In a letter dated October 10, 2006, Dr. Belletech (Caaltu) Deressa, Dr. Bahiru Gametchu, and Mr. Abraham Mosisa leveled a series of accusations against me and others including the 2005-2006 OSA Ex. C., Board members, and a number of Oromo senior scholars of reputed stature. Below I am responding to the allegations of the three authors. To save time and space, I am not including my related views that I expressed before at many other occasions and through other outlets including OSA newsletters and also my presidential address at the OSA 2006 conference. I have read Prof. Asafa Jalata's fulfilling response to the three authors and his generous comments about me - I am very humbled. His rich resume full of indisputable contributions to his people makes him unreachable to unsubstantiated accusations and unfair criticisms. I have avoided repetition of issues well addressed by Prof. Asafa Jalata on the same subject. I have also read Dr. Baisa Lamu's "for the record" note which indeed reports and sets the record strait.

1. OSA 2005-2006; The Committee

In 2005-2006 I worked as President of OSA with colleagues who have my highest respect for their scholarly and personal integrity in scopes far deeper and wider than OSA. The Ex. C. members with whom I had the distinct opportunity to serve as OSA President included:

" Gobana Huluka, Ph.D., OSA Vice President
" Gudata Hinika, OSA Secretary, M.D.
" Abebe Adugna, Ph.D. OSA Treasurer
" Guluma Gemeda, Ph.D., JOS editor

In the past I have also served as a member and Chair of OSA Board, two-time OSA Vice President, contributing editor of JOS, and OSA Treasurer. I have made several presentations at OSA conferences and also chaired or organized sessions. Currently I am a contributing editor of JOS and a member of OSA Board.

None of the OSA officials I served with in 2005-2006 deserves the ham-fisted run over of the three authors: Dr. Belletech (Caaltu) Deressa, Dr. Bahiru Gametchu, and Mr. Abraham Mosisa (hereafter referred to as "Belletech et al", a short form to refer to the three authors). The Ex. C. members worked tirelessly with professional harmony and deep understanding of OSA's mission, upholding the highest ethical responsibility, and sharing unique commitment that was demonstrated through OSA's yearlong performance. I am proud of them, and OSA is lucky to have such dedicated individuals on its list of members.

During the course of the year, all matters of importance to OSA were discussed among the committee members with the good of OSA and its mission in mind, voted when the step necessitated such a measure, and debated at length when consensus was sought. At times the committee arrived at a decision with split votes, but once a decision was made by way of majority's wish, the minority never protested the loss or betrayed the decision process. Their yield contrasts with the action of Belletech et al who chose to chase a wild goose all over the Internet. The creation of ad hoc committees, the decision related to the grievance of an OSA member about election of an OSA official, the establishment of the organizing committee, the nomination of individuals for annual OSA award, the conference venue and schedule, etc., were made with full consent and discussion of all the Ex. C. members. Simply stated, OSA Ex. C. of 2005-2006 discharged its duties and responsibilities in a manner worthy of a high caliber scholarly organization with record attendants at the conference and also submitted papers.

2. OSA 2005-2006: Mission Accomplished

OSA members may recall that when the OSA 2006-2006 Ex. C. took office it set a number of goals which included (see newsletter 11 for the summary):

" Increasing OSA membership by 25 new members (see 2005 OSA newsletter 1)
" Inviting more scholars particularly from Oromia to inject new and field-oriented data in to OSA conference
" Promoting critical thinking among OSA members by involving more non-Oromo scholars whose research and views may lie outside our comfort zone
" Building a better understanding on unity of purpose by inviting scholars from neighboring nationalities, especially Ethiopia South
" Creating an ad hoc committee to conduct a serious analyses on Oromo Unity
" Organizing a mid-year conference on a specific research area
" Inquiring into establishing or expanding OSA into Oromia
" Launching a feasibility study to establish Oromo Medical Association
" Updating and expanding OSA list and also its web service
" Establishing a team to review and suggest amendments to OSA bylaw
" Conducting a critical assessment of OSA's performance using a Review Team.

