Belmont University has subpoenaed giving records from 100 Tennessee Baptist Convention churches in an ongoing legal dispute with the convention over control of the school's assets.
The subpoena asks for records on churches' giving to the Cooperative Program between 1951, when the school became affiliated with the convention, and 2005, when Belmont trustees removed the school from convention control.
In a Jan. 3 letter accompanying the subpoenas, Belmont trustee chairman Marty Dickens asked if, “in making those gifts, the churches knew about or relied upon the 1951 document that is the focus of the [TBC] Executive Board's lawsuit against Belmont.”
The reference was to a once-forgotten document convention officials are relying on in the suit, filed last year. The agreement says that, should the school ever remove itself from convention control, it would owe the convention for all the Cooperative Program funds it has received.
Belmont representatives have said the agreement has been superseded by at least two other documents and is no longer effective.
Belmont apparently mailed its letter to all TBC churches, not just to those that received subpoenas. In the letter, Dickens wrote, “We are not serving subpoenas on all of the affiliated churches of the Tennessee Baptist Convention. Rather, we are serving them on the largest donors to the Cooperative Program because Cooperative Program funds are at the center of the Executive Board's claims against us.”
Convention leaders responded to the Belmont action in a three-page letter that was mailed to churches across the state on Jan. 12.
The letter said that the Repayment Agreement “contains a simple and clear promise from Belmont that it would repay all monies given to it by the Executive Board in the event that the TBC ever lost the right to elect the directors/trustees of Belmont. … By steadfastly refusing to acknowledge, much less honor, its promise to us, Belmont, not the Executive Board or the Belmont Study Committee, forced this matter into the courthouse.”
In the Belmont letter, Dickens noted “we do not wish this request to create a costly or burdensome task for the churches and do not believe that it will, but we have been informed by the Executive Board's attorneys that they do not represent the churches. Unfortunately, this means that rather than seeking this information directly from the Executive Board, Belmont must request it from individual churches by sending them subpoenas.”
In response to that assertion, Porch and Austin noted that “the unfortunate reality is that the information sought by the subpoenas is irrelevant to the lawsuit. None of the churches are parties to the Repayment Agreement. Furthermore, the Executive Board is seeking repayment of Cooperative Program funds only, not funds contributed by churches directly to or for the benefit of Belmont.”
The letter from TBC leaders also challenged an assertion that the request for information by Belmont from the subpoenaed churches will not be costly or “burdensome.