The New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals must comply with the Open Public Records Act despite its status as a private, nonprofit group, a state appeals court ruled Jan. 26 in a published decision.

The appeals court upheld a trial judge's ruling that the NJSPCA must comply with a request for records relating to the group's takeover of an animal shelter in Middlesex County, New Jersey, and pay the requester's legal fees and costs of $42,147 related to the inquiry. The panel rejected the NJSPCA's argument that it can't be held subject to OPRA because it receives no funds from the state budget, and said it could not impose a special service charge to a records requester.

The court's ruling might not apply to the NJSPCA later in the year, when legislation taking away the group's role as enforcers of animal cruelty laws takes effect. The Legislature revamped animal cruelty laws after an October report from the State Commission of Investigation heaped criticism on the NJSPCA's management. But the ruling sheds light on obligations of quasi-public organizations under OPRA.

Plaintiff Collene Wronko sued the NJSPCA after getting no response to her 2014 OPRA request concerning its rescue of animals that were allegedly abused in a shelter in Helmetta. Superior Court Judge Travis Francis determined that the NJSPCA was subject to OPRA and ordered it to develop a mechanism for responding to records requests. The group's response called for charging an hourly rate for collecting and compiling documents, citing its minimal staff and meager finances. But Francis, finding that Wronko's request did not meet the statutory definition of an extraordinary expenditure of time and effort to accommodate the request,  held that the shelter could not charge her a service fee.

The NJSPCA appealed, and the panel composed of Judges Carmen Alvarez, William Nugent and Heidi Currier rejected the group's contention that it should not be subject to OPRA because it is not a recipient of public funding.

Currier, writing for the panel, said the NJSPCA does not receive direct funding from the state but was provided a statutory source of funding through the collection of fines and penalties assessed on violators of animal cruelty laws.

Citing the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling declaring the New Jersey State League of Municipalities an instrumentality that is subject to OPRA, the appeals court said that the NJSPCA is an instrumentality “because it functions on the State's behalf to achieve an end or purpose, namely, to prevent animal cruelty.”

“The NJSPCA was created by the legislature and is controlled by the state. In addition, the NJSPCA performs a government function by assisting state and local governments with the investigation of animal cruelty and enforcement of animal cruelty laws throughout the State,” the court said. “The NJSPCA clearly meets the definition of a public agency under OPRA.”

The panel also rejected the NJSPCA's protests over the fee award to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a prevailing party because the defendant did not deny the records request based on any legitimate exemption to OPRA, Currier wrote. And while the $42,147 fee award represents a large portion of the NJSPCA's budget, “defendant's failure to comply with court orders required further motions, briefs and court appearances,” the panel said.

The Legislature and former Gov. Chris Christie removed the job of enforcing animal cruelty laws from the NJSPCA on a recommendation from the SCI report.

“It is plain this responsibility should never have been made the domain of amateurs,” the SCI report said.

But the NJSPCA's official role dictates its duty to comply with OPRA, at least until the new law takes effect, said CJ Griffin of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden in Hackensack, New Jersey, who represented Wronko.

“If the government itself creates an organization and they still exert control, it's going to be covered by OPRA,” Griffin said.

Harry Jay Levin of Levin Cyphers in Toms River, New Jersey, who represented the NJSPCA, did not respond to a phone message about the case.