An old (really old) journalism professor like myself knows that when you shoot your mouth off to a good reporter, he is going to report what you said.

Tom Barton is a good reporter and that is exactly what he did in Wednesday’s story (ISU Foundation records opened still under debate), regarding my remarks in the half-hour-plus interview we had. (I also e-mailed him a ton of background information that I hope may some day be the basis for a comprehensive, historical piece on what I think is a case study in institutional politics).

I was not misquoted. It was impossible, however, for Tom to put into perspective my position on the ISU Foundation issue in three quotes.

I admit that I did unload on him the 15 years of accelerating frustration experienced by a small group of us who have been battling to remove the veil of secrecy that has protected the Foundation since its establishment. Please allow me to clarify my position.

No. 1 — I did use the terms “arrogant, stubborn and mean,” but I specifically related them to former ISU President Martin Jischke, former ISU Foundation presidents Murray Blackwelder and Tom Mitchell, and to my old buddy, Marvin Pomerantz — not to current university or Foundation officials. I also cited Phyllis Lepke, former vice president of the Foundation, as being especially cooperative. I pointed out that in 2002 Phyllis and I — under the eye of Mitchell — drafted a bill which would have opened the records, except for identifying current or prospective donors who wished to remain anonymous. Although foundation officials indicated they approved of it, they successfully lobbied against it in an Iowa House committee hearing. It was patterned after a Nevada law and could be a good guide for the district court to follow in resolving the issue.

No. 2 — I should have made clear that I was “apprehensive” about how the Supreme Court would decide in the case on the basis of its prior decision to approve the sale of WOI-TV. I am not “apprehensive” about the current decision. On the contrary, I am highly pleased — damn near euphoric.

No. 3 — I indicated satisfaction with the decision, saying that it made clear that the actions of those persons and agencies who are entrusted with public funds must be public. When asked if there were any potential problems with the decision, I said it could cause those officials at all levels of government to dig in and look for loopholes to evade the provisions of the decision. But this concern is minimal in that the court made clear that fund raising is a function of a public university and the records of fund-raising agencies must be public.

Bill Kunerth

Professor Emeritus of Journalism

Belle Fourche, S.D.