The Future of the Rose Committee will recommend in its report today that the Rose Art Museum should remain open to the public, according to a Boston Globe article published today. The Globe wrote that the committee's report, of which the newspaper received an advanced copy, does not comment on the University's potential sale of art. The Globe article was published too late for the Justice to contact the necessary parties involved in the Rose Art Museum museum controversy.The committee was formed by Provost Marty Krauss to issue reccomendations to the University administration and Board of Trustees in light of the current circumstances surrounding the museum.

Prof. Jerry Samet (PHIL) is the chair of the committee. The Rose Board of Overseers, Fine Arts faculty and students are represented in the committee.

The deadline for the opposing counsel in the lawsuit to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, an injunction that takes place before the verdict is determined, is today, according to the deadlines set at the case management conference Sept. 1.

"The court ordered the injunction to be filed on the 22nd. You can expect me to meet any court deadlines," Edward Dangel III, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said yesterday.

He would not make any further comments until the injunction had been filed.

"The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to require someone to do something or to stop them from doing something. Until it has been filed in court, it is not appropriate for me to comment," Dangel said.

The lawsuit was filed by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster on July 27 in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and was subsequently transferred to the Suffolk Probate Court.

The lawsuit seeks to maintain the Rose collection intact by stating that the University's decision to close it and sell paintings would violate the museum's ethical codes.

The University's commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum will also be violated, according to the lawsuit.

This deadline is the second one for the case; a motion to dismiss was last Tuesday filed by Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case.

The deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss the case is Oct. 6. The first hearing is scheduled for Oct. 13.

Reilly explained that the plaintiffs in the case are seeking to gain control over the museum, a claim that Reilly says has no legal basis.

Reiily explained that all three plaintiffs are members of the museum's Board of Overseers, a committee that Reilly said plays a strictly advisory role and has no fiduciary responsibility

Reilly said that the plaintiffs' objective in the case "is contrary to 200 years of law in Massachusetts."

"The impact of this decision, if granted, would be felt throughout Massachusetts, where advisers, committees, and volunteers could seek to take control over what they have pledged to serve," he said.

"What will become clear as the case progresses is that what the trustees have done and what the administration is doing [is] acting in accordance in the law of the state of Massachusetts," he added.