IBJNews

IUPUI's Bantz passed over for UMass president's job

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees on Thursday tapped Robert Caret to lead the the five-campus UMass system, choosing him over IUPUI Chancellor Charles Bantz and Philip Clay of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Earlier in the day, Bantz was identified as one of the three finalists culled from an initial field of 300 candidates.

Caret is president of Towson University in suburban Baltimore, where he has also served as faculty member, dean, executive vice president and provost during the past 25 years. He also served as president of San Jose State University from 1995 until 2003.

Current UMass President Jack Wilson is stepping down on June 30 after nearly eight years of leading the $2.8 billion university, which has about 66,000 students at a medical school and four undergraduate campuses.

Bantz, who also serves as executive vice president of Indiana University, joined IUPUI in 2003 following the retirement of longtime Chancellor Gerald Bepko. Bantz was a finalist for the president's job at the University of Iowa in 2007.

He came to Indianapolis from Wayne State University in Detroit. All told, Bantz has more than 35 years of experience in higher education, over half of that in leadership positions.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • New Leadership Needed
    Itâ??s obvious that Bantz does not want to be here in Indianapolis. Heâ??s applied to at least three different positions in his short tenure. Itâ??s obvious that he does not care about IUPUI, and our campus is suffering for it. We havenâ??t had good leadership here since Bepko left and for that matter the IU system has suffered since Myles Brand's departure. Thereâ??s great potential here, and we need leaders who want to be here and have vision.

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT