Southwestern Seminary and Baylor are suing the Harold E. Riley Foundation and its trustees over what they allege is an illegal attempt to divert funds from the schools contrary to the foundation’s purpose and bylaws. I skimmed the lawsuit and read the story, but I cannot pretend to have an in-depth knowledge of the facts of this case. You can read the full story in the Religion News Service story on the lawsuit, by Bob Smietana. The lawsuit itself is available in PDF form. The suit alleges that the Riley Foundation was established in 2002 to provide funds for SWBTS and Baylor, granting the two schools the right to name a majority of the trustees of the board. According to the lawsuit, after Riley’s death in 2017, an effort was made by the Board of Trustees (people sympathetic to Paige Patterson, fired in May of 2018 from SWBTS for mishandling sexual abuse cases and other offenses) to rewrite the bylaws without notifying the two schools, stripping them of the ability to name trustees and changing the charitable purposes of the foundation.
The lawsuit names Foundation President Mike C. Hughes, Vice President for Advancement under Paige Patterson at Southwestern. The seminary sees the foundation’s actions as part of Patterson’s efforts to undermine support for the school since his removal.
The article quotes Colby T. Adams as saying, “This is but the latest in a two-year pattern of attempts to divert support away from the seminary to other causes. We have sought relief with heavy hearts but firm resolve to expose and stop ongoing efforts to cause harm to our students and generous ministry partners.”
Evidently, the Riley Foundation was a major contributor to Baylor and to SWBTS, but is not since the takeover by Patterson associates, as alleged in the lawsuit according to the RNS article.
The suit alleges that the board sold off more than 700,000 shares in Citizens Inc., the company founded by Riley, but shared only a fraction of those proceeds with the schools.
Before the changes in 2018, a spokesman for Baylor said, the school had received $1.125 million from the foundation. Since 2018, it has received $250,000.
There is another lawsuit concerning the board of Citizens Inc, as reported in the RNS article.
According to a separate lawsuit filed in Colorado, the foundation has the right to appoint a majority of members to Citizens’ board of directors because it owns Class B stock in the company. Earlier this year, according to the suit, the foundation board attempted to name Patterson and Hughes to the Citizens board. The foundation board also attempted to name three others to the Citizens board, all with ties to Patterson: David August Boto, a former vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s executive committee; Charles Hott; and J. Clinton Pugh.
The purpose of the lawsuit is to return the foundation to its original intent. They are seeking the resignation of the current Board. Again, from the RNS article:
Under the lawsuit, the two schools seek the removal of the foundation’s current trustees and a freezing of the foundation’s assets until the foundation’s original charitable purpose is restored.
“It is the strong desire of both Southwestern Seminary and Baylor University that this matter be resolved without the necessity of a trial,” Greenway said in a statement. “It is our further hope that we can settle this issue in the spirit of Christian charity by returning direction and control of the foundation to its beneficiaries and restoring the member status of both Southwestern and Baylor.”
This is another ugly episode in the final years of Paige Patterson’s ministry among Southern Baptists. May it be resolved fairly and according to the truth. Obviously, this lawsuit presents one side and though they refused to speak in response to this article, I am sure that Paige, Augie, and others have their side. It is hard to understand how they could feel justified in their actions, but that is why we have courts, I suppose. This is another black eye for our faith – a dispute between believers headed to secular courts.
Read the article and lawsuit for more information.
One thing I have noticed in the years I wrote of things like this. It gets deeper and deeper. When one misappropriation of funds or an evil deed is uncovered, especially when it’s let to go on for years, the layers come off and there is always a scandal under a scandal, under an evil deed and it just continues ad infinitum. .
UPDATE: I should emphasize again that this kind of misbehavior *is* rare. Most charities are ethical and well-behaved. It doesn’t hurt to go to Charity Navigator before making a large donation, but that’s more about doing your due diligence than because you should *expect* that you’re getting ripped off.
Baptist Press also noted a seat on the board was worth 100k salary/year.
Just as a note: the BP article has been updated with quotes from Patterson, Boto, and a few others.
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/southwestern-baylor-file-suit-allege-secret-coup/
I guess Patterson actually hadn’t run the school into the ground financially by the time of his departure.
This isn’t SWBTS $.
He did
Looks like to me that he set the seminary up to be funded by a very well endowed foundation. He even had the foundation’s office on campus and the president of the foundation was a seminary vp yet you still insist that he ran the finances into the grouns?
