Tempel chosen to lead IU Foundation

Tracy Donhardt
July 2, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Eugene Tempel, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, has been chosen to replace Curt Simic as president of the IU Foundation, the university announced this morning.

Many of Simic's peers and colleagues said his shoes would be hard to fill, but Tempel, considered nationally an expert on philanthropy and not-for-profit management, might be able to do so.

During Simic's 20-year tenure with the foundation, IU's endowment swelled to $1.6 billion, from $189 million. It consistently ranks among the top 15 public universities based on the market value of its endowment.

Tempel has led the philanthropy center, which is headquartered at IUPUI, since 1997. He was involved in the center's founding a decade earlier and served as vice chancellor for external affairs at IUPUI.

But when Tempel takes over for Simic, he'll be returning to the foundation; he served as its vice president from 1985 to 1989.

Tempel has been listed by Nonprofit Times as one of the country's 50 most influential leaders in the not-for-profit sector.

The Center on Philanthropy is considered a leading national resource for education, research, training and public-service programs related to the not-for-profit sector.

Tempel's accomplishments at the center include developing a cutting-edge research program, and expanding an academic field of study, Philanthropic Studies, which serves as a model for other universities nationally and internationally. He also created the country's first Ph.D. in philanthropic studies, and received a $40 million endowment grant from Lilly Endowment to help support the center's operations.

Tempel will assume his new role Sept. 1.


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.