How they got the tokens is of lesser importance than the fact they didn’t follow the governance process and put up the reason/concern in public (what I assume is the recognised deliberative process) via this forum. So the complaint (correct me if wrong) is the perceived privilege of bypassing the transparency governance process. If so, it sounds like you want track 3, aka the equiv of a
a) please explain “memo” to the Foundation
b) requirement of a legal justification or legitimate excuse (these are legel concepts to escape blame)
c) … and if the response is not satisfactory … a way for the community via delegates to express sentiment/sanction
The crux is how much discretion should staff of the Foundation have in handling matters … should they be akin to a trustee with fixed instruction set and invariant duties, or are more flexible arrangements with perhaps protector/guardian in bakcground to enforce beneficiary rights (sorry … I use UK trust law to express the powers of the delegates).
This is the point where delegates should opine whether it is a principle or practice how strictly the process should be followed. There may be reasons (eg whistle-blower shield provisions) to prevent the source of the hold-up to directly submit a public objection so best to hear all sides of the story.