Tennessee Baptists reject Belmont settlement, vote to remove trustees

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by gb93433, May 10, 2006.

  1. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Does anyone know anything about the article at http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23221

    Tennessee Baptists reject Belmont settlement, vote to remove trustees
    By Staff
    May 10, 2006

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Tennessee Baptists meeting in special session May 9 rejected a settlement offer from Belmont University, choosing instead to remove the school’s trustees and pursue a path that could lead to litigation against the school.

    Messengers to the special called meeting at Two Rivers Baptist Church adopted a recommendation from the Tennessee Baptist Convention Executive Board empowering a special study committee to “carry out all rights, powers, actions and remedies of the Convention” with respect to Belmont.

    According to the recommendation, options available to the committee include “private negotiations/settlement, mediation, arbitration and/or litigation.”

    That action in the afternoon session included a two-hour-long discussion on proposed amendments and amendments to amendments, all of which messengers eventually defeated before approving the Executive Board proposal as presented by a 1,383-103 vote.

    The morning session ended with messengers rejecting, by a vote of 923-791, the Executive Board’s original recommendation dealing with a settlement offer from Belmont.

    In that offer, Belmont offered to pay the TBC $2 million in cash, plus an additional $1 million per year for the next three years. That would have permanently ended the relationship between the two entities. By rejecting the offer, TBC messengers indicated they were not content to let Belmont walk away from its relationship with the TBC without a fight.

    "This has not been a desire on our part to deal with this issue with Belmont.... But the convention had to respond to this," James Porch, executive director-treasurer for the Tennessee Baptist Convention, said at a press conference following the meeting.

    He added that the response by messengers was focused on what "could best be done" for the "Kingdom of God and the Tennessee Baptist Convention."

    "We are family, and our great desire has been for all these years that Belmont, especially, be a great part of the ongoing Tennessee Baptist Convention," he said. "But we came to a crossroads in which Belmont by actions had chosen not to participate in the family, according to the way that the family is structured. Every family has structure, and the same is true with a religious organization."

    All told, 1,754 messengers spent roughly seven hours debating how to handle the situation with Belmont.

    The TBC action on May 9 follows a November decision by Belmont’s trustees to change the university’s charter and become a self-perpetuating board. Previously, the TBC elected the university’s trustees.

    The TBC’s position is that the action taken by Belmont in amending its charter without TBC approval was illegal. In addition, when the TBC began its relationship with Belmont in 1951, the two entities signed a contract that contains language indicating that if Belmont ever passed from Baptist control, Belmont would repay the TBC the value of any assets transferred to it.

    Since 1951, the TBC has transferred more than $55 million in actual dollars of Cooperative Program allocations, alone. The value of these direct contributions exceeds $110 million in 2005 dollars.

    "My opinion is that document today is just as valid, just as legal, just as enforceable as it was in 1951 when it was signed," Randle Davis, TBC attorney, said. "... There has been nothing presented to us, and we have found nothing, that changes that document."

    Belmont contends that the contract is no longer valid.

    The TBC is challenging Belmont’s actions on two fronts –- first, that the unilateral change to the university charter was done illegally, and that the TBC still has the right to elect Belmont’s trustees; and second, if the state upholds the legality of Belmont’s charter change, that the 1951 contract comes into play, entitling the TBC to repayment from Belmont.

    In a legal maneuver designed to bolster its case in court, if it gets that far, the messengers voted overwhelmingly to remove 33 Belmont trustees whom the convention previously had approved.

    "From the convention's perspective, those trustees no longer are in office," Davis said. "From Belmont's perspective, I can only presume that they will not recognize the vote...."

    The special meeting was called because the statute of limitations requires action within one year of Belmont’s charter change, filed Nov. 10, 2005, and the next TBC annual meeting falls outside that one-year timeframe.

    Meanwhile, messengers also voted to look into selling or merging Baptist Health System of East Tennessee, hospitals which the convention owns. The health system is $220 million in debt.
     
  2. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    My wife and I are right here in TN and the SBC churches we have attended here weren't willing to agree with Belmont's position. They believe that the contract is still enforceable. Knowing several attorneys here in TN, I would tend to agree. There is no statute of limitation on this contract, nor is it worded such.

    Personally, I would hate to see it move into the litigation stage. Belmont has been a very liberal school for years, and I hate to see the TBC trying so hard to hold onto such a liberal institution. I don't believe that litigation would be scriptural, business entities or not. They are Christians before they are businessmen.
     
  3. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    And yet, the TBC has supported Belmont with millions of $$$$, have they not?
     
  4. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Uh, if you'd read my post instead of just responding with a knee jerk reaction LE, you would see that I've already acknowledged that. I'm not longer a part of the SBC, so it is of little consequence to me. I just hate to see people I know who claim to be children of the Lord going into litigation. Nobody has claimed that they didn't support the school. It, at one time had been heading back towards conservative Christian standards, therefore the TBC had continued funding. But, as of last year or the year before, they made it clear that they wanted to maintain a very liberal stance, and basically leave the Baptists. That was Belmonts decision. Being vocal about it, I don't believe the TBC had any choice but to withdraw funding. I believe they should have done it long ago...say 15 years or so ago to be exact.
     
  5. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, AVL1984, Belmont asked the TBC to stop sending money last year. I've not been in the TBC for long but it would appear that something should have been done long ago. Perhaps something has been done in the past, I cannot say, but I do wonder whether it is too late. I do not like the prospect of litigation but I do think people (and instutitions) ought to keep their word and ought to be held accountable for agreements that they make.
     

Share This Page

Loading...