Though the attorney for the Howard County Board of Education spent three hours Friday arguing against having to present a defense for alleged violations of open-meeting laws, the judge ruled that the trial will go on and board members will have to account for their actions.

Leslie Stellman, the Baltimore-based board lawyer, questioned whether the plaintiff, Allen Dyer, had a right to file suit in the first place. He moved to have the case dismissed because, he said, simply being a county resident and taxpayer didn't give Dyer the proper standing. He also said Dyer hadn't met the statute of limitations.

"If I'd granted either [motion]," said county Circuit Judge James B. Dudley, "it would deprive you of the thrill and excitement you've had - and you're going to have - in finishing this trial."

Dyer, an Ellicott City lawyer, is suing the school board in Circuit Court, claiming members continually and willfully circumvented sunshine laws during the past several years. The board says it has done nothing wrong, and many members have said they're offended by the charges.

Dudley said he will deal with the issues raised by Stellman's motions, but not before the board has its day in court.

Dyer filed the lawsuit in November 2000 and rested his case Nov. 7, 2002. It includes accusations that board members frequently held illegal closed meetings; that the thousands of e-mail discussions among members should be publicly accessible; and that the board has taken actions that are beyond its delegated power.

Since then, many others have joined Dyer in questioning the board's sunshine practices, including the county PTA council, legislators, the public, and even one of the board members named in the lawsuit, Virginia W. Charles.

The trial has been under way since January, and has cost taxpayers $134,000. Dyer also has asked that the board be made to pay his legal bills if it is found to be at fault.

Wide implications

Both sides say the issues pertain to more than the county Board of Education.

"This could impact 24 school systems and all county governments," Stellman said, because the remedies Dyer is seeking include changes to open meetings practices statewide.

Dyer is suing the board on two counts. The first takes into consideration open meetings violations - such as unannounced closed meetings - and actions he says are outside the board's delegated power, such as granting a $16,000 bonus to departing school Superintendent Michael E. Hickey in June 2000.

The second count asks for a declaratory judgment, which would require the judge to make a ruling on how the board should conduct its business and interpret local open meetings laws that are apparently in conflict with the state law.

The law says the judge could impose $100 fines on each board member for every willful open meeting violation and declare that they have to follow the law from here on out, but Dyer is seeking greater remedies.

Among his requests are that the board give better notice of its meetings; that it record closed sessions; and that it copyright its documents and make them public (rather than giving them to another body to regulate).

"Admittedly, some of [the requests] are extremely innovative," said Harold H. Burns Jr., Dyer's co-counsel. "But I have no doubt the court has the power to implement them."

Executive function

At the core of the case is the board's use of executive function meetings, which aren't governed by the state Open Meetings Act and therefore don't require public notice or participation. Local education laws can be interpreted as prohibiting the board from meeting privately under executive function, as it has in the past.

Each side has promised to appeal the verdict if it loses. The case is not likely to be decided for many months.

A big problem, acknowledged by the judge, is that the court might not have the power to impose the solution Dyer is looking for.

"It's a problem for the legislature to solve," Dudley said.

A bill has been proposed by Democratic Del. Elizabeth Bobo, which she says would resolve the executive function situation. But critics, including Dyer, say the bill is poorly written and would afford the school board more closed government - not less, as Bobo intended. Even if her bill passes, though, the trial would go on because the measure wouldn't become law until late next year.

The court hasn't yet set a date for continuation, but the trial is likely to resume in January. Board members will then have a chance to speak.