The recent vote of the Iowa State University Faculty Senate defeating a motion encouraging greater openness of the ISU Foundation’s financial records and requesting a periodic state audit is disappointing, but not surprising. The majority of the Senate long has conceived that body’s function as endorsing whatever the ISU Administration wants. Fair enough; they are entitled to their views.

What is disturbing is the Senate’s failure to inform themselves adequately before acting. Ames’ Senator in the Iowa Legislature, Johnie Hammond, sponsored two bills to open the records. The Faculty Senate did not seek information from her. Distinguished Professor Neil Harl chaired a committee that has asked the ISU President to convince the Foundation to open its books. The Faculty Senate did not seek information from Harl. Hammond and retired Journalism Professor William Kunerth have compiled information from 35 states about the openness of their state university foundations. The Faculty Senate did not seek this information.

Why would anyone not avail themselves of such crucial information? Because they already had made up their minds and didn’t wish to be bothered by the facts?

The main argument the Foundation has made against opening its financial records is the need for donor confidentiality. Those who seek greater openness have stated repeatedly their desire to honor any requests for anonymity – by either actual or perspective donors. Despite these reassurances, the Foundation continues to claim that those who want more open records will destroy confidentiality.

With but one exception, in every state where university foundations are covered by an open records law, donor anonymity protection exists. In none of these states has maintaining confidentiality proved a problem. Surely, if the Foundation was not simply stonewalling, adequate arrangements could be worked out.

The Foundation claims to be making progress in devising a new policy which will supposedly be somewhat more open. In the meantime, we are supposed to wait patiently. The only reason that the Foundation is even considering the matter is that a lawsuit was threatened (now has been filed) to compel it to open the books. A bill in the last session of the Legislature to require this was withdrawn at the Foundation’s request (even though the bill’s sponsors had added wording for which the Foundation had asked to protect donor anonymity), so that a change in policy could be negotiated – not legislated.

In her presentation to the Iowa Senate, the Foundation vice president provided some indication of the additional information the Foundation might make public under a new policy. Since the Foundation Board has yet to act upon any change in policy, no one can know to what extent it will satisfy the request for openness. What can be said is that the Foundation thus far has ignored completely the request for a state audit – a step which would certainly enhance the credibility of any information the Foundation chooses to publish. Given what we now know of the accounting practices of Enron and other major corporations, a state audit hardly seems an outrageous request.

The Board of Regents maintains that the Foundation is beyond its control. The Iowa Code, however, provides that the Regents “may authorize nonprofit foundations acting solely in support of institutions governed by the board to accept and administer trusts deemed by the board to be beneficial.” This certainly would seem to suggest a degree of oversight by the Regents.

Furthermore, in 1978 the Iowa state attorney general issued an opinion that state university foundations are subject to the Open Records Law. That opinion does not appear to have been altered by subsequent judicial action or legislation.

But surely there is no reason to keep badgering the Foundation, certainly no need for a lawsuit to compel action? Why not trust it to eventually do the right thing? Mrs. Powers wanted to give ISU a valuable farm, but she wanted it to be operated in its existing state. ISU accepted this bequest. Just as soon as Mrs. Powers died, the ISU Foundation did all that it could to thwart the terms of her bequest and sell the farm to get the money. The ISU Foundation betrayed a widow who wanted only to help the university and to perpetuate her family’s heritage. People who act like this cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

What in its ignorance did the ISU Faculty Senate vote against? 1) All Foundation income, EXCEPT that which would identify individual donors (those other than corporations) who wished to remain anonymous, to be public. 2) All expenditures, EXCEPT that which might identify potential donors, to be public. What does the Senate want the Foundation to be able to hide?

Jorgen Rasmussen

Ames