He did run the school into the ground financially Tim. Your scenario is made up. Example number one: Fake dead sea scrolls and artifacts. Cost? Millions.https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/baptists/southwestern-seminarys-dead-sea-scrolls-likely-fraudulent/
Years ago a church I led needed to build and the committee came up with a fairly ambitious project. It didn’t take long for the negative nellies to start accusing the preacher of trying to bankrupt the church. What they didn’t know and what I couldn’t say is that I knew that the money would be there. As we began to size up what the project would cost I became concerned about how a church like ours could raise the money for such an ambitious project. In a conversation with one of our deacons (who was the kind of man… Read more »
Just wondering how the quotes below from a recent SBC Voices article relates to this lawsuit? “I’ve always been confused as to how anyone or any SBC advocacy segment that values the Bible as our rule for faith and practice can go roaring off to sue our entities or fellow believers who lead entities….And, although we wish all of our fellow believers well, we will not give voice to anyone who is suing an SBC entity.” – quotes from William Thortan Article on NAMB lawsuit. Is it now OK for an SBC entity to sue in a worldly court other… Read more »
I’ll answer your question when you learn to spell my name (just getting close would help) and when you acknowledge the plain statement, I’ve said it often, that my articles are my own and are not meant to speak for the others here or SBCV as a whole.
I have never trusted that Thortan guy
Isn’t Thortan a Marvel super hero??
Leader of Marvel’s Grumpy Old Men contingent. Dedicated to keeping them whippersnappers off the lawn!
I am so sorry for my misspell William Thornton. Absolutely you have said that more than once and I do recognize that in my comment above. The first sentence quoted certainly was stated as your personal opinion but the second sentence stated was in the plural sense of those in control at SBC Voices as you did say “we will not give voice…”. Again just wanted to know why it appears to be a contradictory statement that believers who sue SBC entities will not be given a voice but entities who sue believers or other entities will be given a… Read more »
As is stated, over and over and over again, if an article has a single author named, then it is the opinion of that author, whether he opines in first-person singular, third-person singular, or first-person plural. If the author cites others with him by name, then they are included in that. Occasionally, you will see articles credited to “SBCVoices Team” or some other labeling that is collective (we do it so rarely that I can’t remember the details). When that happens, it’s the opinion of the bulk of a group of guys that are involved (or have been involved) here… Read more »
Got it… unless it is specificlly said in the article that the SBC team agrees then the entire article is only the opinion of the author including when it says “we” As to this article and the one on NAMB, I agree with William Thornton (notice the spelling here) as he said… “I’ve always been confused as to how anyone or any SBC advocacy segment that values the Bible as our rule for faith and practice can go roaring off to sue our entities or fellow believers who lead entities….And, although we wish all of our fellow believers well, we… Read more »
It’s not a biblical distinction but Harold E Riley Foundation is not a Convention entity. It isn’t a church either. Just saying.
Doug, The issue I think – with the whole “each author gives his opinion and only his opinion” motif is that quite often a member of the editorial team will use the word “we” in thier article – this leads many of us regular readers and commenting folk to assume “we” is plural and not singular. 😉 Come to think of it – when I went to grade school – I learned that “we” is in fact a plural word. (As to this article and PP’s latest underhanded scorched earth antics – chalk me down as being firmly in the… Read more »
You appear to have a sense of grievance, Dave, but no one here is responsible for anyone else’s writings, unless we take mutual responsibility. When I write, I write for myself.
Maybe, instead of a broad condemnation you could make a specific accusation. Show an instance of this “we” and “we” can either understand your accusations or explain it.
Broad and general accusations are not helpful.
I’m away will answer later
It’s a fair question and one I anticipated. The scriptural prohibition on lawsuits between believers is not one that I have seen consistently explained and applied to modern business. I’ll just say that the ongoing suit against NAMB and its CEO seems to have a very personal quality. The plaintiff seems aggressive and nearly ubiquitous on social media. No legal opinion from me on either but the current suit is by two institutions against a bequest, foundation, and another corporation. The donor is dead. How are his wishes for his bequest to be fulfilled? Who should make that judgment if… Read more »
A coup??
But that seems so out of character for Patterson..
For Baylor and Southwestern to agree on something is noteworthy in itself.
I was thinking about that myself–next thing you know, it’ll be Baylor, SWBTS, and B.H. Carroll Theological Institute agreeing on something…
and then the end will come.
Especially after Baylor has had so much trouble recognizing breakaways over the years.
Obviously some big egos and deep pockets all around; it’s a strange place to find SWBTS.
I guess the need for money is the common denominator.