| Baptist
Convention, agencies start second legal battle - May 5, 2005 (Jefferson
City News Tribune/Bob Watson)
Cole County Circuit Judge Richard G. Callahan on Tuesday set a June 1 hearing
for one of seven motions filed in the second Missouri Baptist Convention
lawsuit for control of five mission agencies.
Lawsuit
Finance Update - May 1, 2004
Based
on the MBC's Executive Board numbers, the projected amount to be given by
churches to MoBARF in 2004 will total right at $16,000. Based on the
same report, that $16,000 will fund the MBC attorney fees for just 5 days.
One year of income to cover only
one
week of lawyer expenses? This financial reality explains why the MBC leadership
has backed off its promise to not use CP funds to pay for their lawsuit.
It does leave unanswered one major question: where are the churches that
should be "stepping up to the plate" to fund MoBARF?
Moving
today's international affairs question to Missouri Baptists: Does the MBC have an exit strategy from these
lawsuits? Is the only solution just expending more and more money?
In
addition the MBC took out a $1Million line of credit at the end of
2003. In less than five months of 2004, more than one-half of that
amount has been utilized to fund attorneys. At this rate of expense
the MBC will tap out its $1Million limit before the Convention
meets in Kansas City this fall.
In
spite of Dr.
Clippard's upbeat assessment, it appears the MBC in the past two years
has:
-
depleted
the Strategic Initiatives Fund which had $1,267,661 at the end of 2001;
-
set
up MoBARF as a replacement fund that even the most adamant
lawsuit-advocating pastors are not leading their churches to
support;
-
the
2004 Convention will have a $1Million dollar debt to address this
fall;
-
during
the past six months Missouri CP gifts receipts are 13.19 percent
behind last year's six-month comparison (based on Baptist Press), and
finally
-
the
strong possibility that the promise of not tapping CP funds for the
lawsuit will be broken next year.
Does the MBC
have an exit strategy from these
lawsuits? Is the only solution just expending more and more money?
Lawsuit
Status Update - March 18, 2004
Click here to read the complete ruling by Judge Thomas Brown related
to the Executive Board's lawsuit. (You will need to download Acrobat
Reader to open the document).
Lawsuit
Status Update - February 16, 2004
On
February 26, Defendants’ motions to dismiss and motions for summary
judgment that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the suit will be argued in
the Cole County Circuit Court.
The Court’s ruling on the pending motions could result in the case
moving on to the Appellate level or proceeding to trial.
However, there may be more discovery yet to be done if the case is to go
to trial.
Missouri Baptists may have an interest in
reading various depositions and a sampling of the memorandums of law that have
been filed in support of or response to the various motions pending before the
Court.
MissouriBaptists.org provides these copies as public record. Providing
a copy of the public records of various legal memorandums that are on file in
the Cole County Circuit Court can be more helpful than edited memos and/or
limited publishing of complete documents.
The posting of these legal memoranda setting forth the official positions
taken by both Defendants and Plaintiffs before the Court allows the individual
to read and draw their own conclusions. The reader can more or less
sit in the chair of the Judge and have access to the same filings as will be
the basis for the Judge's decision relative to the pending motions.
Depositions related to the MBC Lawsuit are provided for your
information. (to open these documents you may be asked to enter User
Name and Password. Just click on CANCEL)
November 10, 2003 (Jefferson City News-Tribune)
Brown rules against Baptist Convention in one part of suit against agencies By Bob Watson
The Missouri Baptist Convention isn't a
"member" of the Missouri Baptist University's corporation, and can't claim a
membership right to sue the St. Louis school, Cole County Circuit Judge Thomas
J. Brown III ruled this morning.
Attorneys for the school and the convention said the ruling is only one part
of the on-going dispute, and likely will be appealed after other issues also are
decided.
"It's one of three legs -- there are two others that we have to knock out,"
said Clyde C. Farris of St. Louis, who represented Missouri Baptist University
at this morning's hearing.
In August last year, the MBC, its executive board and six churches --
including Jefferson City's Concord Baptist Church -- sued the church agencies,
alleging they illegally changed their charters in order to avoid the
convention's rights to operate and control them.
The agencies are the Missouri Baptist College (now university) in St. Louis
County, the Jefferson City-based Missouri Baptist Foundation and the Word and
Way newspaper, Windermere Conference Center in Camden County and The Baptist
Home in Ironton.
The lawsuit also originally named Secretary of State Matt Blunt, challenging
his office's issuing new charters for the agencies, but Blunt was dropped as a
defendant earlier this year.
Michael K. Whitehead of Kansas City represented the Baptist Convention at
this morning's hearing.
He noted Brown will hear more arguments in the case next month.
"A very small percentage of the case has been resolved by the judge's order"
this morning, Whitehead told reporters.
Farris told Brown this morning the university changed its charter in 1997 to
comply with legislative changes to corporate laws made in 1995.
