While ISU donors voice their support for legislation allowing them greater privacy, one Ames senator is attempting to curb the scope of their request.

A bill voted out the Iowa House last week, which is scheduled for a Senate vote, would allow donors to Iowa’s universities to remain anonymous.

The bill, initiated through lobbying efforts by the University of Iowa Foundation, would make personal information about a donor’s will, financial or tax records, or estate-planning records private and allow donors to remain anonymous upon request. The bill would protect donors to Iowa State, the University of Northern Iowa and the University of Iowa.

Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, said the bill is not likely to be passed in its current state.

“[In its current form] it goes quite a bit further than protecting the donor,” Quirmbach said.

He said he feels the wording of the bill has the potential to be use to conceal misbehavior. Quirmbach said his version of the bill was more narrowly focused to what the University of Iowa Foundation has said it wants, but did not agree to the amendment.

“[The amendment] is offering exactly what they said they wanted,” Quirmbach said. “When they are offered exactly what they said they wanted and do not agree, you have to ask why.”

Roger Underwood, an ISU donor, said he feels it is an important piece of legislation for those donors who feel the need to have privacy and anonymity.

“Some donors feel a need for confidentiality,” Underwood said. “Some people are very private, and if they are going to share their private information with the Foundation, they want confidence that their discussions will remain in confidence.”

Ann Wilson, director of communication for the ISU Foundation, said the bill is more focused on giving donors a peace of mind that their private information will be kept confidential.

“There is nothing currently in Iowa law that allows donor privacy,” Wilson said. “When someone goes to the doctor, the information is confidential. Donors share private information, such as their will and taxes, and assume that this information is private and not accessible to the general public.”

Lisa Eslinger, CPA and vice president for finance for the ISU Foundation, said although few, there are some donors who wish to remain anonymous. She said they feel the Foundation will be unable to raise enough money or lose potential donors because there is no guarantee that their private financial information will remain private.

“We don’t know who’s not talking to us,” Eslinger said. “Because there is no legislative protection that gives us something to be able to point to and say, ‘Look, you have protection.'”

Mark Gannon, plaintiff in the lawsuit which resulted in a Iowa Supreme Court ruling last February that stipulated ISU Foundation records are subject to Iowa’s Open Meetings and Open Records Law, said he was fine with the bill as long as it keeps to the issue of donor confidentiality.

“We have got to have the numbers,” said Gannon, former land manager for the College of Agriculture and owner of Gannon Real Estate in Ames.

“We must be able to track funds.”

Gannon said lobbyists are trying to go too far with the bill and establish too broad of an interpretation.

Bill Kunerth, retired professor emeritus of journalism and mass communication, said open records advocates in the state are not insisting that all donors be named, but that an independent auditing agency be appointed to gather the identity of the anonymous donors, the donated amount and the purpose for the gift. They are also responsible for making sure that the donor’s wishes are carried out.

“I personally think it should be the auditor of Iowa,” Kunerth said. “But if not, there should be an auditor committee, which should contain members who are outside of the foundation. It is this committee’s responsibility to ensure there is no conflict of interest and no quid pro quo.”

Kunerth also said he does not believe having open records of donors will hurt donations to the ISU Foundation.

Neil Harl, professor emeritus of economics, agreed with Gannon that the current version of the bill is too broad.

“I am concerned that this opens opportunities for secrecy beyond what is needed and desirable,” Harl said.

“We need a tighter, more specific version that does not use language that allows confidentiality where confidentiality is against the public interest. The public interest is best served when confidentiality is limited to [the donor’s] identity, if requested.”