Though the Howard County Board of Education gave its school superintendent a strong show of support last week in the form of a controversial and potentially expensive amendment to his contract, at least one board member believes his support on the board is less solid than it should be.

Board member James P. O'Donnell sent an e-mail message to the other four members in February, saying that if he were in Superintendent John R. O'Rourke's shoes, he would have his resume "on the street" because only one board member unconditionally supports O'Rourke publicly (that is O'Donnell) while two others "voice strong objections" without considering the effect.

"Board backing [of the superintendent] is shaky at best," O'Donnell said in the e-mail. Little has changed since February, he said in a telephone interview yesterday.

O'Donnell said some board members, while praising O'Rourke's major initiatives, believe they have been left out of important decisions the superintendent has made - such as who sits on a planning committee. That, along with program changes, has made for hard feelings and sharp questioning of O'Rourke behind closed doors.

"I think they're all good people, and want to do what's best for the kids," O'Donnell said. "But when you bring a new leader into your operation and he begins to make major changes, it causes everyone some stress and anxiety - even board members because they've been around a long time ... and feel very protective of [past programs]."

O'Donnell declined to say which board members had been critical of O'Rourke, though he did say that Jane B. Schuchardt, the board chairman, had been a big supporter of the superintendent.

O'Donnell said he sent the e-mail - which is one of more than 1,300 made public by a lawsuit filed by Allen Dyer accusing the board of violating open- meetings laws - after a retreat that members took to improve their working relationship.

It was a response to other board e-mails that said everything was going well, when O'Donnell thought it was not.

"I don't think that the board has been as supportive of John as they could be," said O'Donnell, who asked his colleagues point-blank during the retreat who would publicly support O'Rourke, and found his the only hand firmly waving.

O'Rourke said yesterday that he would not talk about what has gone before and is concentrating only on what lies ahead, though he intends to "learn from the past."

Virginia Charles, the only board member who was openly critical of the board's promise last week to extend O'Rourke's contract for four years, said yesterday that she has remained "very supportive" of the superintendent's initiatives.

Some board members have occasionally sniped at O'Rourke at meetings, but there has been virtually no public criticism from the board of his policies.

Still, O'Donnell's comments offer some explanation of why O'Rourke might have sought a contract renewal 15 months ahead of schedule and before the departure from the board of Schuchardt, who hired him.

O'Rourke gave the board a Nov. 11 deadline for the promise.

Next month, Schuchardt turns her seat over to board member-elect Courtney Watson, whose views on O'Rourke's leadership are unknown.

O'Rourke has sought extra contract protection in the past.

When he was superintendent of the relatively tiny Pittsford Central School System in upstate New York, he started with a three-year contract that was switched to a rolling five-year contract, meaning that every year it would be renewed for another five years. "What I wanted to accomplish was being able to look forward with both a sense of security and some support," O'Rourke said.

Pittsford school board member Alan Shaffer said board members were glad to do it: "We wanted to send a very clear message that we supported him and were extremely pleased with the job he was doing."

O'Rourke also had asked for an extension to consider retirement from Pittsford in 2000. His contract required him to announce retirement by Jan. 1 to receive full benefits, but O'Rourke asked that it be extended to April 1. He then retired with a full pension and took the job in Howard County.

The latest stir over O'Rourke began Wednesday, when Charles accused board members of violating open-meetings laws by considering in closed sessions the resolution on O'Rourke's contract, which ensures him renewal or one year's salary - about $200,000 - in penalty.

Charles said members voted to pass the resolution in secret, though they did hold a public vote ratifying it Thursday. The resolution in itself is iffy, though, because state law says a superintendent's contract may not be renewed before Feb. 1 in the year it expires. O'Rourke's pact expires in 2004. It is unclear whether there will be repercussions.

The Maryland Open Meetings Act allows 45 days from the date of infraction - Nov. 7 in this case - for any "adversely affected" parties to file suit in Circuit Court, but who might qualify as adversely affected is open to interpretation. Civil penalties are limited to $100 a person for people found to be willful participants in violating the act.