(Nashville, TN) The controversial absorption of struggling Watkins College of Art by the private religious Belmont University was back in court this morning, with no immediate ruling by the judge on a lawsuit that challenges the pending deal.
After hearing arguments on several related motions that will determine whether, and how, the case will proceed, Davidson County Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal announced that she is taking the motions under advisement and will issue written rulings “as soon as possible”.
The case was heard at 9:00am in Chancery Court by video conference, in a proceeding that lasted roughly two hours. Attorneys presented arguments on two motions that were brought by the plaintiffs who oppose aspects of the merger. A third motion, brought by the Watkins and Belmont boards, seeks to have the entire lawsuit dismissed on technical grounds.
The plaintiffs in the legal challenge are Kenneth Strawn and Amari Harris, two students currently attending Watkins, and Mark Schlicher, a faculty member at the institution. They are represented by attorneys Kevin Teets and Jonathon Fagan. The three identify themselves as members of “Save Watkins”, a group that has garnered nearly six thousand signatures on an online petition objecting to the Watkins-Belmont deal, and which has mounted several public protests.
“Today, members of Save Watkins fought to overcome yet another attempt by Belmont, Watkins and the Attorney General of Tennessee to keep a court from seeing the details of this merger. We look forward to the Court’s ruling,” said plaintiff’s attorney Jonathon Fagan.
A Save Watkins spokesperson stated, “Chancellor Moskal listened carefully, asked probing questions of both sides, and said she will issue a written ruling soon. We believe we made a strong factual case. We have always asked for a seat at the table, a transparent process, and an equitable deal for the Watkins community and the public. We appreciate that Chancellor Moskal gave us the respect and fair hearing that has been repeatedly denied by Watkins and Belmont leadership over the last three months. We remain optimistic.”
The first motion heard by Chancellor Moskal was a motion by the plaintiffs to remove the Attorney General’s office from the case, citing claims of conflict of interest in their overlapping roles dealing with Watkins College as a public trust and, separately, a non-profit corporation.
The second motion by the plaintiffs asks the court to appoint an “attorney ad litem”, which is an attorney who would be appointed to represent the interests of the heirs of individuals that Watkins College’s benefactor Samuel Watkins had designated to take over management of the trust he had established if the state of Tennessee should ever fail to “execute” the trust.
The third motion, which was filed by Watkins and Belmont, and supported by the Attorney General’s office, is a “motion to dismiss”, which seeks to throw out the lawsuit completely, based on their claim that the Samuel Watkins public trust has already been extinguished, and fully replaced by a non-profit corporation. Therefore, they claim, none of the three plaintiffs have “standing”; a legal term that means that they have no legal right to challenge the actions of Watkins and Belmont, even if they believe that they have a strong factual case of wrongdoing.
If the judge rules in favor of the three plaintiffs on any or all of the motions, the case can proceed. If she rules against them, the law allows them a right of appeal.