The state’s Office of Information Practices has, for the second time, determined that the Hawaiian Humane Society is an agency that must comply with the public records law and make its records available for public inspection as required by law.
Back in 1990, OIP issued a legal opinion (Op. #90-31) that dog license information maintained by the Humane Society had to be publicly disclosed. The licensing information was found to be public, even though it is held by the Humane Society rather than a government office, because it is collected and maintained by the organization under contract to carry out a traditional government function required by law.
The most recent opinion (Op. # 09-1), issued earlier this month, came after the Humane Society turned down a request for:
“any and all complaints and the disposition of such complaints, pertaining to the [woman known as the “Cat Lady”] and the animals in her possession, and any and all notes, investigative reports, photographs, e-mails, telephone messages, and all other documents regarding the woman and the animals she keeps” (the “Cat Lady Investigation”).
The request for these records came from Animal Advocate, Inc., which has been seeking them since last year.. The group provided this summary in an email early this year.
For the past 10 years or so, the “cat lady” has been keeping cats, kittens and other animals confned in small traps, cages, and carriers, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The animals are never let out of the cages, and their feet are never allowed to touch the ground. We have produced a 16-minute documentary which premiered on ‘Olelo on February 5, 2009, and has been showing since that time on Channels 49 and 54. If you missed seeing it, you can view it on our website.
In the video, we describe that we have written to Pamela Burns at the HHS regarding the situation, but we have never received any response to our letters. She did, however, deny our request to obtain the records of the HHS’ visits to the cat lady. Rigo Niera of the HHS says an officer visits her once each week. Since the inhumane confinement has been going on for about 10 years, and since we know many, many citizens have called and written to complain about the situation, we think it would be very useful to
obtain the records. (We know about the complaints because we were able to obtain some records from the City Customer Services Department and the DOH, Vector Branch.) After Ms. Burns denied our request for records (which we made under the provisions of the UIPA law), we appealed her denial to OIP.
In any case, OIP again considered whether the Hawaiian Humane Society is an agency subject to Hawaii’s public records law (Uniform Information Practices Act, Chapter 92F HRS).
OIP again found that government authority to enforce a series of animal-control laws is delegated to the Humane Society by contract. These laws cover matters such as cruelty to animals, fighting dogs, animal abandonment, barking dogs, regulation of dangerous dogs, etc.
The law defines a government “agency”:
“Agency” means any unit of government in this State, any county, or any combination of counties; department; institution; board; commission; district; council; bureau; office; governing authority; other instrumentality of state or county government; or corporation or other establishment owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of this State or any county, but does not include the nonadministrative functions of the courts of this State.
OIP found:
Because the Animal Control Contract delegates the City’s duty to enforce certain animal control laws designated in the contract, OIP concludes that when HHS enforces such laws it substitutes for the City in performing a governmental function.
This led OIP to the conclusion that the Humane Society records relating to the functions it performs under contract with the city are subject to the public records law and must be disclosed unless they fall in one of the few enumerated exceptions to disclosure. And OIP said further that given the scope of the request, there are certainly records which will have to be turned over.
It’s an important decision, as it again spells out circumstances under which a private organization may be subject to the public records law. In the age of privatization, this becomes a very important issue.

![[text]](/gallery_2009/cats022009/source/image/img_9693.jpg)