Can we all agree that every bounty and treasury referendum must be executed and be held accountable to the proposed terms that was voted and approved by the community?? There are too many instances where the proposal submitted is well drafted and includes all of the details, qualifications, and reporting requirements for huge sums of DOT, but once the DOT is issued — most of the proposal terms are thrown out with little to no reporting . 

Every person that reads this should at least vote on the poll, as the community must respond and voice their position (at the very least). There is so much waste and inefficiencies on how the Treasury is being used and it will continue until we at least agree that this issue needs to be addressed. I do not think there are any requirements, rules, or guidelines in place — as well as any policies or measures  to hold proposers accountable. I am not trying to set any binding terms tied to laws or legal regulations, I am talking about the most basic policies that most people would think are already in place like the following:

— An approved Treasury Referendum or Bounty must follow the proposal approved by the community (the problem statement, solution, and reporting requirments). Any change in proposed spend, solution, curators, or reporting should result in placing a temporary hold on the DOT allocation or distribution to allow the proposer to address the issue. If the DOT has already been allocated, the proposer should halt spending until the issue has been resolved. Proposers that ignore, defy, or ignore this requirement or any notiications will be banned from proposing any Treasury referendum or bounty for 3 months, 2nd violation will be banned for 1 year, and 3rd violation will be lifetime ban??  Maybe more or maybe less ~ share you thoughts...

It would be great to partner up with a dispute resolution provider to automate the review and have a neutral third-party provide judgement. I am not sure if Polkadot has a dispute resolution system in place or in the works, but it would be great to hear any thoughts or issues regarding this point.

I am not aware of a defined process for reporting issues regarding governance, and I don't know if the OpenGov Watch / Watchdog was created to address this or some other process — but seems like a fit. I can imagine an a tremendous amount of personal complaints vs actual violations, but that should not be a reason to have something in place. 

Let's hear your thoughts and ideas — is this a concern or can agree that this should be addressed?

Thanks for the time and consideration.