Trending
LISBON -- A non-profit known as Open Government Advocates recently filed a voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit against the Columbiana County Board of Elections over alleged Open Meetings Act violations.
Retired Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court Judge Edward O'Farrell, just assigned to handle the case last month as a visiting judge, officially dismissed the complaint on Wednesday, with the entry file-stamped on Thursday in Columbiana County Common Pleas Court.
The motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice was one line, with no other details released about the reason for the dismissal. Court costs were assessed to Open Government Advocates. The group in care of Brian Ames of Mogadore has filed numerous lawsuits against government entities for claims of violating the rules for open meetings.
Columbiana County Common Pleas Court Judges Megan Bickerton and Scott Washam had recused themselves from the case due to a conflict, requesting the assignment of a visiting judge by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The lawsuit had been filed against the board of elections and board members David Johnson, Victor Maroscher, Patricia Colian and Larry Bowersock. Both Johnson and Maroscher are Republicans and Colian and Bowersock are Democrats.
The lawsuit claimed the board failed to establish a rule for notification of its meetings during its organizational meeting in March 2021 or any other meeting and did not provide notice of the meetings that properly reached the general public.
The lawsuit alleged that the board only provided notice to news media and select individuals through email and didn't require any news media to publish the notices, with media publication of notices discretionary.
The lawsuit claimed that each meeting conducted without proper notice constituted a separate violation of the Open Meetings Act and any actions taken during those meetings would be invalid.
Additionally, the lawsuit said the minutes of the
meetings failed to record the rationale behind decisions and only recorded the general topics of conversations and the roll calls, which was improper under the law. The lawsuit claimed each alleged failure to keep proper minutes for each meeting resulted in a separate violation.
The court had been asked to award injunctive relief and invalidation under the Open Meetings Act, meaning a $500 civil forfeiture for each violation and an order invalidating actions taken during the meetings.