Opinion ID: 1875561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Privacy Interests at Stake

Text: We now turn to the privacy interests of the Foundation's donors. It is here that a distinction must be drawn between those donors who requested anonymity and those who did not. Of the 47,000 donors to the Foundation whose identities have not previously been publicized, 62 specifically requested that their identities be withheld. Many of these 62 persons demonstrated their desire for anonymity by checking a box on the Foundation's donor form which specifically asks whether the donation is anonymous. Others directly asked the Foundation to withhold their identities. Five requested anonymity verbally.
We agree with the trial court's conclusion that the privacy interests of those donors not requesting anonymity are minimal. It is commonplace that a charity or other organization collecting donations will publish a list of donors and sponsors as a way of recognizing those persons and advertising the success of its fundraising efforts. In fact, for some persons, the fact that his or her name will be included in a publicized list is itself an incentive to make a donation or gift to the organization. We are not persuaded that this set of donors held a legitimate expectation of privacy in their donations. When balanced against the public's interest in disclosure, the privacy interests of the non-anonymous donors do not outweigh the need for public disclosure of these donors' identities. We agree with the trial court that the non-anonymous donors had a very minimal expectation of privacy in making the donations. Moreover, though personal in nature, the information sought by the Courier-Journal does not involve the revelation of intensely private information, such as personal income or medical history. The public, on the other hand, has a legitimate interest in the amounts and sources of monies donated to the Foundation, which ultimately fund the University. Particularly, in light of the donors' lowered expectations of privacy in this circumstance, we do not believe that disclosure of these non-anonymous donors' identities would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of the Open Records Act. Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals as to the group of donors not seeking anonymity.
The 62 donors who requested anonymity, however, are positioned differently than the remaining donors. At the time of each of these anonymous donations, the status of the Foundation was unclear. The Court of Appeals had not yet determined that the Foundation was a public entity for purposes of the Open Records Act. In fact, at the time these donations were made, the Foundation's status had only been considered within the context of Kentucky's Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.800 et seq. In Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Company v. University of Louisville Board of Trustees, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Foundation was not a public entity as defined in KRS 61.805(2). 596 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Ky.App.1979). It is also important to note a 1986 Opinion of the Attorney General, which evaluated the privacy interests of donors who had made contributions directly to the University. Ky. OAG 86-76. The Attorney General concluded that such donations fell within the privacy exception set forth in KRS 61.878. As the Foundation's status as a public entity was not clearly established prior to the Court of Appeals' decision in this case, it was certainly reasonable for each donor to believe that the donation was being made to a private entity. Furthermore, the donors were specifically asked whether their donations were to be anonymous. In fact, the record reveals that a promise of anonymity was a condition of certain donors' gifts. When an organization gives a donor the option of anonymity, it is certainly natural to assume that the recipient actually have the ability to honor the request. More importantly, when persons make anonymous donations to a private entity, it is not expected that the donors' identities and details of the gifts will be made available to the public. For these reasons, the anonymous donors' expectations of privacy were heightened, and the disclosure of their identities constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. When weighed against the public's interest in the source of Foundation fundsand ultimately, University fundswe conclude that the anonymous donors' interests in privacy are superior in this instance. Moreover, we note that there is no evidence in the record that would heighten the public's interest in disclosure of the anonymous donors' identities or otherwise affect this conclusion. The trial court conducted an in camera review of the 62 anonymous donors, including additional information concerning the circumstances of the gifts, and considered arguments by the Courier-Journal favoring disclosure. The trial court found nothing in the sealed records that would heighten the public's interest in the identities of these donors. Following our review of the sealed documents, we reach the same conclusion. Simply put, the arguments propounded by the Courier-Journal do not create a compelling enough public interest in the circumstances of the anonymous gifts to warrant disclosure of these donors' identities. Thus, we affirm the Court of Appeals as to the 62 donors seeking anonymity. However, we must emphasize that our holding with respect to the anonymous donors turns primarily on the fact that each donor believed, at the time of the gift, that the donation was being made to a private entity. By virtue of the Court of Appeals' opinion, future donors to the Foundation are aware, and on notice, that their gifts are being made to a public institution and, therefore, are subject to disclosure regardless of any requests for anonymity. In summary, this Court holds that the names of the Foundation donors are subject to the disclosure requirement of KRS 61.871. Excepted, however, are those 62 persons who requested anonymity and who made donations to the Foundation prior to it being declared a public entity. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals in part and hereby reinstate the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court. NOBLE, J., and Special Justices, F. KENNETH CONLIFFE and DAVID V. KRAMER, concur. MINTON, C.J., concurs in part because he agrees with the majority's conclusion that the donors who did not request anonymity should not receive it; but he dissents from the majority's conclusion that any donors should receive anonymity because his examination of the law has caused him to conclude that there cannot be an anonymous donation to a public institution. SCOTT, J., concurs in part and dissents in part by separate opinion. VENTERS, J., not sitting.