A short response to a recent ‘follow-up’ by three OSA members

Dear OSA members,

I read with interest the “follow up” of Dr Belletech Dheressa, Dr Bahiru Gemetchu, and Mr. Abraham Mosisa posted on OSA list on April 10, 2007. This is a review of their previous posting dated October 20, 2006 in which the three authors accused OSA 2006 leadership for “allocation of disproportionate prime-time to pro-Ethiopian speakers”. In this previous version they also claimed that the “presentations were sequenced to benefit preferred speakers” and complained about the conference agenda, the pre-conference meetings, and the appearance of “ethiopianists” at OSA conference. These accusations are dropped from their follow-up posting, which is an interesting and encouraging development. Their remaining charges are regrouped under three topics:

1. The 2006 OSA membership recruitment procedure …Many of the new members do not “meet the basic qualification nor have the knowledge of the ethical standards of learned societies …”

2. The flawed elections of officers at the 2006 OSA business meeting …The new recruits who voted for the new OSA officers and tinted the election results “have no history of any scholarly contributions in OSA or other similar associations, but are individuals well known for their divided loyalties between their official OSA duties and political views.”

3. Legality of OSA award bestowed on Obbo Leencoo Lata, who “received only two affirmative votes from the total of six voting and, therefore, should not have been given the award” because “… according to the 2002 amendment, the President is an ex-officio member without voting rights (see attachment, Article IV Section 4.9).”

==

Unfortunately, the three authors did not clearly state the type of qualification and the ethical standard of a learned society one needs to have to be an OSA member. Also, blanket condemnation of new OSA members makes it appear that the three authors have their own axe to grind and may have their own divided loyalties as well.

Based on this follow-up analyses, since the outcome of OSA 2006 elections (point 1 above) was a result of the membership influx at 2006 OSA conference (point 2), the first two points can be reduced to one and the same issue of membership. If the lecture on ethics and morality is cut out, the core of the disagreement is one of balancing OSA’s political neutrality with guarding the rights of politicians and individuals with expressed political views as equal members of OSA. Belletech et al, while rightly arguing to keep OSA as a politically neutral scholarly organization, have also demonstrated bias and intolerance towards members they accuse of creating a “splinter group” with proclaimed favor for those who “…have the knowledge of the ethical standards of learned societies ...” I leave judgment about the tilt of this balance for OSA members. I would also like OSA members to ponder whether or not an OSA Executive Committee member could legally stop potential members suspected of politically motivated intent from becoming OSA members.

As the third point the authors write that "according to the 2002 amendment, the President is an ex-officio member without voting rights (see attachment, Article IV Section 4.9)." What should have mattered on this issue is therefore not whether or not Obbo Lenco Lata was given OSA award, but whether or not the votes were legal. This is a legitimate question to ask.

Based on this statement, it is clear to the reader that there was either a violation of OSA bylaw, or tempering with the OSA bylaw in the version forwarded by Abraham - unpleasant either way. Because I was the OSA President who voted as a member of OSA Board, it is my vote that is in question. I realize that it would be damaging to OSA if its elected officials violate its bylaws, and more damaging if they temper with the bylaw text to score a political point. I would have not deliberately violated OSA bylaw, but I am not asking Belletech et al to trust me on this. Since I am ready to admit a wrong doing if I indeed violated the bylaw, I checked the 2002 OSA minutes (attached).

Interestingly the 2002 minutes do not say a word about OSA President being “an ex-officio member without voting rights”, and the entire line of Article IV Section 4.9 in Abraham’s posting was not part of the amendment. It was not presented to the OSA assembly, let alone discussed and voted on. The three authors claim a high moral ground and the highest ethical standard for themselves. And yet, in order to bolster their unsubstantiated allegation, they inserted what was never included in the 2002 minutes. I leave to the judgment of OSA members whether or not fabrication of a fact for the purpose of scoring a point is a breech of highest ethical standard and morality.

For the record, the 2005/2006 OSA Ex. C. delegated Dr. Guluma Gemeda to lead an ad hoc committee to review and prepare amendments to OSA bylaw. The review was supposed to be presented to OSA members for comments, and eventually a vote at the General Assembly. The team worked hard on it, but the draft did not make it in time for OSA review. So, the 2006 OSA assembly did not discuss it, let alone vote on the draft constitution at its July 2006 meeting. In other words, the draft constitution was not voted on and not yet ratified by the OSA general assembly. I hope that the draft constitution will be tabled for ratification by the 2007 OSA general assembly. Until then OSA will continue operating under its current constitution. It goes without saying that it is ratification by the general assembly which will make a draft constitution a binding and enforced constitution. I mention this so that OSA members will have a clear understanding of the status and the process; I do not know where Abraham got his version of the bylaw, and I am not sure if it is the draft from the 2006 ad hoc committee on OSA bylaw.

Here, one point should be crystal clear. Even if Abraham’s version is the draft constitution, and even if it was ratified by the 2006 OSA General assembly (which did not happen at all), it would not have retroactively governed the OSA decision of 2005-2006. It would have governed the OSA decision of 2006-2007. A draft amendment to any constitution governs from the day it is voted on and ratified. In short, the draft constitution which was distributed during the July 2006 OSA assembly was never voted on and ratified. One wonders why the three authors attempted to invoke forged amendment as governing the 2005-2006 OSA decision. I leave that judgment too to OSA members. However, let me state very clearly one more time, that, “Article IV Section 4.9” is not part of the OSA constitution. It is therefore my belief that my vote remains legal until someone comes with a solid and better proof.

It has been stated repeatedly that Dr. Beyan’s membership to OSA Board was voted on and decided by OSA assembly in 2005. The three authors have not contested this fact. The legality of the remaining procedural issues were fully defended and supported by articles 7.3 and 7.4, and interpretation of the bylaw relative to this matter has been sufficiently debated. Finally, I do not disagree with the lectures of the three authors on ethics, morality, and Oromumma. I wish they practice what they preach.

Nagaan,

Asfaw