A bill before the Iowa Legislature could bring more money to Iowa State for scholarships, endowments, research and building projects on campus.

But an Ames legislator is questioning the necessity of the bill, and could pose an obstacle to its passage.

A Senate study bill looking to protect the personal financial information of those giving to university foundations could put ISU donor worries at ease, and lead to more donations. The bill would exempt the disclosure of information about a donor or prospective donor’s personal, financial, estate planning or gift planning matters held by the ISU Foundation.

Worry spread among donors following a February 2005 Iowa Supreme Court ruling aimed at ending a 10-year debate over the openness of Foundation records.

The ruling stated all records held by the Foundation were subject to Iowa’s Open Meetings and Open Records Law. It did not, however, stipulate how far the open records requirement reaches.

“When we talk to donors, there is often question as to what of their giving record is protected and what is not,” said Dan Saftig, president and CEO of the ISU Foundation. “Fortunately, love and loyalty to Iowa State trumps these concerns to this point, but we want to speak with certainty to donors of the security of their personal financial information.”

In the fiscal year ending June 2005, the ISU Foundation saw a 30 percent increase in the dollar amount given to Iowa State by donors. Although unsure of the effect the bill could have on donors, Saftig said it would put many donors’ minds “at ease” and could entice potential donors who might have felt deterred by the ruling.

Although university and Foundation officials see the proposed change to the law as a sign of progress, open records advocates in the state remain skeptical of the scope of the bill and whether it could be used to circumvent public disclosure.

“As long as enough records are available to assure the people of the state of Iowa that they can adequately trace donations, so that expenditures are used appropriately according to a donor’s gift designation and the agreement drawn up with the Foundation, and that all expenditures of the Foundation are made public, then I’m fine [with the bill],” said Mark Gannon, plaintiff in the lawsuit that resulted in the Iowa Supreme Court ruling and former land manager for the College of Agriculture. “I worried, however, about the potential caveat of personal financial information being intertwined with public record to argue for the withholding of the records release.”

Gannon said if passed, the bill would need to stipulate that the private information it exempts from the law be set aside from public records.

“I’m worried the Foundation will use the excuse of its possession of private information as the reason for why outside parties are not able to view their files,” he said.

Another worry is allowing donors to remain anonymous should they request so.

Of the nearly 49,000 donors who gave to the university last fiscal year, approximately 100 requested anonymity.

Donors usually request anonymity to keep the extent of their family’s wealth a secret, to avoid solicitation from other organizations, matters of religion or because they believe quiet giving is a virtue, Saftig said.

“In our case, if the Foundation can’t assure anonymity for donors, the university could be out of millions and millions of dollars for scholarships, research, endowments, building plans and so on,” he said, adding the Foundation does not encourage or solicit donor anonymity.

“We love it when donors stand up and say, ‘I believe in Iowa State and this is why I give.’ It inspires other people to give and we want others to catch that fire,” he said.

Under the bill, the public would be able to view the amount of an anonymous gift, the gift agreement made with the Foundation, designation of the gift and tracking of expenditures from the account, he said.

Yet there is still concern.

“I think there needs to be an independent agency responsible for monitoring these anonymous accounts, such as the State Auditor’s Office. Otherwise, you allow for conflicts of interest and quid-pro-quo arrangements,” said Bill Kunnerth, retired professor emeritus of journalism and mass communication. “Somebody has to be responsible for knowing who those donors are.”

Gannon has directed the Board of Regents to implement tighter reporting practices for the foundations.

“These foundations have caused embarrassment to these universities and the Regents need to be looking over their shoulder. They need to set tighter restrictions and better reporting practices, better accounting procedures for the foundations,” he said.

Aside from these concerns, Gannon and Kunnerth said they are content with the bill and the intentions of the Foundation to protect donor rights.

Similarly, Saftig said with the bill is an issue not of Foundation privacy, but donor privacy.

One Ames legislator, however, begs to differ.

“It’s unnecessary,” said Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, of the bill. “I think donor confidentiality is perfectly protected. There is no need to amend the law.”

Quirmbach said the law already provides protection for donors under Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code.

“I can only imagine what could be included in the those files. I believe if they had legal cover, those records could very well contain public information,” he said. “I’m afraid any change to the law could open the door to mischief similar to what we saw with the Powers scandal.”