Regents university presidents want donors’ personal financial information to be made private, even though the Iowa Supreme Court decided this summer that university foundations’ operations are open to the public.

In a letter to the Board of Regents dated Oct. 21, the three university presidents requested support for legislation to restrict public disclosure of university foundation donors’ specific financial information. The presidents’ request was not discussed during the Regents’ November meeting.

John McCarroll, executive director of university relations, said the letter was not sent in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

“We are not talking about amending the law in any way in response to the Supreme Court ruling,” he said.

ISU Foundation President Dan Saftig said the foundation would like to withhold donors’ financial information, including stock portfolios, wills, estate plans and real estate holdings to ensure privacy. The foundation would continue to provide donors’ names, the gift’s purpose and its approximate amount, he said.

“It is not looking to protect the foundation’s privacy, it’s looking to protect the donor’s privacy,” Saftig said.

Mark Gannon, a former ISU Foundation employee, and Arlen Nichols, a retired Des Moines businessman, won a lawsuit against the ISU Foundation that granted public access to donor records. On June 14, the Story County District Court upheld an Iowa Supreme Court ruling stating the ISU Foundation must follow open records laws and disclose information because it is performing a government function, according to past Daily staff reports.

Nichols said potential changes to state open records laws could prevent taxpayers from knowing how their money is spent.

“You have to have transparency, and what I’m afraid of is if legislators get the lobby from the Board of Regents, they are going to request more and more privacy and deprive taxpayers of how they spend their money,” he said.

Regents President Michael Gartner said uncertainties remain about how the matter would be considered by the Board, which could wait until the Regents meeting is held Feb. 1 and 2, 2006, in Ames.

“I think it is a very complex issue that will ultimately be resolved,” he said. “My personal belief has nothing to do with what ultimately happens.”

Saftig said foundation donors could withhold donations if their financial information is disclosed to the public.

“We’ve had donors say that if we release this kind of information, they would never give another dime to the university,” he said.

Nichols contended the Regents must monitor the foundation’s actions to protect public interest.

“It has been my thought all along that the Regents have to govern and they have to control the foundation, and if they control the foundation, the public is controlling the foundation,” he said. “I don’t think [foundations’] past performance warrants any changes to make them even more private.”

Gannon said all foundation operations must remain clear to the public.

“[The foundation] has tried to keep almost everything private over there and we’re not going for that,” Gannon said. “If [legislative changes] interfere with properly accounting funds in and out of the foundation, we are not for it.”

Gannon said he and Nichols want to uncover the foundation’s specific financial operations, not donors’ monetary information.

“We have never been ones to expose [personal information],” Gannon said. “We really question [the foundation’s] motives as to what they are going after and we don’t understand that.”