Welcome, largest-ever Class of 2013, to the frugal Brandeis University, home of the esteemed and ambiguously existential Rose Art Museum.If you're an infrequent reader of news, please embrace this delightful opportunity for me to update you on the flowery saga of Brandeis and the Rose.

The latest segment of the saga involves a blooming July lawsuit and the not-so-insignificant issues of donor intent and museum ethics. But first, let's take a brief journey back to the start of all this fun.

Our story began on a cold January day when the University Board of Trustees unanimously and impulsively voted to close the Rose Art Museum, which housed, and still houses, a rather pleasant and expensive (its estimated value is about $350 million) modern art collection.

That evening, University President Jehuda Reinharz sent out a heartwarming e-mail succinctly informing the Brandeis community of the University's decision to close the museum and auction off its art for relief during its troubled, donor-dependent financial situation.

Within a very short period of time, Reinharz and others involved in the Rose close learned that a number of categories of people really like art and really didn't like the idea of closing the Rose, including a) students, b) professors, c) The New York Times editorial board and d) the Rose Art Museum Board of Overseers, which includes individuals from several families of prominent museum donors. That last group is most important in the latest exciting chapter of Rosy action, which I'll get to shortly.

Anyhow, following a media maelstrim and criticism all around, President Reinharz and the University revised its past position to one of selling just a few pieces of art and re-emphasizing the usefulness element of closing the official museum. Also, a University committee was formed to look at the whole issue.

But this appeasement was rather ineffective, because apparently it's immoral to sell even a few expensive pieces of art for the sake of sustaining a university.

Which brings us to the latest chapter of the saga.

At the end of July, three prominent members of the Rose's Board of Overseers, including one with the noncoincidental last name Rose, sued the University to attempt to block, or at least stall, University action regarding the Rose.

The premise of the lawsuit is unsurprisingly about the possible legal and ethical ramifications of altering the Rose in any way-like, perhaps, closing it. The University, also unsurprisingly, is unhappy about the lawsuit. The legal fees and publicity associated with a lawsuit are certainly not good news for Brandeis.

Personally, I'm a fan of proceeding within legal parameters. But whether this lawsuit will enforce the pre-existent legal obligations surrounding the Rose remains to be seen. Sales of artwork require their own legal verifications without lawsuits, like checking up on donor intent, so there was automatically a check on current and future University actions in that area.

And to an extent, the same is true for how the boxy Rose facilities can be legally used by the University. This issue may be blurrier because the Rose family donated the building for use as a museum. But sorting through these legal problems should have been and hopefully was a prime concern for the University irrespective of any lawsuit.

This lawsuit likely won't end with a nice plaque or two, the way in which a lawsuit against the University regarding the donor of the original Kalman building concluded earlier this month. Yet the spirit of honoring a donor while acknowledging a changing situation will undoubtedly play a role in any court decision.

So where do we go from here? Maybe the Rose Board of Overseers will run out of money for legal fees before the University does. Or maybe there'll be a sudden upswing in the economy and the endowment, and no one will have to sell anything. Stay tuned.