JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (ABP) — The Missouri Baptist Convention and Missouri Baptist University must sit down and discuss possible solutions to their ongoing legal battle.
In 2002 the convention sued five of its agencies that decided to elect their own trustees — a right previously granted to the convention.
In the latest ruling, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Brown ordered mediation after listening to arguments at a hearing Aug. 7. Brown asked: “What about getting together just to find out” if mediation would work? He added he usually does not force litigants to try mediation. But he did so in spite of objections from convention attorney Stanton Masters.
Masters noted the convention would not be interested in discussing issues if the university does not have a new proposal to offer. “We've been down that road with the college,” he said, because the university's insurer had asked the convention to consider mediation last fall.
University attorney Clyde Farris argued for mediation as a means “to get the matter out of the lawyers' hands.” A lot of time and too much money already have been spent on litigation, he added.
When the judge asked if any flexibility exists in the university's position, Farris responded that MBU is “interested in talking,” but he added he is unaware of specific changes the university would consider.
In 2000, the Baptist Home, a Missouri Baptist agency, changed its charter to allow the institution to elect its own trustees. The following year, the university, Word&Way newspaper, Windermere Baptist Conference Center and the Missouri Baptist Foundation took similar actions.
The convention filed legal action against the five entities in August 2002 in an effort to force the institutions to rescind the charter changes in order to return control of the trustee election to the convention.
In 2002, the convention and the heads of the five entities briefly considered arbitration, rather than mediation, as an option to avoid taking the matter to court.
Early in 2002, a convention task force mentioned the possibility of settling the issues through binding Christian arbitration. But convention leaders and agency heads understood the term differently. At the time, both sides said they wanted to find a process through which underlying issues — Baptist polity and control — could be dealt with, as well as legal issues.
Although task force leaders said they wanted to discuss those underlying issues, they asked agency heads to sign an agreement that only included a binding Christian arbitration option. The agreement did not mention mediation as a first step.
In mediation, a third party helps disputing parties determine a fair and mutually acceptable agreement. Mediation does not always end in a resolution. In binding arbitration, a third party leads disputing sides to a legal settlement that all parties must accept. The settlement is determined out of court but is legally binding.
The five agency heads said they could not pursue binding arbitration because only their board members — not the agency presidents — have legal authority to make such decisions.
A breakthrough seemed at hand when both sides met in May 2002, when then-MBC president Bob Curtis, legal task force chairman Gary Taylor and the agency heads discussed ways to find a solution to which all parties could agree. At that time, conciliation and mediation were discussed.
However, after that meeting, Curtis called for a special session of the convention Executive Board in which board members authorized legal action against the agencies. The agency heads said they felt the MBC had issued an ultimatum: rescind the actions or the issue would be settled legally, either by an arbitrator or in court.
-30-