To accomplish these ambitious goals the Ex. C. attempted to mobilize a larger scholarly capacity by creating ad hoc committees and also conducting a fund-raising effort. The results have been very satisfying, though not perfect. One of the few failures was that of a Scholarship Team which was suggested by Dr. Bahiru Gametchu, one of the signatories of the accusatory letter, who also agreed to lead the team (OSA Newsletter 1). The goal of the team was to address scholarship issues in a wider context to help promising Oromos residing in exile so that they can continue their education and become productive citizens. Although Dr Bahiru Gametchu agreed to lead this team in August 2005, I never heard from him again despite my repeated contacts. I have also asked few more scholars including Dr. Makuria Bulcha to join one of the ad hoc committees and contribute to OSA's mission. I did not hear from them either. I hope that the decision of a group of like-minded activists not to participate in OSA ad hoc committees was not a political façade.

OSA 2005-2006 Ex. C. also attempted to expand the financial capacity of OSA leaving behind about double the amount it inherited from Dr. Makuria's presidency, with a net record income of well in five digits. In 2005-2006 a great deal of effort was made to enhance OSA's contribution and considerable time and energy was put into organizing the conference. A great majority of OSA members have appreciated these efforts, and it is pleasing to know that. It is natural that not everybody was satisfied with every aspect of the genuine efforts of the Ex. C. A unanimous agreement is utopian and individuals have the right not to like measures considered ideal by others. After all we are a people of the many millions with all social varieties: - from the conservative to the liberal, from the weird to the ordinary, from the wise to the irrational - we have and must have all. To have its share of the statistics is the mark of a large population. To discuss and resolve serious issues with civility is a mark of greatness.

One of the sources of the disappointment of the few who objected to OSA's qualification of speakers was, as we knew far ahead of the conference, the participation for the first time of some non-Oromos or "Ethiopianists" on the OSA conference. I do not regret not entertaining these exclusionary views. I deeply believe, as most OSA members do, that OSA must guard the rights of all individuals to express their views. No one person or group should cease the total power and monopoly to Oromo scholarship even if he or she so vehemently believes to have all the right answers for our scholarly challenges. We have to celebrate our Gada roots and allow debates to promote a non-exclusionary democratic society. The audience should be given the opportunity to listen to all sides and sift through the materials and arguments to make its own mind. I am glad we allowed OSA to be an open and democratic forum, accessible to all contending views. Personally, I learnt a lot from individuals who would have been discriminated and excluded by the three authors as "Ethiopianists", in one case I learnt a great deal about our own language - Afaan Oromo.

Neutrality in an academic organization is allowing expression of all contending views. The three authors admit that OSA has to be an open academic organization, but they are reluctant in their openness to individuals they label as "Ethiopianists". And then they show their displeasure with the openness we demonstrated because it "compromised the political neutrality" of OSA by being more generous to one political group, understood as the OLF. The record shows that we have allowed individuals from various political parties and groups who play a role in Oromo politics including OLF, OFDM, ONC, Hadiya National Democratic Organization, Gambella people's representative, and Somali scholars. We attempted but failed to have Sudanese and Kenyan scholars, but our favorite Eritrean, Prof. Asmerom was there. I believe this shows a solid diversity. Below are three political panels of the OSA 2006 conference which show more diversity in which some pro or anti-OLF sentiments were reflected.

Panel 6: A Reassessment of Discourses in the Oromo National Quest for Political and Economic Power (organized by Prof. Bichaka Fayissa)

Panel 7: Challenges of the Oromo National Liberation Struggle and a roadmap (organized by Dr. Beyan Asoba)

Panel 13: Imagining Oromia and Ethiopia: Reflections on Political and Scholarly Discourse on Oromo and Ethiopian Identities (organized by Dr. Makuria Bulcha)

The only other political panel, Panel 5 on Identity, Democracy, and Nationalism under EPRDF by Prof. Beyene Petros, Dr. Marara Gudina, and Obbo Bulcha Demeksa, is not relevant for what I plan to prove here. Prof. Asafa's panel, which some may consider political, was a bipartisan report of the ad hoc committee on unity. Those who are familiar with the Oromo Diaspora politics can see that the political composition of the panels cannot be blamed for favoring one political group. In fact there were more voices of those who guilt the OLF than those of the OLF.

I do not share the vision of the three authors for OSA which will "have the knowledge of the ethical standards of learned societies". I do not even know which "learned societies" would serve as our role models and offer better ethical standards than our own Gada system. This arbitrary moral value of ostensibly Western origin cannot be used to exclude new members from joining OSA. Neither should the pre-labeling of individuals with different political views as "Ethiopianists" be allowed to marginalize Oromo and non-Oromo scholars. This is not a healthy vision for OSA; certainly it has no respect for diversity either. For the OSA 2006 conference, I have not rejected a single paper or panel submitted in time regardless of its content, political or otherwise. As a result, the conference was a bit congested with political sessions. This is an area that needs improvement. However, it will not be easy to reject any political paper or session since even a legitimate rejection that would give room to other equally important non-political panels would be politicized. This challenge notwithstanding, as much as I do not share the vision or politics of some individuals or groups, I stood and still stand for their rights to freely express their views.

