In 1963, a potluck lunch became the start of a beloved senior center, the Ajax Turner Senior Citizens Center. For more than six decades, this volunteer-led nonprofit has been serving Clarksville, TN seniors, but its future grew shaky when the city terminated the center’s lease, intending to move senior services to the Parks and Recreation Department. The center stood its ground and argued that the city had exceeded its authority.
The dispute over the Ajax Turner Senior Citizens Center is more than a local legal battle. The case of the Clarksville center reveals the governance risks that nonprofits face when relying on public funding and government partnerships. And the center’s legal battle is a lesson for nonprofits that governance matters long before conflict ever enters the courtroom.
The City’s Takeover
“The Center never had problems until government got involved in its management.”
For 60 years, the center has provided special services and programs for at-risk and vulnerable older adults. These services include education, exercise, social interaction, low-cost meals, free health screenings, resource information, and an adult day center. On July 16, 2026 following a purported vote that included former board members of the center, the center received a letter from the city that they had to vacate the property within 10 days.
In March, Clarksville Mayor Joe Pitts had indicated to the center that he would terminate the lease because he believed the center would grow successfully under the city’s Parks and Recreation Department. In July, the center sued the city, arguing that the decision rested on an unauthorized vote as former board members resigned and no longer had authority. In the build-up toward the vote, the center experienced a split within the board, with members divided over how to respond to the city’s takeover.
In a statement obtained by Clarksville Now, the center said, “We cannot explain why, but the named defendants, including the City of Clarksville, have dedicated their efforts to end this needed charitable institution,” adding: “the Center never had problems until government got involved in its management.”
When the conflict eventually entered the courtroom, a Montgomery County judge issued a temporary injunction preserving the status quo and blocking the city from taking over the center.
As Chancellor Kimberly Lund said, “It appears to the court that the City began a course of interference with the operation of the center.” Lund added: “The City started securing funding and licensing against the center, specifically tied to the very location where the center was operating out of.”
According to Lund, the court viewed the city’s actions as a form of “self-help” for the nonprofit, “which is strictly prohibited in Tennessee. Ajax Turner Center was entitled not to be dispossessed until appropriate court proceedings and process occurred.”
But Ajax Turner Senior Citizens Center’s court battle proved to be much more than just a disagreement over a building. It is instead a dispute over the future of a nonprofit.
Government Partnerships Can Quickly Become Governance Tests
The case of the center highlights the potential risks faced by all nonprofits that depend on public funding, government partnerships, and municipal facilities. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, the center is funded by city, state, federal, and United Way funds. These partnerships can help nonprofits expand their services to better care for the community—but they can also blur the lines of authority when conflict arises.
This is more than just a lease disagreement. The lawsuit raises questions about who has authority to make decisions on behalf of a nonprofit and how such organizations can be protected when the city interferes in internal affairs. The lawsuit argued that city leaders violated Tennessee’s Open Meetings Act by making takeover decisions during closed or unannounced discussions.
According to governance experts such as BoardSource, government partnerships do not diminish the role of nonprofit boards. Board members and leaders still have a responsibility to serve as a guiding body and provide oversight and accountability. Boards should make sure that their mission and assets are safeguarded.
Sign up for our free newsletters
Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.
Nonprofits can spend years building trust based on infrastructure they do not control.
When breakdowns between boards occur, as in the case of Ajax, nonprofits become even more vulnerable. Governance safeguards such as clearly defined authority, an understanding of state law, and a conflict-of-interest policy are recommended. The National Council of Nonprofits argues that policy governing conflicts of interest is actually the most important policy a nonprofit board can adopt.
The Risks of Asset Dependence
The Ajax Turner conflict highlights another vulnerability beyond Clarksville: many nonprofits do not own their own facilities. Nonprofits can spend years building trust based on infrastructure they do not control. When partnerships shift, that infrastructure can become unstable.
In Ajax Turner’s case, the unstable infrastructure was a lease dispute. The center is located at 953 Clark Street, which is recorded as Montgomery County property. The city of Clarkesville does not hold a deed to the property, yet it signed a 1998 lease allowing the senior center to use the building for $1 per year. When the annual lease expired years ago, the city switched to a month-to-month basis. With the city’s termination of that lease, the center argued that Clarkesville was overreaching its authority. In contrast, the city maintained that it owns the building and provided 90 percent of the center’s funding.
Governance experts recommend treating facilities not as an operating expense but as part of risk oversight. According to the National Council of Nonprofits, boards are responsible for their assets, such as people and facilities. Organizations can handle oversight of their facilities by:
- Reviewing lease agreements.
- Understanding the termination provisions.
- Creating contingency plans if access to the building is interrupted.
Good governance is how you can build resilience.
What Nonprofit Leaders Can Learn from Clarksville
To be clear, the lesson from the Ajax Turner Senior Citizens Center is not to avoid government partnerships altogether. Rather, this lawsuit teaches nonprofits that long-standing relationships require regular oversight and risk management planning by nonprofit boards.
In late August, the Ajax Turner Senior Citizens Center reopened, announcing the resumption of its adult day care program the same day. What helped the center win its lawsuit was actually record-keeping deficiencies from the former board members. The lawsuit argued that former directors kept no proper corporate records or minutes documenting the July 16 surrender vote, which undermined the legitimacy of the former board’s actions.
But while these board deficiencies might have helped in this particular case, that’s not always the outcome. Good governance is how you can build resilience.
Nonprofit boards and leaders need to:
- Maintain accurate documentation to avoid confusion when conflict arises.
- Hold regular meetings with staff so that everyone is clear on governance policies.
- Clarify who has authority and what for.
- Regularly review leases and partnership agreements.
- Create a conflict of interest policy.
As the Ajax Turner Senior Citizens Center wrote on Facebook, “After everything it has taken to get here, we are so grateful to be moving forward and getting back to serving our ADC [Adult Day Care] family.”
In the future, the center will depend on donations to continue operations. The case in Clarksville serves as a reminder that all organizations should have governance safeguards in place long before they’re needed in a courtroom.
