A proposal by the ISU Foundation intended to satisfy open-records law has been met with dissatisfaction from the plaintiffs in the lawsuit from which the requirement stemmed.

The Foundation announced Monday that it has revised its public information policy, following a Feb. 4 ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that stated the Foundation “is performing a government function.”

With the new policy, the names of donors, dollar amount of a donor’s gift and intended purpose of the gift would be made publicly available for gifts completed after May 1.

Foundation officials said the procedural change is in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling that requires the fund-raising organization to be more open.

Arlen Nichols, one of the plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against the Foundation, said he was skeptical about the Foundation’s efforts to appear open, however.

Nichols said he did not believe some aspects of the policy conformed to open-records laws, like a $15 per hour charge for retrieving records.

“The Iowa Board of Regents is the keeper of the records. If I come in as a citizen, I don’t think as though I should pay $15,” he said.

Jason Menke, assistant director of communications for the Foundation, said the charge is a flat fee meant to help the Foundation recoup costs of reproducing documents, for which Menke said the $15 “doesn’t even come close.”

Mark Gannon, co-plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Foundation, said he has not received any of the information he had requested in the lawsuit from the Foundation.

Gannon said he has been given various information since the lawsuit was filed — none of which he said is the information he had requested.

“I’m a little confused because, frankly, we’ve provided him with significant amounts of information,” said Lisa Eslinger, the Foundation’s vice president for finance.

Eslinger said the policy indicates a few areas where the Foundation feels Iowa’s open-records law provides confidentiality — areas Gannon and Nichols have contested as being open.

The Story County District Court is scheduled to hear the case May 4 if a compromise about what records the Foundation should disclose is not reached.

Nichols said that he did not rule out the prospect of continued litigation.

“I think the county attorneys are going to have to address this,” Nichols said. “If they don’t address this, then the attorney general’s office is going to have to address it.”

Gannon agreed, saying he does not see any other option in being able to get access to the records he and Nichols sought.