OSA 2005-2006 had challenges - The most serious problem at OSA's conference is, and has always been time. The conferences may start late in the morning because of poor inflow of attendants, some authors take more than the allocated time, a few want to move their presentations to the other day or part of the day, and still a few session chairs are oblivious to the time limit even when the President intervenes. Competition for evening hours with other cultural events is not helping the situation. In anticipation of these standing problems from previous experiences, I issued pieces of advices through OSA newsletter 12:

"Suggestion for panelists: If you plan to read your paper, it takes 4-5 minutes to read a page. You should time your presentation and shorten it appropriately. Panel chairs will impose time limits very seriously. Besides, going over the allocated time is considered impolite because the extra amount a panelist took has to be reduced from the time of other speakers. It is also wise not to dwell excessively on personal and subjective opinions. Everyone has such subjective views. The power of a research paper is in that it is primarily based on cross-referenced data. Needless to say that personal attack has no room in a scholarly discourse. Each presentation will last no more than 15 minutes, followed by 5 minutes for questions and answers.

Suggestions for the audience OSA is not a political platform, but political topics are one of OSA's subjects. You may disagree with political ideas and even data presented by individuals at the conference. OSA does not endorse any of the ideas. OSA panelists are entitled to their opinions. It is perfectly normal for individuals to disagree. In such disagreements, one should not condemn those who disagree with him or her. Condemning those who disagree with one's views is a dictatorial tradition we aspire to eliminate. Such is also the quintessence of the Gada political routine - a debated consensus, debated with respect. Debate with respect is a measure of the maturity of our political tradition."

In spite of these appeals that were distributed before the 2006 OSA conference, there were speakers and attendants who vehemently chose to violate them as has been the case always. Some of those same violators who dominated the conference floor following many sessions now accuse OSA leadership for not managing OSA conference time. I have no problem accepting such criticisms; I certainly could have stopped all lengthy talks on time. But, this would have caused more uproar from the same group, as was witnessed during few of my attempts to suppress unruly speakers from the audience. It is no secret that the most acute violations of floor-time came from few who hold a converging political sympathy in condemning the OLF. Condemning or criticizing the OLF is their right. But it should not come at the cost of other scheduled presentations. This real problem, which has persisted for years, is this year elevated by the very perpetrators of the problem to blame OSA leadership and feed a misplaced political fault line. True, there is a problem that needs to be fixed, but the solution must be sought as a common agenda and a shared problem not pointing fingers at each other.

3. Surprise Attack

I have known the three authors personally and considered them colleagues. I have worked closely with two of them. Notwithstanding the fact that Oromo issues are above personal collegiality, as a safu, I would have preferred to have had the opportunity of discussing their concerns with the three authors before they chose surprise hostility.

None of the three authors served as OSA Ex. C. member of 2005-2006. Certainly therefore, they were not familiar with the day-to-day operations of the committee, the minutes, the debates, the votes, and the rulings. With the exception of a few who were interested in preemptive strike against Mr. Lenco Lata's nomination for OSA annual award, an obsession for dislike that seems to have triggered this boomerang, no OSA member questioned or ever approached the Ex. C. to inquire how the committee made any of its decisions. To me and my colleagues of the OSA 2005-2006 Ex. C., therefore, the piles of tempestuous accusations from the three authors that distributed their letters without due diligence must have come as a surprise attack typical of Internet driven polarized political bickering. The formats and forums they used to propagate their ill-founded accusations portray lack of decency and professionalism.

