Recent action by the Howard County Board of Education has prompted PTA members to form a task force to investigate a controversial resolution the board attached to Superintendent John R. O'Rourke's contract this month.

"Our phones started ringing off the hook [after the amendment was added]," said June Cofield, executive vice president of the PTA Council of Howard County and chairwoman of the investigative committee.

"We've worked very hard as a council to build up a really strong collaboration with the community," Cofield said. "They rely on us to provide them with good information, so we have to go out there and ask some tough questions."

One of the questions Cofield's task force is asking is whether the school board acted properly in amending O'Rourke's contract to include a clause saying the board intends to renew it when the time comes - or pay the superintendent the equivalent of one year's salary, about $200,000.

Critics, including board member Virginia W. Charles, said the amendment was illegal if two situations are true: if the board violated the open-meeting law by voting on the matter during a closed session, as Charles contends; and if it is the equivalent of a renewal - which Maryland law forbids before Feb. 1 of the year a contract expires, in this case 2004.

Jane B. Schuchardt, school board chairman, read an open letter at Tuesday's board meeting that denied the allegations.

"The addendum to the superintendent's contract states the board's intention to renew Mr. O'Rourke's contract when it expires in 2004. It is not a renewal," she said, adding later that "the meetings held by the board to discuss this matter were legal."

"The addendum decision itself was made at a public, televised board meeting," Schuchardt said. "The matter was discussed in some closed meetings, but these meetings were legal because they addressed a personnel matter. These meetings did not violate the Open Meetings Act or any other law."

Sandra H. French, the board's vice chairman, said she and the other board members did not know about Schuchardt's letter until she began reading it, but she agrees with every word.

"[Schuchardt] has taken great pride in complying with the law," French said. "To be accused of breaking the law is a very painful thing."

French said it is "totally unnecessary" for the PTA Council to look into the matter and pointed to a similar resolution involving another county's superintendent.

"Why did the same thing occur in Montgomery County without even a twitter, but here everybody is suspicious?" she asked. "We complied with the law in the conduct of that business."

Cofield said the task force - convened at the PTA Council's executive board meeting Nov. 20, a week after the resolution was passed - should be able to clear the confusion.

"We need a better understanding as to the actions that were taken by the board to determine whether or not there needs to be any further inquiry," Cofield said.

The task force will present its findings to the council at 7:30 p.m. Dec. 2 at the Board of Education building.

It is unclear what action would be taken if PTA members find fault with the board's actions, though the PTA Council has previously asked for an opinion from the state's attorney general on the panel's closed meetings.