I had posted an expansive explanation of the above (culled from this AIP) in another thread, but it was removed - likely because it was off-topic or something. I don’t know, as no specific reason was given. So, below is an abridged and more concise explanation of the logic behind this section of my AIP, and for those who don’t have the time to read the expansive discussions regarding AIP-277.
Nobody wants to see the Ape Foundation breach a contract that it signed. That’s absolutely not the issue here. And as I have stated over and over, I am NOT in favor of doing that because I am old school and believe that contracts should be honored as originally written and agreed to. No exceptions.
The issue is that, by way of the reason given for the AIP-277 to be returned due to the possibility of contractual breaches, the Ape Foundation appears to have created and entered into contracts that it cannot terminate. On its face, I find that to be exceptionally problematic. Especially when we have attorneys and WebSlingers to prevent that sort of risk factor.
Regardless of that, the Ape Foundation prevented the AIP from going up to vote, though I don’t see a reason in the charter that prevents it; even with the “may include but are not limited to” qualifier.
If I were in the Special Council, my advocacy would have been to send it up for vote. And if it passes, then we deal with the ramifications of terminating contracts as applicable and required by law and the contract terms.
So, if the Ape Foundation can’t reduce a contract salary due to a violation of said contract, then, I don’t understand how it could adhere to the AIP-1 terms which actually allows for the termination of Special Council members who are in fact on contract.
I hope this brings some additional clarity to this specific issue.