He noted the Baptist Convention's executive board and its messengers at the
annual meeting approved those changes, which included "no role for 'members' in
the corporation."
Farris argued the MBC "has waived its right to come back now and say it is a
'member' of the college."
But Whitehead told Brown the convention's messengers still voted at the
annual meeting on trustees to sit on the school's board, and it was the
university that changed the rules when, in 2001, it changed its charter again to
have a self-perpetuating board with no MBC-approved trustees.
"It was the intention of the parties (in 1997) that the convention (still)
have the right to determine (the school's) governance," Whitehead argued.
But Brown ruled from the bench, after an hour-long hearing, that the 1997
changes were "clear and unambiguous," and that the MBC isn't a member of the
college.
The convention's original suit also said the MBC had contractual rights with
the agencies that were changed by the charter changes.
Whitehead told Brown the MBC is protecting the interests of the churches and
people who helped found the college and pay for its operations.
Farris later told a reporter: "Missouri Baptist University hasn't changed.
It's the Missouri Baptist Convention that's changed."
He said the university "still has the same program it's always had."
March 6, 2003 (MB.org reporting)
As the mills of the gods grind exceedingly slow and exceedingly
fine, likewise the judicial system so moves. The lawsuit filed by the
MBC Executive Board, the MBC and six Missouri Baptist churches (on behalf
of all Missouri Baptist churches, irrespective of whether an individual
church desired to take a position in the lawsuit) is slowly moving along.
The Plaintiffs, at last count, wanted to take depositions of over 50 witnesses.
Depositions are taken so that one side hopefully can learn information
that may be relevant to the issues being tried.
Taking depositions of more than 50 individuals will take some time. It
also will take some money. Taking depositions adds up to “billable
hours” for attorneys. In other words, taking depositions is a money
making venture. So while employees of the Executive Board are terminated
under the guise of saving money, the dollars continue to roll out of the
reserve fund, into the lawyers’ pockets.
It will be some months before the case is ready to go to trial. Irrespective
of the outcome at trial, there will be the additional time for appeal
beyond the circuit court level. In the meantime the ministry of each of
the defunded institutions goes on. Missouri Baptists are still being ministered
to by The Baptist Home, The Missouri Baptist Foundation, Missouri Baptist
University, Windermere Conference Center and Word & Way. For this
we can be thankful.
November 18, 2002 (MB.org reporting)
The updated count on November 18 stands
at 2548 individuals from 149 churches and 36 individual churches.
The individuals in these churches represent 45
(of the 63) Baptist associations throughout Missouri.
As background, Mr. W.B. (Bart) Tichenor entered a
Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief on Monday, October
21, 2002 in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri in the case of
Executive Board of the MBC et al. v. Blunt et al. There
are
2,548 individuals representing 149 Missouri Baptist churches signed on
as friends. The number of churches that have authorized
the amicus brief filed by W. B. Tichenor in their name stands at 35.
These individuals and churches are standing with five Missouri Baptist
institutions as they continue to provide ministries for all Missouri Baptists.
The number of individual friends exceeds by more
than 400 the total number of messengers at the 2001 Annual Meeting of
the MBC where the groundwork of this legal action was initiated.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of the 1,951 churches
and missions affiliated with the Missouri Baptist Convention are completely
unaware that the six churches that have filed the law suit against The
Baptist Home, Missouri Baptist University, the Baptist Foundation, Windermere
and Word and Way are doing so on behalf of all Missouri Baptist churches.
Paragraph 10 of the lawsuit asserts that the six churches
are "representatives of all" the Convention churches and that
they "bring this action for and on behalf" of all churches of
the Convention. It is doubtful that few if any Missouri Baptist
churches have taken any action to authorize the Plaintiffs to sue these
institutions.
However, whether Missouri Baptist churches like it
or not, they are in effect, suing the five Missouri Baptist Institutions.
Other churches that sit by and do not take action are,
by their silence, consenting to the law suit. They are opting
to be represented by the six churches as part of the class of plaintiffs
suing the institutions.
Your church is involved in this mess one way or
the other: as part of a class suing institutions or as an autonomous church
standing with Missouri Baptist institutions. The choice belongs
to your church.
It is not too late to enter your name as an individual
or to enter your church as a friend. Our prayer that providing
information about the amicus brief is one modest way to focus on the positive
ministries of Missouri Baptist benevolent and educational institutions.
MissouriBaptists.org will provide information as
this situation develops.
Friends
of Missouri Baptist Institutions to File Amicus Brief
8-14-02 (MB.org)
W. B. (Bart) Tichenor, counsel
for MissouriBaptists.org, announced today that he is authorized
to organize and coordinate the filing of an amicus curiae brief at the
appropriate time on behalf of interested Missouri Baptist churches and
individuals in support of the defendant Baptist institutions.
|
