[Ā§92F-3]Ā  General definitions.Ā Unless the context otherwise requires, in this chapter:

"Agency" means any unit of governmentin this State, any county, or any combination of counties; department;institution; board; commission; district; council; bureau; office; governingauthority; other instrumentality of state or county government; or corporationor other establishment owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of thisState or any county, but does not include the nonadministrative functions ofthe courts of this State.

"Government record" means informationmaintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or otherphysical form.

"Individual" means a natural person.

"Person" means an individual,corporation, government, or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust,estate, trust, partnership, association, or any other legal entity.

"Personal record" means any item,collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintainedby an agency.Ā  It includes, but is not limited to, the individual's education,financial, medical, or employment history, or items that contain or makereference to the individual's name, identifying number, symbol, or otheridentifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voiceprint or a photograph. [L 1988, c 262, pt of Ā§1]

 

Case Notes

 

Ā  Nonprofit corporation was not an "agency" withinthe meaning of this section where because: (1) it was the sole title owner ofits equipment and the lessee of its offices and facilities, it was not"owned" by the State; (2) the State did not manage its day-to-dayoperations and its employees were not state employees, it was not"operated" by the State; (3) the State did not control, direct, orexercise skill or judgment over corporation's activities or business affairs,it was not "managed" by the State; and (4) corporation's activitieswere not a required function of any government agency, it did not perform agovernment function "on behalf of" the State.Ā  116 H. 337, 173 P.3d484.

Ā  Where trial court determined that any unaccepted engineeringreports were returned to the developer and there wasĀ  a lack of evidencesuggesting that the city planning and permitting department "maintained"any reports or copies of the reports that were unaccepted by the department,trial court properly determined that, pursuant to this chapter, the reportssubmitted to the department in connection with the developer's subdivisionapplication did not constitute "government records" prior to theiracceptance by the department.Ā  119 H. 90, 194 P.3d 531.