4. The Record and the Rule of Law

OSA as a professional organization has venues and procedures through which members register their grievances to democratically address and solve them. OSA members, whether they have previously held OSA offices or not, are not entitled to special privileges and certainly they are not above the organization. If at all, OSA ex-officials must demonstrate humility and responsibility in honor to and reflective of the trust that members bestowed upon them while they were in office. OSA has a structure and a hierarchy of decision-making process. What a lip service then, that the three authors who wrote so passionately about the violation of OSA's procedures, chose to distribute and post their grievances on the Internet for a cyber court. Their letter, which was ironically addressed to OSA members, was distributed on some Internet forums before it was posted on OSA listserv. I first received the letter from a person who is an ardent supporter of Transitional Authority and he was, at least in his mind, disseminating proof that the OLF is betraying its people. In fact, the letter reached favored political camps before it reached OSA members. It is even more ironic that they have not formally submitted their grievances to OSA Ex. C. or Board yet. They never gave peace a chance, never paid the due respect to the process or the rule of law. Just imagine three OSA members, 2% of the entire membership, bypassing the elected officials and asserting a veto to disregard OSA General Assembly decisions and shortcut the assembly. They did not ask for enquiry, they did not even submit a protest to the elected officials, but they demanded that the assembly follow their email instructions. Such utter disregard to the voice of the majority is always worrisome, and here the disregard is forced upon the entire assembly.

On the other hand, OSA as a professional organization maintains all records. All documents and actions are subject to the examination of the OSA Board and the General Assembly. Such is the process put in place to safeguard the democratic and professional operation of any organization including OSA. He or she who aspires to rise above the majority is restrained by the rules of the organization and the wishes of the assembly. So, Belletech et al should discharge their rights and responsibilities as members by properly following OSA procedures so that their concerns can be addressed fully and exhaustively. The debate should be guided by a search for the truth to which we should all submit. On the other hand Internet anarchy should not be allowed to reign over OSA and manipulate its scholarly mission. Unfortunately, as a case for concern, the ferocity in the writings of the three authors against the OSA leadership, the manner in which they disseminated their allegations, and the placing of their demands above the OSA General Assembly which I will elaborate next, are matters of serious concerns.

5. Anarchy is Unpractical

Since the OSA General Assembly meets once a year - during the annual conference, Belletech et al provided no mechanism by which OSA assembly would accommodate their two central but mutinous demands:
1. Declaring the OSA 2005-2006 elections null and void.
2. Withdrawing the award given to Mr. Lenco Lata.

Belletech et al have decided to impose their personal desires on OSA members by disqualifying the entire election process of OSA and barring the elected officials. This package of condescension, declaring an election process "null and void" after participating in the same election, simply because the outcome of the votes did not favor the wishes and likings of oneself, is unfair. The second point demanding withdrawal of the award given to Mr. Lenco Lata covers three pages of their 9 page letter and, in my opinion, drives their infatuation. I fail to see how their passionate disapproval for a single person's award rises to an uproar that forfeits the leadership and dismantles an organization. I also fail to see how it can be claimed to serve the overall good of OSA when the design seems to favor delivering a political punch aimed at individuals perceived as sympathizers of their opposition. Let us see two of their demands closely:

"Transitional OSA EC and BD to serve for the reminder of the year must be elected and put in place at the earliest possible time."

Their capricious demands continue:

"The transitional officers must organize the 2007 OSA annual conference."

They call for election of a transitional OSA EC and BD. But these two OSA bodies can only be elected by the OSA General Assembly. They do not allow existing OSA officials to call the assembly. Instead, they authorize a yet to be established Transitional body to call the annual meeting. According to the three authors therefore, we cannot call OSA assembly without transitional officers, and there are no transitional officers because we cannot call OSA assembly.

The General Assembly gathers annually, hence there is no need to demand its gathering. Once in session, as the ultimate governing body, it can replace officials, amend the bylaws, and vote on any other issues of interest to OSA. There is no mechanism for the OSA General Assembly to even deliberate on the demands of Belletech et al before the next Assembly in August, especially if they dishonor the elected officials. But it can serve as a political agenda effective October 10. If the elected officials can not legitimately call for a meeting of the assembly, one called by the few that may be handpicked by the Ex. C., the Board, or even by the three authors has to be even less legitimate. Who is going to establish the new officials on behalf of the OSA assembly, and who would authorize such a meeting? No one! So, Belletech et al have a horrible recipe to dismantle a standing organization, but no recipe at all to build another "legitimate" one in place of the dismantled organization. Concerned and devoted members do not attempt to dismantle the only scholarly voice of the Oromo nation, no matter how weak it is. They strengthen it and improve its performance through constructive criticisms. The outrageous attack on the past OSA leadership and the 2006 election results was not a constructive criticism. It was a call for a coup against OSA - pure and simple. OSA members are wise enough to know the reality of the Oromo Diaspora political polarization. I have full confidence that OSA members will always protect their organization through their democratic voice. They will not fall into the trap of Internet warriors. Belletech et al must work within OSA's constitution and respect OSA's modus operandi as a professional organization - that is the way to air and discuss their concerns as members. The bogus fronts of Internet that did not persuade OSA to withhold its annual award from Lenco in August cannot force it to withdraw it in October, after it was awarded. Anarchy as a group agenda or as an Internet scheme should not be allowed to dictate how a professional organization operates.

