Solutions To AADAO Systematic Issues That Led To Alleged Misconduct

[rmalakaib]

@Cosmos_Nanny, I appreciate your patience with my response. I was out with family. Thank you for reading and responding with such thorough, relevant feedback!!

INTRO

You are exactly right, I have mischaracterized the PM’s influence on the Oversight Committees effectiveness. This was not my intention. It was not that I misread the source material, but I poorly conveyed that specific point. I apologize, and I fully agree that the PM’s power over bonus methodology does not apply here. The objective of the poorly worded mischaracterization was to display exactly what you mention here:

@Cosmos_Nanny

The Controller explicitly communicated to the GM that Oversight members would not and should not qualify for performance-based ATOM bonuses if the rationale for performance bonus distribution is tied to “direct value” creation for ATOM (Feb 2024). Contrary to repeated mischaracterizations, the Controller’s series of logic questions about the bonus methodology, generated a rhetorical argument highlighting the inherent conflicts in the GM’s proposed system, not to lobby for Oversight’s inclusion. Only an idiot or a malicious actor would distort the Controller’s interrogation of proposed policy as an appeal to receive bonus benefits for oneself.

Supporting Evidence

More specifically, I desired to portray that a malicious actor (the PM) could distort the “Controller’s interrogation of proposed policy as an appeal to receive bonus benefits for oneself” if the Oversight Committee holds positive authority¹ over the performance-based compensation plans and, against the Controller’s insistence, the Oversight Committee is included in the performance-based compensation plan.

In the (Reply to [Project Manager]) document on page-18 image-1 point-3 where the PM sent the below Slack message, we can examine evidence of the very distortion you explained in the aformentioned quoted passage.

Further supporting evidence of this distortion can be found in the Project Manager’s reply to AADAO’s Oversight Special Report: GM Misconduct/Mismanagement where they stated:

“Asking for Oversight to be included in bonus distribution – which would have personally benefited herself – felt like a grave ethics violation for what is supposed to be the AADAO function with the most integrity.”

My thesis is exactly this: If the Project Manager is not permitted control over creating every facet of the Oversight Committee’s funding, then they can not falsely claim that the Oversight Committee’s involvement is a conflict of interest.

Proposed Amendment To Original Post

With your input, I’d reform my original comment from:

@rmalakaib

Oversight committee limitations: While the oversight committee helped prevent total collapse, its reliance on the Project Manager for compensation and operating budget weakened its independence and ability to provide meaningful checks on authority.

To:

Project Manager Distortion: Given the unilateral and sole power of the PM to formulate performance based compensation policy it became possible for the PM to allege that the Oversight Committee’s interrogration of the proposed policy was an appeal to receive higher bonuses for themselves.

All The Best,
Robert

1. “positive authority” refers to a governance mechanism where a proposal approved by one council only goes through if approved by another council.