OCA Trillium Report (term used loosely)

[Christopher Mallon]

OCA Action Committee

Report RE: 2006 Canadian Closed and Trillium Grant

September 7, 2009

Factual Report

Historical

As some may be aware, during Barry Thorvardson’s tenure as OCA President, two issues of grave importance arose within the organization itself. Firstly, a financial shortfall of approximately $1000 was reported in relation to the 2006 Canadian Closed Chess Championship, with Mr. Thorvardson and the Chess Federation of Canada engaging in mutual finger-pointing over who was to blame for the amount in question.

The other issue was that of a Trillium Grant, received by the Ontario Chess Association, in support for the establishment of a chess program in York region. The grant was garnered through Mr. Thorvardon’s initiative, though he came under scrutiny upon appointing himself the manager of the project in question, drawing a salary. Having failed to have resigned as President of the Ontario Chess Association prior to taking this post, Mr. Thorvardson was found to be in a clear conflict of interest. Trillium sat down with Hal Bond, then Vice-President of the Ontario Chess Association, and Mr. Thorvardson to discuss the matter. The end result was a reprimand, and a red flag on the OCA’s file.

Thorvardson’s management of these two files

The 2006 Canadian Closed Chess Championship saw Mark Dutton serve as Tournament Director and Barry Thorvardson serve as Tournament Organizer. The players were given the option of either paying their entry fees to the CFC directly, or paying the team on-site. With Mark Dutton refusing to handle any cash on-site, all fiscal responsibilities therein fell to Mr. Thorvardson.

The Trillium grant was meant to be put towards the development of a chess program in York region, with the intention to hire a project manager to implement said program. The program in York region was implemented, successfully or not, with Mr. Thorvardson ultimately appointing himself its manager. Interest in this position had previously been expressed by at least two qualified parties, who were passed over in favour of his own hiring.

OCA Executive’s management of these two files

During Mr. Thorvardson’s tenure, the OCA presidency was largely a benevolent dictatorship, with each of the executive positions acting in roles of support. As a rule, nothing was ever brought to a vote with the governorship, or, indeed, even discussed with the governorship. When the issue with Trillium arose, Hal Bond, serving as Vice-President, strongly recommended Mr. Thorvardson resign his post as OCA President to avoid a conflict of interest, and acted in full cooperation with Trillium when the issue came to a head.

Recommendations to avoid the occurrence of these events

In the case of the 2006 Canadian Closed Chess Championship, having two entities collecting fees on behalf of the tournament was a recipe for disaster. To the CFC’s benefit, their transactions were well-documented, while Mr. Thorvardson had no proof of fees collected or submitted. The issuing of receipts should be standard practice at these events, with a paper trail for all financials being readily available.

In terms of the Trillium grant, the incompetence exhibited by Mr. Thorvardson in his allowing a clear conflict of interest to arise should point to the needed remedy – a less severe division of power within the OCA.

Changes to governance structures

Seemingly, the largest problem highlighted by these issues was the need for communication within the OCA executive itself, and communication with its constituents’ representatives – the governors. All financial, constitutional, or representational activities to be undertaken by the organization should not fall solely to the discretion of the OCA President. Executive support should be sought – in fact, required – for all undertakings of the OCA. Further, the governors should, where appropriate, be briefed on all activity by the executive. Where the governors feel uncomfortable with a decision, the matter should be brought to a vote. The issue of non-confidence seemed prominent within the executive committee itself. Under such circumstances, a unanimous vote of non-confidence by the remaining members of that committee should be enough to dispose of the sitting President, rather than waiting on him or her to resign.

[Christopher Mallon]

My immediate response when I received it:

THIS was the end result of a year and a half of investigating? Wow… There’s absolutely nothing in there I didn’t already know. In fact I could have probably written down even more information just off the top of my head. Kinda makes me wonder why Eric was making such a big fuss about wanting to investigate. The final recommendations section also jumps right from “conflict of interest” to “division of power” and it’s not exactly clear what the reason for this is. The recommendations ignore the fact that Barry *was* operating in conflict with OCA Bylaws already (which he wrote) and thus any additional recommended changes would have had no effect on the situation at all.

Basically as I stated previously, it seems to have been mostly a waste of time...

[John Coleman]

I'm underwhelmed, just as you promised. Of course, with the OCA, I'm always prepared to be underwhelmed...

[Peter McKillop]

Gosh. This is like opening a long-anticipated present wrapped in fine gilt paper only to find a road apple inside. I'm even more underwhelmed than I thought I'd be.

[Peter McKillop]

.... The program in York region was implemented, successfully or not, with Mr. Thorvardson ultimately appointing himself its manager. Interest in this position had previously been expressed by at least two qualified parties, who were passed over in favour of his own hiring. ....

"The program" - what specifically was the program?; i.e. what specifically was it that the Trillium Foundation approved?

How can something be implemented "successfully or not"?; i.e. what led our investigators to the conclusion that "the program" "was implemented"?

[Kerry Liles]

"The program" - what specifically was the program?; i.e. what specifically was it that the Trillium Foundation approved?

How can something be implemented "successfully or not"?; i.e. what led our investigators to the conclusion that "the program" "was implemented"?