6. Accusations of the Three Authors

As stated above, I have worked with the 2005-2006 OSA Ex. C. with an excellent understanding. I have shared all relevant emails and news with the committee and sought input when appropriate. For example, OSA Ex. C. was aware of Dr. Belletech's email sent to me in July in which she objected to the appearance of non-Oromo and "Ethiopianist" speakers at the OSA conference. I have shared or discussed with the Ex. C. all issues including those listed as contentious by the three authors. The Ex. C. members knew and deliberated on Beyan's election, they commented on the list of speakers, on conference venue and schedule, on assigning session chairs, etc. I have consulted the Ex. C. on all matters of OSA and the annual conference except when the issue was trivially obvious.

6.1: Annual Award - Per OSA guidelines, the decision about who should ultimately receive an OSA annual award belongs to OSA Board, not the Ex. C. However, questions related to OSA awards were at times wrongly directed to me instead of the Board. In such cases, I attempted to answer the questions in good faith. In a nutshell, my responses emphasized that the decision would follow OSA guidelines. Few simply objected to the very nomination of Mr. Lenco irrespective of the outcome of OSA Board's decision. In some cases non-members came with outright condemnation of the nomination they should not have known so early in the process. The political tones of these emails and Internet debates were evident, and the effort to impact OSA decision even by non-members was obvious. And yet we followed previous procedures in our actions, without contradicting the existing guidelines. Could this be improved and, for example, nominations for OSA award requested from members well in advance? Absolutely! Has any OSA Ex. C. of the past, including those presided by Abraham and Dr. Makuria, ever asked members to nominate individuals for OSA awards? No! Is the 2005-2006 Ex. C. guilty of not soliciting nominations from members in any different way than previous Ex. Cs? No! Eventually, as mandated by OSA guideline, the OSA Board has voted and decided on the award. Individuals may have their personal political axes to grind, but the decision belongs to the OSA Board, and it was decided by the OSA Board. It is unprofessional for a Board member (Dr. Bahiru), who voted in the minority, to betray the process, defy the majority decision, and go Internet-wide accusing his colleagues for voting their conscience.

6.2: Dr. Makuria's Email and Dr. Beyan's Election to Board - In 2005-2006, only one formal complaint was forwarded to OSA Ex. C. by Dr. Makuria Bulcha. The email questioned the election of Dr. Beyan Asoba to the OSA Board by the OSA General Assembly. The email argued that since Dr. Beyan was elected to the Board in absentia, he should not be a member of OSA Board. OSA Ex. C. members believed that revision of the decision of the General Assembly lies outside the jurisdiction of the OSA Ex. C. and consequently decided to pass the matter to the Board without deliberating on the issue. This decision of OSA Ex. C. was unanimous. The OSA Board Chair, however, returned the issue back to the Ex. C. asking the committee to deliberate on the matter and pass it to the Board only if the Ex. C. fails to reach a consensus. In the mean time, the OSA Ex. C. exchanged some thoughts on relevant phrases of OSA bylaw governing elections:

7.3. To stand for election a candidate must be in attendance at the annual meeting.
7.4. Mail ballots for elective posts must be accompanied by a written statement of a candidate on personal, professional qualifications and a statement of program if elected.

