The Tennessee Baptist Convention will hold a rare special convention May 9 to deal with a growing rift with Baptist-affiliated Belmont University.
Belmont wants to elect its own trustees, who have been appointed by the convention for more than 50 years. But convention leaders warned March 28 they may seek the dismissal of the university's current trustees — presumably to elect a slate that will keep the Nashville school under convention control.
In a closed-door, special meeting March 28, the convention's Executive Board voted to call a rare special session of the convention for May 9.
The recommendation regarding Belmont could begin a move toward the “possible declaring of each trustee position of Belmont University vacant.” With two trustee boards claiming authority over the 4,300-student school, the dispute may end up in court.
At issue is a 1951 agreement, signed by Belmont and the convention's Executive Board, that says should Belmont “for any reason pass from Baptist control, or the control, ownership, supervision or right to elect the trustees of [Belmont University] be lost to the Tennessee Baptist Convention,” then the state convention can recoup all property and “be repaid or restored” for all the funds given to the school.
Since 1951, Belmont has received more than $50 million from the convention, reported the Baptist and Reflector, the convention's newsjournal.
Historically, all Belmont trustees are elected by a vote of the Tennessee Baptist Convention and must belong to churches affiliated with the convention.
Last Nov. 9, however, Belmont officials told the convention that Belmont intends to elect its own trustees. Belmont's announcement came after the convention's Executive Board voted in September not to accept a new “covenant” agreement that would have allowed the college to elect up to 40 percent non-Baptist trustees.
Messengers to the Nov. 15-16 annual convention were expected to ratify Belmont's new plan for electing its own trustees. But convention officials suspended that vote when they learned about the 1951 agreement with its “reverter clause.”
At the time, Belmont President Robert Fisher called the agreement “an irrelevant contract superseded by about five different actions.”
Convention leaders say Belmont will no longer be under Baptist control if the university is allowed to go through with its plan to elect its own board members. That could trigger the reverter clause, and Belmont almost certainly could not pay back the convention's $50 million-plus investment.
But Belmont contends it will remain Baptist, since under the new plan only 40 percent of trustees can be non-Baptist.
Jason Rogers, Belmont's vice president for administration and university counsel, said the school looked forward to the meeting on May 9.
“We are going to seek every opportunity to engage the Belmont Study Committee in mutual dialogue,” he said. “We look forward to the discussion. Our hope is that the messengers will approve the Resolution of Relationship.”
Associated Baptist Press