Bottom line: a serious chunk of money was *wasted* and the Trillium Foundation is unlikely to ever cough up money for chess-related activities. Unless Barry decides to write up his version of what happened, this is the only possible conclusion. I have heard that there were attempts (by Barry) to find people to 'do the work' and those attempts (whatever they were) proved unsuccessful and therefore Barry did whatever was done. I know some equipment was purchased (no breakdown of anything) and I believe some tournaments in York region were sponsored (again, no details I know about). Beyond that, of the $120K about 80% or more went to "administration" of the program ... sounds like some famous charities to me - all talk and no action.

Nothing to see here folks, move along... (sadly)

[Peter McKillop]

More information would be helpful. Here are some more questions:

1. The OCA's "Operating Statements" for the fiscal years ending March 31, 2006 and 2007, indicate that a total of $91,000 was expensed as "Salaries and Wages - York Region Program." Can the OCA's investigative team verify that all of that money was paid to Barry Thorvardson (also, see question 2)? If not, who else was on the payroll and how much did they receive?

2. Does the OCA have all of its banking records, including cancelled cheques, for the period April, 2005 to March, 2007 inclusive? A review of the backs of cancelled cheques payable to Barry Thorvardson could be informative. Were they all deposited to Barry's account at his personal bank or were some of the cheques endorsed over to other people? What are the names of those other people?

3. The fiscal '06 and '07 operating statements also record total expenses of $15,203 for "Program Costs - York Region." Under revenue for the same two fiscal years we see a total of $120,000 for "Trillium Foundation Grant." Subtracting Trillium-related expenses from revenues leaves almost $14,000 whose location in the fiscal '06 and '07 financial statements is not readily apparent. Where does that money appear in the '06/'07 operating statements and/or balance sheets?

4. Back a year and a half, or more, there was some mention (I think by you, Chris) that:

a) someone (?) had absconded with all of the OCA's copies of the Trillium documentation, and that;

b) The Trillium Foundation refused to provide the OCA with copies of the documentation pertaining to the OCA's own grant.

Is this still the case or did the OCA finally get copies of all the pertinent documentation?

Thanks for your help.

[Aris Marghetis]

More information would be helpful. Here are some more questions:

1. The OCA's "Operating Statements" for the fiscal years ending March 31, 2006 and 2007, indicate that a total of $91,000 was expensed as "Salaries and Wages - York Region Program." Can the OCA's investigative team verify that all of that money was paid to Barry Thorvardson (also, see question 2)? If not, who else was on the payroll and how much did they receive?

2. Does the OCA have all of its banking records, including cancelled cheques, for the period April, 2005 to March, 2007 inclusive? A review of the backs of cancelled cheques payable to Barry Thorvardson could be informative. Were they all deposited to Barry's account at his personal bank or were some of the cheques endorsed over to other people? What are the names of those other people?

3. The fiscal '06 and '07 operating statements also record total expenses of $15,203 for "Program Costs - York Region." Under revenue for the same two fiscal years we see a total of $120,000 for "Trillium Foundation Grant." Subtracting Trillium-related expenses from revenues leaves almost $14,000 whose location in the fiscal '06 and '07 financial statements is not readily apparent. Where does that money appear in the '06/'07 operating statements and/or balance sheets?

4. Back a year and a half, or more, there was some mention (I think by you, Chris) that:

a) someone (?) had absconded with all of the OCA's copies of the Trillium documentation, and that;

b) The Trillium Foundation refused to provide the OCA with copies of the documentation pertaining to the OCA's own grant.

Is this still the case or did the OCA finally get copies of all the pertinent documentation?

Thanks for your help.

I am so bloody confused ...

I do not really know who Mr.McKillop is, nor am I aware of any of his roles, if any, during the Trillium years. However, it sounds like Mr.McKillop was not a member of the recent investigative committee. I apologize if I am incorrect.

However, if my above assumptions are correct, then I am confused as to why Mr.McKillop is the one coming up with such questions? Am I crazy to expect that such questions should have been asked-investigated-answered by now?! As an OCA member, I am pissed at the appearance that over $100K may have been sucked out of us, and I want to know if the OCA is owed!

[Kerry Liles]

I am so bloody confused ...

I do not really know who Mr.McKillop is, nor am I aware of any of his roles, if any, during the Trillium years. However, it sounds like Mr.McKillop was not a member of the recent investigative committee. I apologize if I am incorrect.

However, if my above assumptions are correct, then I am confused as to why Mr.McKillop is the one coming up with such questions? Am I crazy to expect that such questions should have been asked-investigated-answered by now?! As an OCA member, I am pissed at the appearance that over $100K may have been sucked out of us, and I want to know if the OCA is owed!

I am sure Peter can answer for himself, but Peter is a paying member of the OCA (at least until recently - I am not sure he renewed his CFC membership... but no matter). Peter has a keen interest in where the Trillium Grant money went and has always simply asked for proper accounting from the OCA. The long-awaited report into the Trillium Fund was released (see other threads) and unfortunately leaves more questions than were originally asked.

[Aris Marghetis]

I am sure Peter can answer for himself, but Peter is a paying member of the OCA (at least until recently - I am not sure he renewed his CFC membership... but no matter). Peter has a keen interest in where the Trillium Grant money went and has always simply asked for proper accounting from the OCA. The long-awaited report into the Trillium Fund was released (see other threads) and unfortunately leaves more questions than were originally asked.

Sorry if my post in any way seemed to question Peter. My intent was to point out that his questions seemed bang on, and thus should have been thought of (by any of the various investigative attempts) long ago. I apologize if my sarcasm in any way offended Peter, or anyone else.

I share, with many people, a bitterly keen interest over this "wasted" money.