It seemed obvious at least to some Ex. C. members that OSA bylaw makes a distinction between OSA annual meeting and OSA business meeting, thought also to be consistent with the spirit of the two articles 7.3 and 7.4 when adopted. Dr. Beyan attended the OSA annual meeting and submitted a mail ballot to the effect that he would serve if elected to office. The issue of submitting a mail ballot was never a subject of contention. While Article 7.3 dictates that a member must be at the annual meeting to stand for election, Article 7.4 clearly suggests that a member can be elected to office even if he is not at the business meeting provided the conditions outlined in the same article are satisfied. So as one may see, the interpretation of the two articles is not as obvious as some made it. Most importantly, the decision to include Dr. Beyan to Board membership was made by the General Assembly, and it would have been illegal for any committee to overrule the General Assembly. Consequently, it was decided to table the matter until the 2006 OSA business meeting. In retrospect, it was only wise and appropriate to honor the decision of the General Assembly and leave it up to the same assembly to take a different course of action if it so chooses. I have consulted some of the best NGO lawyers since, and I was told that the decision of the Ex. C. was legitimate. The tabled matter was made irrelevant when Dr. Beyan withdrew from the Board at the 2005-2006 annual meeting. Until then, he was a member of the Board with full rights, privileges, and obligations as empowered by the majority decision of the 2005 General Assembly. One may dislike Dr. Beyan for one thousand reasons, but one may not remove him from office without the consent of the assembly that voted him to office. Just imagine the Ex. C. or Board members dismissing one another from offices for reasons that may seem legitimate to their readings. This can be a disaster, especially in the polarized Oromo political ambience. I believe that elected committees should never have jurisdiction over the assembly. The final decision was communicated to Dr. Makuria and I did not hear from him since. To my best knowledge there was no appeal to the Board. It was revived on October 10 when it became useful to nullify Beyan's vote and dismiss him retroactively from OSA Board membership. There may have been precedents when nominations were rejected on the ground that the nominee was not attending the business meeting. Such precedence doesn't constitute a legal model to follow and overrule the General Assembly.

6.3: New Membership - OSA 2005-2006 set a number of goals when it took office. One among these goals was recruiting new members. The ad hoc committee that was established in 2005 for this purpose did a wonderful job recruiting 23 new members throughout the year. I have expressed my appreciation to the committee both at OSA conference and at the business meeting. Let me join Prof. Asafa in expressing my regret that the labeling and characterization of these new and often young scholars by the three authors is outright offensive and unprofessional. Many of the new recruits are outstanding scholars holding the highest academic degree from accredited institutes of higher learning, and all of them are indeed college graduates. The three authors' statement that these new members vote as tools for others who control OSA is hostile and irresponsible. Even though all the new OSA recruits happen to have college degrees, OSA 2005-2006 did not screen recruits based on academic degrees. The constitution does not require it and it is a bad idea to even think about amending the bylaw to this effect. Those who think college degree will curtail OSA from troubles should read the authorship of the three authors again. In any case, the proper venue in this regard would be for the three authors to convince the majority of OSA members and amend the bylaw so that a college degree becomes a requirement for OSA membership. Then they should count on counter arguments from me and the many others who sincerely believe OSA should not be an exclusionary elitist club. OSA's political neutrality can be achieved without resorting to drastic measures, which are very unlikely to have any positive impact on its neutrality.

The total OSA membership in attendance of the business meeting in 2006, based on the votes, excluding abstainers, was 95 (summing the votes for Beyan = 66, for Bichaka = 23, and for Bahiru = 6). The OSA membership in 2005 (during Makuria's presidency) was 75. I do not recall how many attended the conference. The humble increase in OSA membership which came as a result of the yearlong ad hoc committee campaign was 23, comparable to that of the previous year. We all congratulated Makuria and his team for recruiting new members in 2005 without ever investigating the political resumes of the recruits. A year later the same growth is condemned by few instead of being praised; - politics. Since I was replaced at the end of the second OSA conference day, I do not have the record of the new members registered during the annual conference. Whatever that number may be, as the bottom line, we had only 95 voters at the meeting. The increase in OSA membership within the two OSA conference days cannot be made the good or the bad of OSA leadership. We could not stop taking membership and it could not have been the design of OSA leadership. Our plan was to recruit 25 during the entire year, we fail short by 2. I have no knowledge of how many joined OSA during the conference - although I hear that the new members came from all political camps. It is a wonderful growth, something we have been dreaming for. I have no doubt that these new members will abide by the rules of OSA and keep its scholarly independence. If we observe individualized temptations to pull OSA towards any political camp, we should correct it swiftly, but not condemn or dismantle OSA.

A less relevant but witty mathematical puzzle follows: the reader may notice that Bichaka, who received 23 votes, would not have won even if we make a strange assumption that all the new recruits voted for Beyan. The vote difference between Bichaka's and Beyan's is 43. This is much larger than the sum total of new recruits which was 23. The results of the votes may hint something, but OSA leadership has nothing to do with that thing.

