But pause a moment there among the appeals court judges most people skip or select without much thought, and you'll see the names of two county Board of Education members and the words "Vote yes or no for continuance in office."

This is your chance. Don't let them take your vote for granted.

A win for "no" would stun the school system and send a message that people want some changes in a board that's accountable to no one - a fact readily demonstrated by some of its actions.

For example, this is the school board that recently voted in public on a move it actually made behind closed doors nearly two months ago, approving a $5,000 bonus for schools Superintendent Kevin Maxwell, which followed his $6,000 bonus last year.

This is also the board that has overseen an astonishing explosion (from 213 to 450) in the number of six-figure school system jobs.

If board members had any fear of voters, they might have thought twice about such raises and bonuses in tough economic times. They might have cared more about how it appeared. But they don't have to.

For a long time, the school board was entirely appointed, its members picked by the governor after public vetting by a "nominating convention." Now, at least, voters have a chance for an up-or-down vote after those appointments, thanks to a 2007 law.

But if voters unthinkingly approve these two appointees, the retention process will serve as only a faint imitation of democracy.

Defenders of the way the nine-member school board operates like to argue that it's not the board's job to run the schools day-to-day. That's true; the board hires a superintendent and pays him a lot of money to do that.

But it's also a cop-out. Why have a school board at all if it largely rubber-stamps the superintendent's vision, gives him bonuses when schools are badly underfunded and allows huge pay increases for executives?

The school board shouldn't be a rubber stamp for the superintendent and his staff, and we as voters shouldn't be a rubber-stamp for an appointed commission.

The incumbent board members on the ballot are Tricia Johnson, the at-large member, and Teresa Milio Birge, who will also appear on every county ballot although she represents Legislative District 32 in north county.

Ms. Johnson didn't return my call yesterday. Ms. Birge told me she hasn't campaigned and isn't quite sure what to expect. But she noted she's only been in office since June and hopes voters don't judge her by actions taken before that.

Ms. Birge, who has two young children, one already in elementary school, said she has a background in public policy and finance and "a good head on my shoulders." She said a retention election should be a way to get rid of "someone who is offensive, and I would hope that I wouldn't fall into that category."

To be sure, I'm not suggesting these women have done an especially bad job or are unqualified. Ms. Birge is an accountant and former state legislative analyst who's involved in civic affairs in Odenton.

Ms. Johnson, a public-relations executive from Davidsonville and former Republican official, has been on the board for five years and is clearly knowledgeable. I'm sure both are sincere in wanting to improve education.

But unfortunately, this is the only direct say voters have on who oversees the county schools' $1 billion budget and the only chance to hold an appointed school board accountable. A no vote is less about them and more about the flawed system.

This year, Ms. Birge was picked and Ms. Johnson was reappointed under a suspect process. Joshua Greene, the politically connected Democratic lawyer who chaired the School Board Nominating Commission, told me the deliberation and vote would be entirely public.

Yet when the time came, the commission deliberated secretly before voting on recommended candidates, from whom the governor picked two. Mr. Greene said he wanted to keep the debate open, but was outvoted by members who thought they could talk more candidly in private.

That's not how public officials should be picked in a democracy.

A "no" retention vote is a long shot. Ms. Birge and Ms. Johnson probably expect voters will shrug and vote yes or skip them, then get on to the more exciting stuff like slots.

Indeed, they're counting on it; the school board's Web site already lists their terms as expiring in 2013, which assumes voters will approve them for the full five-year term.

So why not give them a surprise on Election Day?