Gleaners CEO to step down after nearly 30 years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Pamela Altmeyer, the longtime president and CEO of Gleaners Food Bank, is stepping down from the position after close to 30 years with the not-for-profit.

"It's definitely time to start ramping down," Altmeyer, 63, said Wednesday.

"With the end of Gleaners' capital campaign in sight, a facility superior to any food bank in the nation, [and] no major debt ... there is no time that is more ideal to secure a successor to lead Gleaners into the future," said Altmeyer, who has been at the helm of the organization since 1981.

Gleaners will perform a nationwide search for Altmeyer's successor and hopes to fill the position by Oct. 1. Altmeyer plans to stay with Gleaners through the transition, and then consult with the new CEO if needed.

Gleaners provides food and grocery products to a network of more than 400 charitable programs in 21 central and southeastern Indiana counties. In 2009, the group served more than 160,000 people through emergency food providers such as food pantries, homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

For its 2009 fiscal year, the organization reported $31.6 million in income and $26.7 million in expenses. Earlier this year, the group announced that it would relocate to the former Monarch Beverage Co. warehouse on the southwest side of Indianapolis, and that it was en route to raising $11.6 million for the move.


  • Hoosiers come up short
    So, Gleaners needs a nationwide search to find a replacement for itâ??s CEO? Why? There are plenty of candidates right here who could easily fill that job. Guess we should all do a nationwide search for the best not-for-profit to support.

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.