I do agree with many observers who have spoken to me about OSA's growth - the need to shelter OSA from political activism. There may be individualized rushes with political motives to control OSA. Those who participated in the rush and think they lost the game are as guilty as those who they accuse of winning the rush. And those who initiated the rush and lost the game may feel doubly hurt, but they are still guilty. We can educate one another on OSA's neutrality and turn the rush into a positive resolve by reemphasizing the independence of OSA and sheltering all its activities from political partisanship. This would be a mature thing to do. I have no less confidence on an OSA member who may be a member or a sympathizer of OLF than the confidence I rendered to Dr. Makuria when I served in OSA Ex. C. with Dr. Makuria, a person who served as OSA President while also serving as a spokesman of Transitional Authority. So I suspect the intention of Belletech et al which seems to be continuation of the same political effort launched to control OSA than a genuine effort to help OSA. My suspicion is grounded in the obvious fact that they render selective supports based on perceived political camping. Anyone who wants to keep OSA as a scholarly organization has my unconditional backing and need not launch an Internet attack to seek my support. Those who have been with OSA for a while recall the 1992 debate to make OSA an independent scholarly organization. I have fully participated in that debate, and I held a view then as now, that OSA should not be an extension of any political organization. Political influence of OSA in favor of any organization will not serve the Oromo cause. This was accepted by the majority of OSA members in 1992. The Oromo political landscape has changed since, and some who in 1992 argued that OSA should remain as a brainchild of the OLF have turned against the OLF. The 2006 demand of separating the separated re-raises this settled matter and follows this same dead political strain. Yes, OSA has grown and matured tremendously since. The growth encompasses both quality and quantity with diversity. This growth has brought apprehension to some and joy to others. This is an interesting topic worthy of research-attention by our historians.

Whether the demand is re-raised or new, the sword has a double edge. No one should be allowed to manipulate and impose ones political will on OSA simply because a member of ones political group was not elected to OSA office. It is not the person's political view that matters; it is how the elected official keeps his/her personal views out of OSA's business that matters. Hunting for an individual who is perfectly neutral on Oromo politics is neither practical nor desirable. A number of political activists opposed to the current leadership of the OLF, including Drs. Makuria and Bichaka, have served as OSA Presidents/leadership. No one questioned their motives based on their political affiliations. I believe OLF members or supporters can also serve as OSA officials provided they accept OSA's constitution. Political manipulation of OSA does not serve the interests of any political organization, if the organization really stands for the good of the Oromo people. My safeguard in keeping the sanctity of OSA and sheltering it from political manipulations is the OSA assembly, its members, not few individuals.

6.4: Issues of Prime Time and Sequence - The three authors also accuse OSA leadership for "allocation of disproportionate prime-time to pro-Ethiopian speakers". The fact is that the only speakers who were given more than the standard 20 minutes are the keynote speaker (Dabbasa Guyo who spoke on the Gada system) and the featured speakers (Prof. Asmerom also on Gada and Goli's group on Oromo youth in Toronto). None of these presentations can be considered pro-Ethiopian. The 2005-2006 OSA conference schedule is still available and can be reviewed if needed. The overall structure followed previous formats. The accusation that we allocated disproportionate time to Pro-Ethiopian speakers is therefore untrue.

I was also surprised that in their letter the three authors criticized even the sequence of OSA sessions. For the record, someone did complain to me during the conference about the timing of the last session on Saturday suggesting that it may run out of time. The person thought that the Honorable speakers, Mr. Bulcha Demeksa, Dr. Marara Gudina, and Dr. Beyene Petros flew several hours for this occasion, and that it would be a travesty if they did not have enough time for discussions. I would assume these speakers are what the three authors would call "pro-Ehiopians". Symmetrically, the last session on Sunday was that of Mr. Ibsa Gutama, Prof. Xilahun Gamta, and Dr. Makuria Bulcha. I would assume that the three authors would not dare label these speakers, who made their presentations also as the last on the next day, as pro-Ethiopians. Interestingly, Dr. Makuria Bulcha scheduled my own session in 2005 as the last on Sunday.

Furthermore, I scheduled a keynote speaker to speak as the first on Saturday. If the first in the sequence may be considered a prime time, I also scheduled the session of Mr. Mekonen Gelan, Prof. Bichaka Fayissa, and Dr. Bahiru Dhuguma to be first on Sunday; - they shared the same sequence as the keynote speaker. I do not want to label any of these speakers into any political camp. But I can make a case, that in reality there is no sequence that possibly benefits a speaker when each session is independent and sequences for speakers were determined by session chairs or by those who proposed the panels, not me. There is no established preferred sequence at OSA, it is a lame reason concocted for attack. I have made presentations for about 15 years at OSA at any time of the two packed days. The accusation that "presentations were sequenced to benefit preferred speakers" is also groundless.

