YOUNGSTOWN — The 7th District Court of Appeals overturned a Mahoning County judge’s dismissal of a case concerning accusations the county board of elections repeatedly violated Ohio’s Open Meetings Act by going into executive session and how it kept meeting minutes.

The court ruled 3-0 in favor of Brian M. Ames of Mogadore, who has sued multiple local government entities throughout the state for violating the OMA, and stated Mahoning County Common Pleas judge Maureen Sweeney made a premature decision when she dismissed his case.

The appeals court ordered the case be returned to Sweeney, who had dismissed it Feb. 8.

“I’m very pleased with the decision,” Ames said. “I got everything I wanted except one little thing. I don’t have to win everything to win. I’m perfectly satisfied with the decision.”

Ames — who has been dubbed an open records “bounty hunter” — has sued numerous government bodies in Ohio, and has either won or received settlements on more than 40 cases.

Under state law, government entities can be sued for $500 for each OMA violation. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Dec. 22, 2022, in Ames’ favor that he could sue governments and receive $500 for each violation.

Ames said his lawsuits are “not really about the money. It’s a nominal amount of money. I do it because of the people’s right to know what their government is doing and when they’re violating the law.”

While Ames has sued and received settlements from at least nine local governments in Trumbull County and several others across the state, the board of elections lawsuit was his first in Mahoning County.

Ames sued the board for OMA violations for holding executive sessions on Sept. 7, 2021; Feb. 12, 2022; April 14, 2022; and Aug. 22, 2022; as well as failing to maintain proper meeting notices for the first three of those meetings.

The appeals court agreed with Sweeney’s decision to dismiss the matter about the Sept. 7, 2021, executive decision because Ames failed to “provide facts or support for his claim of an OMA violation,” but it disagreed with the judge’s reasons to get to that conclusion.

The appeals court reversed all of Sweeney’s judgments on the other dismissals.

Ames said he expects the county board to offer a settlement because it “took a beating” in the appeals court decision.

Linette Stratford, chief assistant county prosecutor and chief of the civil division, and Jacqueline Johnston, an assistant county prosecutor, eventually expect to seek summary judgment in the case and have it dismissed in favor of the board of elections.

Stratford said the appeals court decided there wasn’t enough of a record for the case to be dismissed by Sweeney.

“We need to get into the record the full documents and recordings and testimony of the board members as to the purpose of the executive sessions,” she said. “Then we’ll file for summary judgment.”

The elections board on Feb. 12, 2022, held an executive session “to discuss personnel and county policy.” While the board can meet to discuss personnel matters, it must “state with particularity what type of personnel matter will be discussed,” according to the appeals decision.

A similar issue happened at the April 14, 2022, meeting in which the board went into executive session to discuss “personnel matters” without giving details, the appeals court ruled.

At the Aug. 22, 2022, meeting, the board went into executive session to deliberate on certifying candidates and issues and to meet with legal counsel — which the appeals court ruled wasn’t permitted or properly explained.

While Ames sued contending the elections board “failed to prepare full and accurate minutes” of the first three of the four meetings, he limited his request for relief to ordering the board “to correct the inaccurate minutes.”‘

In his lawsuit, Ames attached partial minutes for the first two meetings and none for the Aug. 22, 2022, meeting.

“It was premature of (Sweeney) to grant (the board’s) motion to dismiss (Ames’) claim concerning insufficient minutes,” the court ruled.

The appeals court judges are “saying they don’t think there’s enough evidence for a motion to dismiss,” Stratford said. “We’ll provide that evidence. Lawyers have a right to meet with clients and those discussions are confidential. Once the record is established we’ll be fine. We know what happened in executive session and it was legal.”

Ames, a retired electrical engineer, said he handles much of the legal work on his lawsuits himself with the assistance of three attorneys. If Ames wins a case or gets a settlement using the attorneys, he said they are reimbursed their fees from the government entities.

Ames said he searches through minutes of various government bodies to find OMA violations and also receives tips from people.