And there in lies the problem. BCPSS is not a city agency and answers to no one. The board has complete authority and there are no checks or balances on their decisions, also they do not seem able to oversee the CEO, so the system has no one to balance or check decisions made.

This story is not about a lack of checks and balances or the district answering to no one - it is about attorneys who didn't do their research and who have failed their client.

I find it interesting that as I read these blogs there are so many who are ready to jump to the conclusion that BCPSS is the root of all evil.

I can actually use my law degree pursuits...

Doesn't seem like it's really that much of an issue, and I'm pretty surprised that the lawyer made the mistake. Certainly not a corporation if the individuals were named (see below). And North Ave certainly isn't the normal "dwelling place" for the board members or Dr. Alonso, although it may feel like that at times...

I think the comment above misunderstood the nature of service - this is a court's procedural requirement, not a measure of the institutional character of the governing body. For ability to "check" the CEO's actions, I would refer "Interesting" to the Board's bylaws and procedures located on the school's website.

S. 6-312, MD Courts and Judicial Proceedings
(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a party may effect service by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to a defendant personally or by leaving copies of the summons and complaint at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the dwelling house or place of abode or by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service of process.
(c)(2) Any service under this subsection is as effective as actual personal service.
(c)(3) The method of service provided in this subsection is in addition to and not exclusive of any other means of service that may be provided by statute or rule for obtaining jurisdiction of a defendant.

AND

MD Rules, Rule 2-124
(b) Individual. Service is made upon an individual by serving the individual or an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process for the individual.

vs.

(d) Corporation. Service is made upon a corporation, incorporated association, or joint stock company by serving its resident agent, president, secretary, or treasurer. If the corporation, incorporated association, or joint stock company has no resident agent or if a good faith attempt to serve the resident agent, president, secretary, or treasurer has failed, service may be made by serving the manager, any director, vice president, assistant secretary, assistant treasurer, or other person expressly or impliedly authorized to receive service of process.

This might apply as well, but I don't know how the lawsuit was structured. If he's suing BCPSS as an entitity then this would be the governing standard; however, from the blog post it doesn't seem like this is the case. Either way, serving on a secretary is pretty clearly inappropriate.

MD Rules, Rule 2-124
(l) Local Entity. Service is made on a county, municipal corporation, bicounty or multicounty agency, public authority, special taxing district, or other political subdivision or unit of a political subdivision of the State by serving the resident agent designated by the local entity. If the local entity has no resident agent or if a good faith effort to serve the resident agent has failed, service may be made by serving the chief executive or presiding officer or, if none, by serving any member of the governing body.