After weeks of discussion by email in the biosemiotic community, the president of the
International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), Jesper Hoffmeyer, today made clear that he will call for a General Meeting. According to the constitution of ISBS, which has been in place since 2008, such meetings open to all members should be arranged annually. The ISBS, however, has so far been run in an informal way, and these rules have not been put into practice.
On April 30th I wrote this in an email distributed in the biosemiotic community, in reply to an email (one of many) from Marcello Barbieri to all participants at this year's
Gathering in Biosemiotics (Tartu, July 17-22).
Dear all, I have not
gotten any response from anyone in the ISBS Committee on my prior notice (April
25), which read:
I can not
recall ever having been directly invited or encouraged to attend an ISBS
General Meeting at a Gathering (and I've been to 5 gatherings). I think this is
regr[e]ttable - and problematic in terms of organisational democracy. I
sincerely hope that the ISBS will develop a culture of greater inclusion in the
future. The General Meetings were never (cf. the ISBS constitution) supposed to
be mere meetings of the Executive Committee (in the constitution called
"Committee").
I now feel
compelled to ask explicitly for response, from the ISBS Committee itself. Has
my notice been discussed in the Committee? If so, what was the outcome, or the
opinions presented? If not, then it should now be discussed by
the Committee. In the following I will make clear why this is of the highest
importance.
The
constitution of the ISBS says:
7.1 The
supreme authority of the Society is vested in a General Meeting of the members.
7.2 An Annual General Meeting shall be held.
Marcello
writes that "[a] General assembly [which he defines as "the actual
community that is present at a General Meeting"] has never been convened
before." My questions, then, are these:
1) If
Marcello is correct, why has the ISBS Committee never convened a General
assembly (aka meeting)?
2) Does not
the ISBS constitution explicitly state that such meetings shall be held annually?
3) If no
General Meeting has ever been convened, what is the legality of all the
decisions that have been made by the ISBS Committee in the period of 2005-2011?
This point concerns rules etc. established by the ISBS (cf. Marcello's case),
and more.
4) If no
General Meeting has ever been convened, then what of the validity of elections
of ISBS committee members? Cf. the constitution's point 8.2: "Names for
the above offices shall be proposed and seconded at the Annual General Meeting
and election will follow on a simple majority vote of the members." If no
General Meeting has ever been held, then WHO have elected the ISBS Committee
members? Surely not the Committee itself??
5) In case
anyone would claim that General Meetings have actually taken place: If so, why
have not all ISBS members present - i.e., all participants attending each
Gathering - been explicitly invited to take part? Cf., the constitution's 7.5:
"Notice of meeting stating the date, time and place of meeting shall
be sent by the Secretary to all voting members". Is not the lack of such
formal, personal invitations in violation of the spirit and letter
of the ISBS constitution, which defines a General Meeting as "a General
Meeting of the members"?
Out of
curiosity I also wonder:
6)
Approximately how many persons have been present at the ISBS meetings held
during Gatherings so far? How many besides members of the Executive
Committee?
and
7) What is
the proper name for these meetings (at Gatherings up to 2011) - "Committee
meetings"? If so, see points 3 and 4 above.
I am not
asking these questions to be difficult, but I do hold that they need to be
answered satisfactorily - particularly because this is in terms of
organisational democracy a problematic story whether the meetings held have
been regarded as Committee meetings (which does not have such a wide
mandate) or as General Meetings (which has in case not been
correctly convened).
For a
start, the ISBS Committee should explain its practice, and signal whether it
intends to follow the same practice in the future, or, if not, on what points
it intends to change practice.
I will not, here in Utopian Realism, go into all details of this conflict - most of which has little to do with what has been my concern, as described above - but these were, in brief, the answers to my questions (many of which given by Donald Favareau, the former Vice-President of the ISBS, who withdrew about half a year ago, as a first sign of a looming crisis):
1) Don explained how the ISBS has been run in an informal way, and claimed the constitution was never meant to be taken literally. He accused me of being formalistic.
2) The ISBS constitution does indeed explicitly state that such meetings shall be held annually. The President of the ISBS has now signalled that the constitution will be followed from now on.
3) The legality of all the decisions that have been made by the ISBS Committee in the period of 2008-2011 has not been discussed further. Marcello Barbieri asked me, in a reply to my email, not to ask questions about the past (which he had done a little before). He has in the course of this changed argumentation, and recently focused exclusively on the validity of the constitution, and that a general assembly must be convened.
4) The validity of elections of ISBS committee members has not been addressed by anyone. Election of committee members will now likely start at the first General Meeting, to be held in Tartu in July.
5) Noone have claimed that General Meetings have actually taken place so far.
6) The number of persons present at the ISBS meetings held during Gatherings so far have been estimated to less than 10. As far as I understand only members of the Executive Committee (which has 15 members) have been present.
7) The proper name for the meetings (at Gatherings up to 2011) is Committee meetings. No minutes were taken.
***
Don, who's done a lot of good work for the ISBS over the years, wrote in his reply to my questions that he thought my "approach would be odious, and the final
nail in the coffin of this group's long and often contentious journey from a
warm fellowship of friends to what it is now: an arena for a war of escalating
sides-taking." He talked about the death of good faith (as have many others - it is saddening to hear good colleagues be so defaitistic). But good faith did not die with me. I have not been involved in this conflict, but been a regular member only - and I do doubt very strongly that my concern for organisational democracy could ever be "the final nail in the coffin" for biosemiotics.
Today it became clear that the ISBS will introduce organisational democracy this year. I applaud that, and look forward to seeing it happen. What I cannot accept is that my allegiance should be given to persons (whoever they might be), regardless of ideal and principle. I pledge my allegiance to the cause of biosemiotics, the cause of organisational democracy, and the restoration of good faith.
