INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana Gov. Mike Braun is now being sued after the decision for him to assume full control over Indiana University’s board of trustees was added to the newly passed budget bill.
Justin Vasel, an alumnus of the university and a candidate for the university’s board of trustees’ election, sued Braun, claiming that the decision surrounding the board is unconstitutional under Indiana law. Vasel is being represented by the ACLU of Indiana in the lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in Monroe County court.
According to previous reports, House Bill 1001, the newly passed budget bill, permits the governor to “remove and replace” any of the nine members of the IU Board of Trustees at any time, including those elected by alumni. The Ivy Tech Community College has a similarly appointed board.
At the time, past members of the IU Alumni Association called this addition to the budget bill a “cowardly” and “short-sighted” act.
“The current process has not maybe yielded the proper results on the entirety of how you’d want that important part of our state to be run from curriculum to costs to the whole way one of our flagship universities has been operating,” Braun said at the time. “I want to get a board there that is gonna be a little more rounded, that’s gonna produce better results.”
The lawsuit claims that this “special legislation” addition to the budget bill targets Indiana University, because it does not apply to other four-year universities in the state. Because of this, officials believe this violates article four, section 23 of the Indiana Constitution, the portion that states that all state laws “shall be general and of uniform operation.”
“There is no justification for excluding the voice of alumni in the selection process of boards of trustees when alumni have a voice in every other four-year public university in Indiana,” the lawsuit reads.
Before the addition to the budget bill, the university allowed three members of the board to be elected by alumni for three-year terms. This has been in place since 1891, the lawsuit states. The governor had the ability to appoint five members of the board for three-year terms, as well as one full-time student for a two-year term.
The lawsuit compared Indiana University’s new system established under the budget bill to other four-year universities in the state, including Ball State University, Indiana State University, Purdue University and the University of Southern Indiana, stressing that Indiana University’s new rules are only subject to them.
“Unlike the gubernatorial selection process for board of trustee members in the other public four-year Indiana universities, there is no longer any mechanism for alumni or or their associations to select members to be appointed by the governor,” the lawsuit read.
“The method of selection of members of the board of trustees of Indiana’s other public four-year institutions of higher learning remain unchanged,” the lawsuit continues, “so that as of May 6, 2025, Indiana University is the only institution where alumni have absolutely no say in the selection of any of the members of the Board of Trustees.”
The lawsuit claims that this does not give Vasel, an alumnus of the university, the chance to campaign for the position, something that the lawsuit states he has “spent a considerable amount of effort, time and expense in.”
The lawsuit states that while he is a candidate, Vasel believes that alumni should have a role in shaping the university’s future, “even those not favored by the governor,” the lawsuit states. Officials claim that there was no hearings or conversation surrounding the change to the IU Board.
“When I decided to run for IU Trustee, I committed to defending the university’s interests and alumni representation. I never imagined my first act would be to defend the very existence of the position itself,” Vasel said in a release surrounding the lawsuit. “Thousands of alumni are preparing to cast their votes in this election, as they have done for over 130 years. Their voices deserve to be heard and respected, not silenced through legislative maneuvering that our state constitution was designed to prevent.”
Comments