OCA Action CommitteeReport RE: 2006 Canadian Closed and Trillium GrantSeptember 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.