IBJNews

Retirement could change for some IU officials

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Many high-ranking administrators at Indiana University would be allowed to work past the school's current mandated retirement age of 65 under a proposed new policy that one official said would better reflects current careers.

A Board of Trustees committee voted unanimously Thursday to endorse raising the retirement age to 67 for the university president along with vice presidents and deans at the school's largest campuses in Bloomington and Indianapolis, The Herald-Times reported.

The overall change was recommended to recognize that many people want to work a longer career and are capable of doing so, university counsel Jacqueline Simmons said. The policy also aligns IU with Social Security standards, she said.

The full Board of Trustees was expected to vote on the change during a meeting Friday afternoon at IU's Kokomo campus.

A similar retirement policy at Purdue University forced Michael Wartell to step down as chancellor of the Indiana-Purdue Fort Wayne campus this summer after turning 65 even though the IPFW Senate supported his desire to stay in the position.

The revised Indiana University retirement age policy exempts vice chancellors and deans at IU's five regional campuses around the state. Simmons said that was done for pragmatic reasons.

"We've found that it's just more difficult to recruit really great people at the regionals," she said. "If they want to stay on, we want to keep them."

The revised policy setting the standard retirement age at 67 covers 14 vice presidents and 37 deans in Bloomington and Indianapolis. They can be granted a waiver from the policy by the university president.

The president of the university also can receive a waiver from the mandatory retirement age from the Board of Trustees.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT