According to Transparency Report #5, the Oversight Committee now has “direct access to be able to VETO anything that they deem worthy as they are now part of the process flow.”
(You many want to reword this – a bit awkward to say that something/someone is “worthy” of a veto.)
@Damien, I have a few questions for clarification:
- Could you define what you mean by “process flow”? Does this refer to the initial allocation of funds to grantees and any additional disbursements to be made, contingent on milestones?
- What exactly does a veto accomplish? I assume that a veto by an Oversight member would halt funds being sent to a grantee. What happens after a veto is issued—does this suspend the grant entirely, or does it lead to a reevaluation of the grant or grantee involving both the Grants and Oversight committees?
- Is a single veto (one out of three) enough to stop disbursement or to initiate a reevaluation, or is a two-thirds majority (or % veto threshold) required?
Additionally, I believe that when the Oversight exercises a veto, the reasoning behind the decision should be transparently communicated. What internal or external protocols are established/envisioned for the Oversight Committee to justify their use of the veto?