Harry B. Scheeler, Jr. GRC Complaint No. 2015316 v New Jersey State SPCA Complaint Amendment As the GRC is aware I filed a DOA complaint on 10/8/2015 against the NJSPCA and consented to mediation. After I discovered there was a misunderstanding on my part as to the intent and scope of mediation in general, I withdrew consent for this pending matter on 10/28/2015. There has been additional responses from the custodian post the submission of the DOA complaint therefore I am amending my complaint to reflect the complete history of the custodian's response. Background In early 2015 several self described “animal rights activists” contacted me seeking help with exposing the perceived conflicts of interest high ranking members of the NJSPCA allegedly had. Some of the perceived conflicts such as NJPCA police officers seen driving police cars around town did not peak my intrest. I explained the NJ statute which allows NJ police officers to drive their police cars while off duty and even allow their family members to ride in the cars. A lot of their concerns I knew were either not unlawful or did not peak my intrest. I also explained that I had some personal opinions about the SPCA in general. I do not feel the SPCA should need to be a de facto law enforcement agency reliant upon private donations. I believe their mission is valid not only for the humane treatment of animals but also the health and welfare of the general public that are put at risk by the diseases animals who are not properly cared for carry. With that said I declined to help because I did not want to the SPCA spending any of their limited funding on chasing conspiracy theory type OPRA requests to prove or disprove what most likely would have turned out to be rumors, half truths and misunderstandings. In the fall of 2015 the activists contacted me again after reading several news articles attributed to OPRA requests I had made for Facebook posts censored by the Vineland,
54
Embed
Harry B. Scheeler, Jr. v New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Harry B. Scheeler, Jr. v New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Harry B. Scheeler, Jr. GRC Complaint No. 2015316 v New Jersey State SPCA
Complaint Amendment
As the GRC is aware I filed a DOA complaint on 10/8/2015 against the NJSPCA and consented to mediation. After I discovered there was a misunderstanding on my part as to the intent and scope of mediation in general, I withdrew consent for this pending matter on 10/28/2015. There has been additional responses from the custodian post the submission of the DOA complaint therefore I am amending my complaint to reflect the complete history of the custodian's response.
Background
In early 2015 several self described “animal rights activists” contacted me seeking help with exposing the perceived conflicts of interest high ranking members of the NJSPCA allegedly had. Some of the perceived conflicts such as NJPCA police officers seen driving police cars around town did not peak my intrest. I explained the NJ statute which allows NJ police officers to drive their police cars while off duty and even allow their family members to ride in the cars. A lot of their concerns I knew were either not unlawful or did not peak my intrest. I also explained that I had some personal opinions about the SPCA in general. I do not feel the SPCA should need to be a de facto law enforcement agency reliant upon private donations. I believe their mission is valid not only for the humane treatment of animals but also the health and welfare of the general public that are put at risk by the diseases animals who are not properly cared for carry. With that said I declined to help because I did not want to the SPCA spending any of their limited funding on chasing conspiracy theory type OPRA requests to prove or disprove what most likely would have turned out to be rumors, half truths and misunderstandings. In the fall of 2015 the activists contacted me again after reading several news articles attributed to OPRA requests I had made for Facebook posts censored by the Vineland,
NJ police department. The posts were in connection with the in custody death of 32 yearold Philip White. The activists alleged that the NJSPCA also censored, deleted and further blocked commenters who had criticized the NJSPCA. Because their concerns were now First Amendment related I agreed to intervene.
Summery
On 9/11/2015 I filed an OPRA request for “copy of the NJSPCA Facebook page which lists all persons blocked and or banned from the page” The statutory deadline was 9/22/15. (Exhibit A) On the same date the custodian provided a record titled “facebook banned” which appeared to be an email from one person to another dated 7/24/15. At the bottom of the email there is a notation that the list is as of the date of the email 7/24/15. (Exhibit B) On the same date I objected to what was provided in lieu of the actual record. “That is a list created on 7/24. “I would like a copy of the actual record from today's date. Please print out directly from the FB page.” (Exhibit C) On the same date the custodian replied “The NJSPCA states this is the current list for the data you requested and it is current as of this e mail.” (Exhibit C) On the same I continued to object to what was provided. (Exhibit C) Again on the same date I was forwarded an email showing the custodian requesting the actual record. “In an effort to comply with an OPRA request for a list of banned or blocked Facebook users I did supply him with the list you sent a few weeks ago. That does not appear to satisfy his request. We are unfamiliar with the source of the list. Please advise on what you would like to do next. Rick please respond to the NJSPCA account for me as there appears to be issues between that account and the JBBMI account.” (Exhibit C) On the same date I provided the custodian a print out from my personal Facebook page as an example of what the record should look like. (Exhibit C) The custodian went unresponsive. On 10/8/2015 a DOA with request for mediation was sent to the GRC.
