trying to sneak an amendment into O'Rourke's contract that would extend his tenure and act "essentially [as a contract] renewal."

She also claimed the board took final voting action to pass the amendment during a previous closed meeting Nov. 7.

Charles says both actions violate a state law requiring final reappointment action be taken in public and that superintendents not be reappointed before Feb. 1 in the year their term expires. In O'Rourke's case, that is not until 2004, according to school system spokeswoman, Patti Caplan.

Charles stood to make her charges after the board's vice chairman, Sandra H. French, made a motion to exclude the public from yesterday's board meeting to discuss personnel issues and consult with the board's attorney.

"I object to the closing of this meeting and believe it is in violation of the Open Meetings Law," Charles said, reading from a prepared statement, and adding that she knew what she was about to say would "severely distress" her colleagues.

Closing the session was also a violation of the Maryland Open Meetings Law because it is illegal "to close a meeting to violate the law," Charles said.

French and Schuchardt said no formal decision was made final during the Nov. 7 meeting.

"If you look at the minutes [from Nov. 7], they didn't say we approved anything," Schuchardt said. "We are going to be voting. It is scheduled to go on the agenda for Thursday evening."

The board's Nov. 7 closed meeting minutes will not be approved by the board until tonight's open meeting, board secretary Susan Shown said, and therefore were not available to the public yesterday. The board's Thursday agenda made no mention of the amendment proposal as of last night.

"My assumption is that we're still consulting with counsel ... still asking for information," French said. "I, in full faith, believe that as required, all final action will be taken in public ... and added to the final agenda."

The board voted to move into closed session over Charles' objections. The board then held a two-hour private session with two attorneys present.

After the session, members said they could not comment.

"The board has not been and is not in violation of the Open Meetings Law or any law," said board general counsel Mark Blom. "The board was not acting on a renewal. It may be a subtle distinction of different interpretations, but legally it's a very important difference."

A lawsuit filed two years ago by school board watchdog Allen Dyer claims the board has repeatedly violated open-meeting and other laws by conducting business in the shadows.

"The premise of the lawsuit is that there is a board culture of secrecy and operating in secret," Dyer said. "It's a very strong culture. I'm hoping to be able to break that culture open."

The lawsuit is being considered in Howard County Circuit Court. Dyer rested his case against the board Nov 7. It includes accusations that board members held frequent unrecorded and informal closed meetings an hour before public meetings began without announcing them, as the law requires; that the thousands of e-mail discussions between members should be publicly accessible; and that the board has taken actions in closed meetings that are beyond its delegated power.

The board will begin presenting its defense in the Dyer case Dec. 6.