The Sept.15 Des Moines Register editorial, “A Win for Secrecy,” proclaims that “the Iowa State University Foundation won a major victory” when District Judge William Ostlund determined that it is not a public body and is not obligated to inform Iowans as to how it spends the money it raises in the name of Iowa State University.

Maybe it’s a victory — but maybe not.

It’s possible this unwise decision will further motivate those who believe there’s no room for secrecy in the financial affairs of the state universities. The decision should be of interest to potential donors and Iowa legislators Officials of the university and the foundation appear to not understand that secrecy-bred scandals have already seriously damaged the reputations of both. However, as a result of these scandals, the foundation has developed a new information policy. Unfortunately, it falls far short of providing the kind of information that allows for meaningful financial oversight. For example, it would probably still hide a secret $250,000 annuity fund the Foundation arranged for fired football coach Jim Walden.

I have great admiration for ISU President Greg Geoffroy and the positive environment he has brought to the campus. Among other things, he has emphasized the importance of openness and free expression within the university. But he needs to explain, in detail, his opposition to opening the financial records of the foundation. Shortly after being named president, he told an Ethos reporter that he saw no reason that the expenses of the foundation should not be made public. Why has he changed his mind?

Claiming that opening the records would invade the financial privacy of existing donors and discourage potential donors won’t sell. Donors who do not wish to be identified are protected in all of the states but one (Ohio) in which state university foundations have been declared public bodies. Bills introduced into the Iowa Legislature to open foundation records have provided for such protection. In fact, two years ago, ISU Foundation officials helped phrase such a provision in a proposed bill. Then they lobbied like mad to defeat it.

Have university administrators and foundation officials ever considered the likelihood that abandoning secrecy might convince more donors to contribute? Certainly they should understand that it would help restore the foundation’s seriously harmed credibility.

Bill Kunerth

Retired ISU Professor