Open-records advocates and journalists in the state have supported Friday’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling concerning the ISU Foundation’s disclosure practices, but they are still unsure of what exactly the victory has won them.

The court ruled that the Foundation must open its records to public scrutiny.

However, which types of records it must disclose is still being debated.

In its decision, the Supreme Court did not determine which of the Foundation’s records are confidential and which are open for review and stated the Story County District Court must make that decision.

The plaintiffs are expected to appear with Foundation, university and Board of Regents officials before a district court judge to debate their respective cases.

This has drawn some concern from advocates who fear the Foundation will be able to use the district court to argue its way out of disclosing substantial amounts of information that should be available to public scrutiny.

Bill Kunerth, professor emeritus of journalism and communication, who helped the plaintiffs with their research for the case, said he was apprehensive of the Supreme Court decision because of the earlier district court ruling.

“It was people with money and power and they weren’t just opposed, they were mean, arrogant and stubborn. They tried to demean us and our group,” Kunerth said.

He said his concern is that the Foundation’s resolve has not changed.

The ruling could turn out to be counterproductive, he said.

“It could do just the opposite of what we want it to do, which is blaze a new trail where Iowa legislators and the public understand the importance of open government and accountability,” he said, adding it could put government officials on alert and strengthen their opposition to openness.

“I don’t understand how the hell anyone will come up with … the rules and regulations for getting information,” Kunerth said.

In a prepared statement before the Faculty Senate on Tuesday, ISU Foundation President Dan Saftig said, “I am here today to assure that we will comply with the ruling and that our commitment to raise private funds for the university … is unwavering.”

Saftig said the Foundation is prepared, based on the court’s ruling, to begin releasing the name of the donor, the amount of a gift and the donor’s gift designation.

The names of anonymous donors and other personal information will not be released, he said.

Saftig said such information includes donor addresses, phone numbers and other biographical information.

“We are proud of what we have done to date, but the court tells us we need to do more — and we will,” he said. “The ability to strike a balance between openness and donor confidentiality will be important to achieve. We need some time to understand these exemptions so that we uphold the law and release only information we are allowed to.”

The ISU Foundation releases an annual audit report from an independent, international audit firm. The Foundation also discloses its annual tax returns, according to law. The Foundation voluntarily releases information of its Donor Bill of Rights, Gift Acceptance Policy and biographical information of donors who consent to disclosure.

Upon request, the Foundation states it may release — according to its own discretion — information on its bylaws, IRS 990 forms, salary information, operating expenses, review of endowment accounts, its agreements with the ISU Alumni Association, financial investments, disbursement guidelines and contracts.

The ISU Foundation does not release gift amounts, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, individual expense vouchers and lists of prospective donors because of privacy concerns.

Under Iowa Code, confidential records that do not need to be disclosed include financial information that could give an advantage to competitors; marketing, advertising budget and strategy of a nonprofit corporation; and personal information of donors and their personal finances.

Because of these exemptions, the Foundation has said it may not release information regarding gift amounts it receives and Foundation expenditures and transactions with the university.

“Personal information does not include how much is given,” said plaintiff Mark Gannon, former land manager for the College of Agriculture and owner of Gannon Real Estate Services. “I care about making sure money goes where it’s supposed to … it’s the state’s money, and they shouldn’t have the ability to manipulate it the way they do.”

The Supreme Court sided with Gannon, stating the information he requested from the Foundation in May 2002 regarding its expenditures and gift amounts was not confidential.