An ethics panel for the Montgomery County school board has refused to weigh in on board member Valerie Ervin's employment with the County Council, but the board member who asked for the panel's opinion says the issue may be far from closed.

The ethics panel said that, under board policy, it could provide an advisory opinion only if Ervin requests it herself. Otherwise, the panel said, it could rule only on specific complaints brought by one member against another.

Board President Patricia B. O'Neill (Dist. 3) of Bethesda forwarded a request for an advisory opinion in January on behalf of board member Sharon W. Cox.

Cox (At large) of Germantown wanted the panel to rule on whether Ervin's job as a confidential aide to Councilman George L. Leventhal (D-At large) of Takoma Park could present a conflict of interest.

The panel, in a two-page letter to O'Neill dated Feb. 16, said that only Ervin could request such an opinion. Ervin (Dist. 4) of Silver Spring said she would not request an opinion.

"My only comment on the whole matter is I would consider this closed, and I am ready to move on to the job I was elected to do, which is to serve on the Board of Education," Ervin said. "So I consider this matter behind me."

Cox said Ervin should ask the board's ethics panel for an advisory opinion.

"I think not to make it sends a message that you take the voters for granted," Cox said.

Not asking for an opinion could open the board to a lawsuit, she said.

Ervin has already received a waiver from the county Ethics Commission, which concluded that "Ms. Ervin's service [on the board] is not likely to create an actual conflict of interest so long as she does not participate as Councilmember Leventhal's confidential aide in any matter that involves the Board of Education, and more generally, the Montgomery County Public Schools."

Ervin and Leventhal have said such a conflict would not arise because another staffer advises Leventhal on school issues.

But Cox said the county ethics commission's opinion was not enough.

"It's not a question of whether or not she's influencing Mr. Leventhal," she said. "It's a question of whether her work at the council is influencing her as a board member."

Both Cox and Ervin said they did not foresee any board members bringing a complaint against Ervin.

"I have never said her position [with Leventhal] in and of itself generates a conflict," Cox said.

Rather, Cox said, she expects that a county resident may file a lawsuit against the board over an alleged conflict of interest.

"This is Montgomery County," she said. "Everybody sues over pretty much anything."

O'Neill agreed.

"I guess [a lawsuit]'s always possible where the board intersects with the council," she said. "On land issues, on budgetary issues, it could certainly pose a conflict. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

Cox pointed to the board's recent decision not to surplus a school site on Kendale Road in Potomac as being ripe for a lawsuit. The council has asked the board to declare the site a surplus property and turn it over to the county for the construction of affordable housing. Instead, the board decided to look at the property as a site for a replacement to Seven Locks Elementary School.

Cox said her request was an attempt to protect the board by asking the panel to define when Ervin could vote and when she should recuse herself.

"It was not my intent to file a complaint," Cox said. "I don't have a complaint, I want information."

Ervin said she has no plans to recuse herself from any board votes.

"None that I see or none that I foresee," she said.

Ervin said she wants to put the issue to rest. Cox said she is unsure where it goes from here.

Cox said she is still waiting for O'Neill to respond to her memo requesting the opinion. But O'Neill said she shared the panel's response with the board.

"I think it's pretty self-explanatory in the response to me from the ethics panel," she said.

Cox said she wishes the panel had provided some guidance.

"I would like to find out what the panel's recommendation actually is before moving forward," she said, adding that she does not know if that will happen now.

O'Neill said the board's counsel told her that "it would be a prudent thing" to ask the panel for guidance.

"That wasn't what the panel chose to do," she said. "I'm not really sure there's anything left to do."

The ethics panel never answered her question of whether the board's policy warrants a revision, Cox said.

"This little political football has been punted so far it's rivaling the NFL for yardage now," she said.

Tension over the issue crept into the board's annual retreat on Feb. 5 when Ervin said that Cox's statement that the board acts a board, not as individuals, was at odds with her request for an ethics opinion.

Cox said the issue has not affected the board's ability to conduct business.

"I mean, it's not that big a deal," she said. "As a new board member I don't think [Ervin] understood why I was seeking guidance. It takes a while to become part of the team, let's put it that way."