The plaintiffs suing the Board of Education to stop construction of West Towson Elementary School had their day in court today.  But Judge Michael Finifter declined to make an immediate ruling.  Lawyers for Baltimore County Public Schools filed a motion earlier in the day to immediately dismiss the case, as the plaintiffs did not bring forward any witnesses.

The attorney for the plaintiffs, Margaret Fonshell Ward, asked the judge if she could have until Tuesday to respond to BCPS’s request for dismissal.  The judge agreed, but it was unclear when he might actually decide the case.  Attorneys for Towson Families United said the ruling could come in days, or it may take months.  Meantime, construction can proceed.

Ward is asking for a preliminary injunction, which would halt construction until the plaintiffs’ case can be heard in court.  To win such an injunction, the plaintiffs have to prove all four of the following:  (1) the likelihood they will be successful in court; (2) that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction isn’t granted; (3) the balance of interests, showing which party would suffer greater injury ; (4) that what they are asking for benefits the public interest.

Andrew Nussbaum, an attorney representing Baltimore County Public Schools, said the plaintiffs had not brought forth any evidence to prove these things, nor did they produce any witnesses.  The law, he said,  requires a “full, adversarial hearing” in order to receive a preliminary injunction.

Ward countered that she had filed affidavits proving these points, and that witnesses weren’t necessary.  The judge questioned Ward on that point, asking her what she thought a “full, adversarial hearing” meant.  Ward responded, “What is happening right here.  They’re presenting their case, we’re presenting our case.”

A packed courtroom watched as Ward and Nussbaum made their arguments.

Ward opened by saying the school system has acted recklessly in its deliberations over a new school site.  “There has been an abuse of power by the Board of Education toward the plaintiffs and the community as a whole,” she said.

Nussbaum later responded that the school system followed all procedures, and that in many cases, the plaintiffs were misinterpreting the school system’s stated procedures.  In particular, Nussbaum said the site selection process was not violated, as the plaintiffs contend.

“There is no requirement to establish the site as a school site.  It already is currently being used as a school,” he said.

Ward also claimed that the Board violated it policy by not looking at the possibility of redistricting students through boundary changes.  Another school system attorney replied that BCPS did, in fact, study this.  But that only 40 seats were available in other schools — and more than 400 are needed.

When the issue of public interest arose, Ward argued that it “can’t be quantified as four (plaintiffs) versus 450 (children).”  She said the four plaintiffs had been “abused” by the Board of Education, and their rights must be preserved.

Nussbaum, meantime, noted there is a long tradition in Maryland that courts won’t intervene in the building of schools.  He cited a state statute from 1879, which read, “Unless the Board of Education has acted corruptly and fraudulently, the court should not intervene.”

Stay tuned to this blog for further updates.  And read Baltimore Sun coverage of the hearing here.