On 10/27/2015 the custodian submitted another version of the record titled “facebook banned actual”. The record continued to conflict with what I was able to duplicate on my own. In addition the first person on the list if this is the actual record has been cut off. Two of the pages provided are clearly only half a page each. I have some obvious concerns with the authenticity of the record. (Exhibit D) On 10/29/15 the custodian provided a copy of the previously provided record on 9/11/15 marked “facebook banned” and 10/27/15 marked “facebook banned actual”. (Exhibit E) On 11/25/15 the custodian provided a SOI: Request was fulfilled in its entirety but requestor disputes authenticity of documents. It is the opinion of the Custodian the GRC complaint has been filed in error or in an attempted harassing manner in an attempt to intimidate and exploit the complaint system. The request was very simple and eventually completed in a manner that the requestor was willing to accept. The President of the NJSPCA, Rick Yocum, is willing to certify the document provided is authentic and has not been altered in any manner. Yocum contends the Facebook page site is the Cummunity Services volunteers pages and is not an official, sanctioned or approved site of the NJSPCA and is exempt from OPRA but was provided in a spirt of cooperation.
Violation of OPRA: N.J.S.A. 47:1A5(g); N.J.S.A. 47:1A5(i) While the custodian responded to the request quickly he did not provide the actual record. He provided a list he claimed was accurate. On 10/29/15 the custodian provided another record which is clearly not the same as previously provided on 9/11/15. While I have concerns the 10/29 record is not authentic, even if I were to accept the record was now a true and accurate copy of the record the response is still a violation of OPRA because the custodian failed to provided it within the statutory time frame and did not seek an extension nor provide a release date.
Violation of OPRA: N.J.S.A. 47:1A1
There is no question the 9/11 response is not a true and accurate record as it's clearly a manufactured list which predates the date of the request by more than 30 days.
The 10/28 request shows two of the pages are only half a page. One page shows one person's name and photo is not fully shown. In Lopez v. Cnty. of Hudson, GRC Complaint No. 2009267 (March 2011): The Council held that, “[t]he Custodian’s provision of illegible records to the Complainant in response to the OPRA request when legible records existed constitutes a limitation on the right of access accorded by OPRA pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A1 and a violation of OPRA.” See also Wolosky v. Borough of Mt. Arlington (Morris), GRC Complaint No. 2010194 (Interim Order dated November 29, 2011); Scheeler, Jr. v. Woodbine Bd. of Educ. (Cape May), GRC Complaint No. 201459 (Interim Order dated January 30, 2015). As of the date of this amendment the custodian has yet to provide a true and accurate copy of the blocked list from Facebook. Even if the 10/28 release is accurate one person's identity has been left out and thus constitutes a limitation on the right of access accorded by OPRA pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A1 and a violation of OPRA.
Public Agency
After this DOA was originally filed several of the activists contacted me again to report the NJSPCA was now refusing any further OPRA requests asserting they were not subject to OPRA. The information was passed onto the GRC on 10/29/15. In Wronko v New Jersey SPCA Docket No. MIDL1172114 the SPCA agreed they were subject to OPRA. However when the court found they were in violation of OPRA and ordered the release of the requested records, they filed a request for reconsideration now claiming they were not subject to OPRA. On November 20, 2015 the court denied the NJSPCA’s motion for reconsideration calling it an attempt to “get a second bite of the apple”. The court reminded the SPCA that they conceded on 2/18/15 that they were in fact a public agency subject to OPRA. The court then goes on to school the SPCA on the caselaw which clearly supports the SPCA is in fact a public agency regardless of funding sources. (Exhibit F) In the respondents SOI for this matter they have for the first time asserted they are in part not subject to OPRA. They make claim that the Facebook page “belongs to the Community Services volunteers and is not an official, sanctioned or approved site of the NJSPCA and is exempt from OPRA but was provided in the spirit of cooperation.”