6.5: Issues of Lack of Time and Evacuation - This has also been well discussed by Prof. Asafa Jalata. Fitting about 40 papers and a business meeting into two weekend days, with every evening occupied by cultural shows that last until the morning, has always been a serious challenge to OSA conference. These perpetual problems could be alleviated by using time properly and obeying the official schedule. Several previous OSA meetings have been forced to evacuate their halls, in few cases votes were completed outside because the open air was more convenient and pleasant than the alternatives. However, the three authors presented the fact as if it happened for the first time. To me the summer evening under a large tree adds a beautiful Oromo-like ambient, but I can see where this can be frustrating to western scholars. Let me add that the records of 2005-2006 elections are maintained, and the well-conducted meeting by one of the most respected Oromo scholars, Dr. Baisa was adjourned with motion. The solution again is not in politicizing the lack of time and blaming the leadership. OSA should develop a solid strategy to remedy the situation, which will continue growing as OSA grows.

6.6: Pre-Conference Meeting of the Ex. C. - The pre-conference meeting of the Ex. C. was conducted on Friday at 6 PM. This was known to all Board members, to the local organizing committee members, and of course the Ex. C. Board Members have traditionally attended the Ex. C. meeting, and assisted in some of the preparations for the annual conference. However, the Ex. C, and the Board are two separate entities, they do not share agendas, and they cannot vote on each other's deliberations. A combined meeting is therefore informal, no quorum is expected, and it is indeed a waste of time to move the entire meeting of the Ex. C. so that Dr. Bahiru could fly from DC to attend the Ex. C. meeting. If the Board wanted to discuss an issue, the Board could have its own separate meeting. To blame the Ex. C. for not calling a combined meeting is simply unfair. A combined Ex. C. and Board meeting can not be derived from any legal synthesis, it is not called for in the bylaws. There was a mention about the need of a combined Ex. C. and Board meeting to discuss the annual award. The annual award is not the business of the Ex. C.; it would be out of order for me to introduce it to the Ex. C. meeting as an agenda. The combined Ex. C. and local organizing committee meeting was held, however, and it lasted about three hours. Besides, I was in MN three days ahead of the start of OSA conference during which I met with the local organizing committee members to make several preparations for OSA conference and guests.

6.7: On My Membership to Board - This has been exhaustively addressed by Prof. Asafa Jalata.

6.8: OSA 2005-2006 Elections - The three authors have obvious misgivings about the business meeting, which they attended. However, they did not raise their hands to register their objections at the business meeting. This is a right afforded to all members. This point has been sufficiently commented on by Drs Asafa and Baisa. I will add a simple fact, that it is indeed not the first time that the business meetings run out of time or continued elsewhere - inside or outside. Many OSA business meetings have run over time and out of space. The relocation of the meeting place has no impact on the election procedures and outcomes and it cannot serve as a legal basis to nullify the decisions taken by the assembly. The three authors should not have used the shortage of time, which has escorted OSA for years, against the leadership to score a point. Instead, it would have been sensible and gracious of them to help OSA and its leadership to resolve the challenge.

In Conclusion

Guarding a scholarly organization from political influence is a universal scholarly obligation. The scholarly independence of OSA is an uncomplicated stipulation, which is guarded by the OSA bylaws. It cannot be politicized and used to undermine OSA's scholarly mission. I therefore ask Dr. Belletech Deressa, Dr. Bahiru Gametchu, and Mr. Abraham Mosisa, to:

a) Submit their grievances to the proper OSA authority and follow appropriate procedures to resolve their concerns;
b) Retract their statements from public debate and restrict all follow up appeals to OSA;
c) Accept all OSA members as peers, and refrain from lopsided treatment of new members with or without college degree, treatment that may bolster elitist mentality among OSA members;
d) Support OSA officials as legitimate representatives of OSA regardless of personal political views of these officials as long as those views do not interfere with OSA activities, and maintain fair and open mindedness towards them regardless of their region, religion, age, gender, etc., as mandated by the law of the land governing the status in which OSA is allowed to operate.

Nagaan,
Asfaw