College donor privacy vs FOI (US)

College donor privacy at issue

By Brian McNeill

bmcneill@dailyprogress.com | 978-7266

Sunday, January 13, 2008

At the request of the University of Virginia, two state lawmakers have introduced a bill that would allow the university to keep private the identities of donors who wish to stay anonymous.

The bill - sponsored by Sen. Edward Houck, R-Spotsylvania, and Del. Glenn Oder, R-Newport News - would grant Virginia's higher education institutions an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act to withhold a vast amount of personal information about their donors.

UVa officials say they need to protect the privacy of donors. Open government advocates, on the other hand, point out that UVa is a public institution and argue that its finances must be transparent to ensure accountability.

At UVa, a massive internal fundraising database has a wealth of personal information about 450,000 potential UVa donors. The database includes more than 2,000 fields of information, including the donor's Social Security number, marital status, estimated net worth, employment history, birth date, contact information and much more. With such information, the university is best able to collect top-dollar donations as part of its ongoing $3 billion fundraising campaign.

If approved, the proposed legislation would allow UVa to deny Freedom of Information requests for its entire fundraising database. Instead, UVa would only be required to release a donor's name, the size and date of a contribution, and what the donation was designated for.

"As a public institution, we're very sensitive to the fact that we need to be as open as possible to the public, our donors and our alumni," said Robert D. Sweeney, UVa's senior vice president for development and public affairs. "But some things really just need to be left private. We're talking about protecting private, personal information."

The bill would also authorize UVa under the state's open records law to withhold the names of its donors who request anonymity. Out of $1.45 billion raised by UVa so far in its campaign, $74 million came from contributors who demanded that their names not be publicly released. The anonymous donations ranged in size from just a few bucks to $13 million, Sweeney said.

Donors request anonymity, Sweeney said, for countless reasons. Sometimes, he said, a wealthy donor might not want to advertise that they are willing to give organizations large sums of money. Other times, donors might give an expensive piece of art, but do not want to inform potential burglars that they have a collection of valuable art in their homes. In the case of one multi-million dollar contribution, he said, the donor's relatives are planning to attend UVa, so the donor did not want to make it appear they were admitted because he was a financial backer of the university.

It is important to protect donor privacy, Sweeney said, because it respects the philanthropist's wishes. Plus, if UVa does not agree to withhold a donor's identity, it runs the risk of leaving a large pile of cash on the table.

Sunshine law advocates agree that UVa should have the right to withhold its donors' Social Security numbers, financial information, marital status and other personal data. However, they disagree that the university should be given the right to shield its anonymous donors from the public.

"UVa wants certain donors to have the option to not have their names included," said Jennifer Perkins, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government. "But what if a reporter is doing a story about a public official who hasn't paid taxes in a dozen years, but is giving half a million dollars to UVa. We'd want to know about that. UVa is still a public university, even though it has less and less public financing."

Perkins added that UVa's fundraising success appears to undercut the university's argument that it needs changes to Virginia's open records laws. "They've exceeded their fundraising goals," she said, so apparently donations are not drying up, even though UVa cannot currently guarantee that donors' names will be protected from public scrutiny.

Ginger Stanley, executive director of the Virginia Press Association, said anonymous donations to UVa could raise questions of favoritism in hiring, procurement and admissions. Plus, she said, exempting anonymous donors from the Freedom of Information Act sends a message that public institutions can close their records when it is to their benefit.

"It's just not good public policy," she said. "There's no demonstrated need. There's no demonstrated harm. There's just no reason to do this."

UVa has numerous internal checks and audits in place to prevent donors from having an improper influence on hiring, admissions, contracts or anything else at the university, Sweeney said.

Protecting donor privacy is a cornerstone of fundraising ethics, said Moira Kavanagh Crosby, founder of MKDM, a fundraising consultancy practice in Charlottesville. UVa has an obligation, she said, to hold back its donor's personal information and the identities of anonymous contributors.

"I'm 100 percent behind a donor's right to anonymity," she said. "I can understand why UVa is going to bat for their donors' privacy."

Houck, who is carrying the bill in the Senate, said he agreed to file the legislation out of respect for UVa, his alma mater. Nevertheless, he added, he considers himself a strong supporter of open government laws and has reservations about cutting off public access to certain portions of UVa's donor database.

"I felt compelled to set aside my personal reservations and took up the bill at the university's request," he said. "While I may not dance the jig over this proposal, I'm going to give the university the benefit of the doubt."

In the Senate, the bill (SB 130) has been referred to the Committee on General Laws and Technology. The House of Delegates version of the bill (HB 407) was referred to the Committee on General Laws.

In late 2006, a reporter from The Daily Progress submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for a complete copy of UVa's donor database. In its response, UVa argued that the database was not a public record, though it did provide hundreds of pages of documents that listed donors who had not requested anonymity.

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Common%2FMGArticle%2FPrintVersion&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354193476&image=80x60cdp.gif&oasDN=dailyprogress.com&oasPN=%21news>