The statement by the NJSPCA is egregiously disingenuous. If you go to the NJSPCA’s website http://njspca.org the website proundly displays the NJSPCA’s law enforcment decal. The about section provides the statute which gives them their controlling legal authority under state law. There is also a detailed description of their governance which does not include “Community Services volunteers”. (Exhibit G) “The NJSPCA is governed by a Board of Trustees that includes 9 members elected by the broad membership of the State Society, three members elected from the county charters and three members appointed by the Governor of New Jersey. The Governor’s appointees must be confirmed by the NJ Senate. The Board members themselves create and appoint committees such as the Law Committee, Membership Committee and Finance Committee, and they appoint a Chief Humane Law Enforcement Officer (The Chief of the Humane Police Division) as well as Board President, Vice President , Secretary and Treasurer. Board members’ terms are six (6) years (Governorappointee terms are five years) and Board members, except Governor appointees, may run for reelection. Of the 12 elected trustees, at least one is a member of a County Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals in the northern part of the State, at least one is a member of a County Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals in the central part of the State, and at least one shall also be a member of a County Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals in the southern part of the State. This ensures representation from across the State.” The website includes other official information including a police blotter, a common public record released by law enforcement. At the bottom of the website the NJSPCA proudly promotes they “are now on Facebook” with a link titled “view our Facebook. The logo again shows the NJSPCA law enforcement decal. When you click the link you are taken to the same NJSPCA Facebook page which is the subject of this complaint. How can the NJSPCA claim that this Facebook page “is not an official, sanctioned or approved site of the NJSPCA”. The official NJSPCA promotes the page as their own. Additionally, the Facebook pages does not disclose that it is “not an official page” a requirement in order to avoid false impersonation. If what the NJSPCA says is factually correct then the person(s) in possession of the page would be impersonating a law enforcement agency. I’m not going to sit here and catalog each and every Facebook post which refutes the respondents claims but I will share the last one from December 18, 2015. (Exhibit H)
“To All : Thank you all for your support of the animals and keeping focused on the animals. The NJSPCA responds to hundreds of animal cruelty and neglect calls each month here in New Jersey. The NJSPCA receives NO financial support or any tax dollars from the state of New Jersey. We are funded by the fines we receive in court from those found guilty of animal cruelty and donations from the general public (you !!) Our Officers donate 90% of their time to the NJSPCA and the animals. We need your support now more than ever to continue our efforts. Please consider making a donation today and help support our efforts. Go to njspca.org
or to the top of our FaceBook page and click on Donate today. The NJSPCA is committed to continue our efforts fighting animal cruelty and we need your support. Are we perfect ? No Are we committed to our mission ? Yes. Our animal welfare and TNR efforts are in need of YOUR support, we are a Humane Law Enforcement Agency that considers these two areas in need of your support. Our volunteers, Agents, Humane Law Enforcement Officers, members and Board of Trustees all thank you for your amazing support of the NJSPCA and the animals. It is so important that those that want to help the animals educate yourselves as to what agency is responsible for oversight in the different areas of animal welfare. It is all about the animals.......... Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. Capt” Again if the Facebook page is not a “sanctioned or approved site of the NJSPCA” then someone is clearly impersonating both a law enforcement agency and law enforcement officer. Additionally, this claimed nonofficial Facebook page not “sanctioned or approved site of the NJSPCA” solicits donations in the name of the NJSPCA which could be a violation of federal law. There is no question that the Facebook page which is part of this proceeding belongs to the NJSPCA and is maintained in accordance with official business.
