ISU officials on Thursday refused to release the names of two finalists selected for the second-highest position at the institution.

Members of the university’s search committee charged with filling Iowa State’s vacant executive vice president and provost position said they are waiting to release the names of candidates until a few days before their scheduled visits to campus for on-site interviews and meetings.

In the case of the first candidate, who is scheduled for an on-campus visit and interviews Tuesday, a name will be released Friday, said Tahira Hira, chairwoman of the search committee and assistant to the president for external relations.

Hira said the two candidates, who do not know whom the other is, both requested anonymity from the committee, citing varying reasons of impact to their professional lives.

“The two candidates have reasons very pertinent to them to have their names kept in confidence as long as is possible,” Hira said. “They are worried about the release of their names having a detrimental effect on them or their institution. They are both involved in sensitive projects they didn’t want to be jeopardized by the news of their candidacy.”

Hira said the committee, as well as ISU President Gregory Geoffroy, agreed disclosure was not in the best interest of the candidates or the university.

“We’re trying to minimize the impact on the work they’re doing,” Hira said, adding their candidacy was contingent on their names not being released. “The question is, do we want to lose these people? And the answer was, ‘No.’ We didn’t want to lose them. We need them to stay in the candidate pool. It was our effort to keep the very best candidates for the university in the running.”

The secrecy has generated outrage among some faculty, who argue the public has an overriding interest in being able to scrutinize the qualifications of the university’s No. 2 position, which carried a price tag of $240,000 each year for its predecessor.

“The university has refused to release what is clearly a public record under Iowa law, and has not had the courtesy to provide the citizens of the state with a rationale for doing so,” said Barbara Mack, associate professor of journalism and communication. “At the time the finalists were selected, the names of those finalists became public record.”

Mack also argues that by withholding candidate’s names, whomever becomes Iowa State’s next provost will begin with “a cloud of suspicion” hanging over him or her.

“It’s disingenuous,” Mack said.

Hira said it’s a competitive market and candidates require certain needs and conditions to attract them to the university.

“When you look for someone of a position of this status, you can’t wait and see if you get applications. You have to actively recruit,” Hira said. “Not everyone who’s the most qualified for the position, whom we are looking for, are looking for a job. It’s a two-prong process. We are selling our university to them and they’re selling themselves to us. It’s a two-way street. We’re recruiting them and they’re recruiting us. Sometimes concessions need to be made.”

Mack said she disagrees.

“That argument makes great sense when a list of finalists has not been determined,” she said.

Opponents argue the state would still be able to attract qualified candidates without having to grant anonymity.

States such as Tennessee and Florida have passed legislation mandating full disclosure of materials for candidates named as finalists for public positions and have still been able to recruit and hire renowned administrators.

“Essentially [the candidates] want their cake and want to eat it too,” said Charles Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition.

“These are people who are hugely paid and handsomely rewarded, yet we treat them with the utmost secrecy,” Davis said. “The public’s need to know is at the greatest because of the authority they’re given, the complex diversity of the constituents they represent and the taxpayer money going to their salaries.”

However, a ruling from the Iowa Supreme Court in the late 1980s allows names of job candidates for public positions remain confidential if the candidate makes the request.

Advocates in the state for open government, however, say the ruling has been used to the detriment of the public interest.

“The longer a government waits to release the names of candidates, the less time there is for the public to do background checks and determine their potential fitness for the job,” said Kathleen Richardson, chairwoman of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council.

Iowa State is not the only institution in the nation to use this practice, however. Davis said he sees half a dozen similar cases a year.

Despite concerns, Hira said the committee has nothing to hide.

“We all wanted to make sure we weren’t compromising anybody,” she said, emphasizing the search committee comprises “top-notch” people within the community. “We don’t have anything to hide. I don’t believe personally that our community won’t have time to check the candidates out.”

Hira said once the names have been announced, people will be understanding of the need for anonymity.

“People will be relieved once the names have been revealed,” she said. “Anybody who wants to get to know them will have the time to do so.”