§92F-3 General definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, in this chapter:
"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.
"Government record" means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical 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 maintained by an agency. It includes, but is not limited to, the individual's education, financial, medical, or employment history, or items that contain or make reference to the individual's name, identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
Case Notes
Nonprofit corporation was not an "agency" within the meaning of this section where because: (1) it was the sole title owner of its 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-day operations and its employees were not state employees, it was not "operated" by the State; (3) the State did not control, direct, or exercise skill or judgment over corporation's activities or business affairs, it was not "managed" by the State; and (4) corporation's activities were not a required function of any government agency, it did not perform a government function "on behalf of" the State. 116 H. 337, 173 P.3d 484.
Where trial court determined that any unaccepted engineering reports were returned to the developer and there was a lack of evidence suggesting 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 reports submitted to the department in connection with the developer's subdivision application did not constitute "government records" prior to their acceptance by the department. 119 H. 90, 194 P.3d 531.