Conclusion
The NJSPCA has been given unprecedented powers as a private organization which includes the powers of arrest. Our Constitutional Republic has a long standing history of holding any government power with the ability to seize upon a citizen's freedom certain checks and balances. Government is given its power by the full faith the people have in it. Government must have a level of honesty and integrity beyond reproach to maintain
that faith. What credibility should the public reasonably afford an agency which declares itself the police under color of law when it benefits them in a public forum they call “our Facebook page” and then cunningly shifts their position that the page is maintained by persons in a capacity which is “not an official, sanctioned or approved site of the NJSPCA” when their compliance with public transparency laws come into question? Even more concerning here is the respondents asserting that this filing is “harassing” in an attempt to “intimidate and exploit the complaint system”. As law enforcement professionals the NJSPCA should be well aware of our nation's long standing right and tradition of due process. It is my unequivocal right to initiate this litigation proceeding seeking both declaratory judgement and order of release by the GRC. Likewise the respondents are afforded equal due process in this proceeding and may enter factual and truthful evidence into record in their defence. No other private organization has been intrusted with powers that the NJSPCA has. As a del facto government agency the NJSPCA must maintain a discipline and understanding that they are accountable to the people. And part of that accountability includes honoring the people's rights to due process and to bring grievance and protest to the government. Whether deserved or not the NJSPCA is subject to the judgment and criticism of the people. Censoring critics of government is not within the spirit of the values of our great nation. For the foregoing reasons I request the GRC find the custodian has violated OPRA by failing to provide the requested records within the statutory time frame and failing to provide a legible copy. I further request the GRC issue an order for the requested records and further fine the custodian due to his evasive intentions which clearly shows a willful and intentional intent to violate OPRA.
> Please provide me with all individuals that are banned from the NJ > SPCA facebook page, as of today July 24, 2015. This is an OPRA request > pursuant to New Jersey State Law.
I've attached a print out from my own Facebook page blocked list. This is what the record I requested shouldlook like.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:To: Rick Yocum President NJSPCAFrom: Joe Biermann JBBMIRe: OPRA REQUESTDate: 9/11/15 Hello Rick: In an effort to comply with an OPRA request for a list of banned or blocked Facebook users I did supply himwith the list you sent a few weeks ago. That does not appear to satisfy his request. We are unfamiliar with the source of the list. Please advise on what you would like to do next. Rick please respond to the NJSPCA account for me as there appears to be issues between that account andthe JBBMI account. Thank you. In a message dated 9/11/2015 2:24:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
That's fine but I want the original record not one recreated. There is a GRC decision on this issue.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 2:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: The NJSPCA states this is the current list for the data you requested and it is current as of this email. In a message dated 9/11/2015 2:21:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected]:
That is a list created on 7/24. I would like a copy of the actual record from today's date.Please print out directly from the FB page.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 2:19 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: In a message dated 9/11/2015 2:09:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,[email protected] writes:
Please provide a copy of the NJSPCA Facebook page which lists all personsblocked and or banded from the page. Please email this record in pdf format.
To: Harry B. Scheeler, Jrcc: [email protected]: Joseph F. BiermannRe: Below OPRA requestDate: 10/27/15 Dear Mr. Scheeler: Pursuant to the below:1 I am researching your request dated 9/11 and am having trouble locating your actual request to verify theissue. I will continue to do a data search in an attempt to locate it. 2 I do recall the issue was discussed and fulfilled in "an" OPRA request. 3The document in question was printed and a copy of the actual banned list does exist. A copy is attached. Please advise if this indeed is in the format that meets your needs. Thank You, In a message dated 10/27/2015 4:15:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Dear Mr. Biermann,
The following Denial of Access Complaint and mediation materials are being sent to youfrom the New Jersey Government Records Council because a Denial of Access Complaintunder the Open Public Records Act (N.J.S.A. 47:1A1 et seq.) has been filed against you, andthe Complainant has agreed to mediate the complaint. Please see the cover letter, brochureand Agreement to Mediate attached. Additionally, please respond by no later than the closeof business on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 either accepting or declining the mediationoffer.
To: Mr. Harry Scheeler, Jr 10/29/15 Please consider this the third transmission of a response to your OPRA request dated 9/11/15 The pdf files contains both records provided previously the neatly typed listing of names as well as a printedand scanned copy directly from Facebook. To date I have not received confirmation back from you that the two files were received. Please reply. In a message dated 10/29/2015 3:28:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
I am available any day for the two weeks listed below subject to having the call at 11:00 AM.
Thank you
From: [email protected]: [email protected]: 10/28/2015 5:35:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight TimeSubj: Scheeler, Jr. v. NJ State SPCA, GRC Complaint No. 2015316
Please see attached correspondence. Please also provide me with three (3) datesthe week of November 16th and three (3) dates the week of December 7th when youwill be available to receive a conference call to mediate this complaint. After Ireceive your dates, I will pick one (1) date that is convenient for all parties andschedule a mediation conference call for that date.