It would be artless this week to write an article on economics and business in Indiana without remarking upon the passing of John Fisher. Much has been written about his legacy over this past week, so I will make do with an anecdote and a lesson I have learned from him.

Shortly after coming to Muncie less than two years ago I participated in Ball State’s annual forecasting roundtable. The event attracts a very large crowd and I was one of several panelists to speak on the local and state economy. After a very successful program a large man, looking to be in his early seventies stopped by to ask a couple of (very good) questions about my presentation. As is traditional in these things, my short biography had been read which included the fact that I had graduated from the University of Tennessee. Mr. Fisher mentioned that he was also a proud Vol. As it turned out he graduated exactly 60 years before I did. So here’s the lesson.

John Fisher worked from childhood until mandatory retirement at 70. He did very well. Men of his generation did just that in droves. Mr. Fisher was perhaps considerably more successful financially and in corporate leadership than most. Running a fortune 500 company is a memorable achievement but that is not why he is so fondly remembered across Indiana. The Fishers have also been remarkably generous with their wealth but that is not why he is so fondly remembered. I think the reason Mr. Fisher is so well thought of in Indiana is for two entirely different reasons.

First, John Fisher stayed here in Indiana to make a difference. His accomplishments could have taken him to Congress or the Senate, a cabinet appointment or an ambassadorship. As far less talented men went to Washington and moved in the comfortable circles of power, John Fisher stayed here in East Central Indiana. Here was the fulcrum from which he tried to change the world.

Second, John Fisher gave of his time. Until his death, almost 25 years after his retirement, Mr. Fisher participated vibrantly in matters large and small affecting colleges and universities, communities and businesses. He did these things without fanfare or pay. Only one thing can explain why a wealthy man, in his nineties, would eschew a comfortable retirement for the anguish of innumerable meetings and planning sessions, quarterly reports and policy discussion. He cared deeply about Indiana, her people and institutions.

In academic circles much has been written about the loss of social participation and its effect on communities. There’s growing research on how the decline of Mr. Fisher’s type of involvement in his community hangs heavy on economic growth and vitality. No one can blame John for that.

For those who loved him he will be remembered for very different and better reasons.

At a time when corporate leaders suffer their worst reputations in a half century, the life of John Fisher provides quite the opposite example. God bless him.