Regent Robert Downer can only speculate about a proposed UI building name change.
That’s not good.
In what’s sure to be a controversial state Board of Regents meeting on Thursday — amid the arguments regarding budget cuts and a potential $100 student surcharge — there is a seemingly ordinary, yet unsatisfactorily explained, item on the docket: The UI is asking regents to approve a new name for a campus facility. And that is really all Downer — and virtually everyone else — knows about the surreptitious proposal.
“I really do not know anything definite,” he said.
While the naming request is innocent in theory, the university’s clandestine behavior is troubling. School officials haven’t made the general public privy to the facility in question or its potential new name and are hush-hush when asked about the building.
“We will be able to discuss [details] at the Board of Regents meeting on Thursday,” UI spokesman Tom Moore said.
There should be no need for speculation or question parrying at this point. With the meeting two days away, withholding basic details only deepens the divide between UI officials and subsidiary populations, such as students and faculty and staff members. UI officials’ lack of disclosure constitutes a fundamental misuse of power.
A similar situation at Iowa State, which also filed a request for a proposed name alteration, stands in clear contrast to the UI’s conduct. Iowa State officials are asking for permission to label their basketball practice facility the Sukup Basketball Complex, in honor of a family who donated $2 million.
The key aspect in Iowa State’s transparent proposal is that funding came from a donor, leading to the potential eponymous name change. UI officials should look to their in-state rivals for pointers on transparency.
The UI has had trouble with naming rights in the past.
Many objected when the UI attempted to rename the College of Public Health after health-insurance giant Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The conflicts caused Wellmark to withdraw a $15 million pledge. While currently unclear, the university’s secrecy could be due to a donation from a corporate entity, prompting officials to remain taciturn. It wouldn’t be surprising if UI officials’ disconcerting choice to withhold information is based on past failure.
Downer said it appears the proposal doesn’t follow the usual disclosure pattern. He said if the facility were to be named after a deceased faculty member or alum, the information would have been disclosed. Additionally, he deduced that maybe the proposal’s secrecy is in agreement with a donor.
“Typically, these sorts of things come up where substantial gifts are being made,” Downer said. “Those typically have detailed agreements, and getting the details hammered out takes some time.”
After the Wellmark fiasco, a confidentiality stipulation may be an important contractual agreement for donors. While understandable from a business standpoint, withholding pertinent information stifles public discourse. The UI should be upfront about its intentions so the public can form an opinion and weigh in on a possible name change, whether it’s corporate or non-corporate.
We hope that the university’s lack of disclosure will be much ado about nothing. But the opaque handling of the proposal is unsettling — especially when the school’s transparency has been sorely lacking in recent years.