Attention: Chris Mallon

[Peter McKillop]

1. Chris, as current president of the OCA, you would likely be in the best position to obtain from Trillium a copy of the executed agreement between Trillium and OCA. Would you please obtain this copy, as soon as possible, and then post the entire document where it can be easily accessed by those who are interested? A yes or no answer will suffice.

2. Would you please provide in your reply a list of the OCA's executive officers for each of the following years?:

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

Thank you.

[Christopher Mallon]

1. No. The OCA Governors have forbidden further contact with Trillium over this matter, which I happen to agree with - no need to antagonize them over something they consider closed.

2. I'm not exactly sure why I should have this information? Probably the Internet Archive is the best place to find out.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

2. I'm not exactly sure why I should have this information? Probably the Internet Archive is the best place to find out.

Chris, you must have at least 2009/2010 Anyway, this kind of info is available on internet.

[Bob Armstrong]

Here is a post I placed today on ChessTalk on the OCA/Trillium Grant/Fiasco:

The OCA/Trillium Grant - My Report ( From the Outside )

Here is my " report " on the OCA Trillium Grant/Fiasco ( as an outsider looking on, and for what it is worth ):

1. Barry Thorvardson, as OCA President, conceived of the chess grant application to Trillium, prepared it and was successful in obtaining it. It was $ 120,000, a 2-year contract, and was limited to youth chess in the York Region. OCA does not have a copy of the original grant contract with Trillium - BT says he handed over to OCA all his documentation, and OCA says it never received this document. OCA is not willing, now, to go to Trillium for a copy of the contract, because Trillium has made it clear they consider the grant issue closed.

2. The implementation of the grant started out on a good footing. Two well-known organizers, Mark Dutton and Leslie Armstrong, were hired to do some initial leg-work. There was transparency by BT initially, and OCA executive and members knew what was going on. BT, OCA President, was the unpaid handler of the grant for the OCA for its implementation initially.

3. Then transparency disappeared. The initial contracts with Dutton and Armstrong were not renewed, and without notice to anyone, except the Treasurer, apparently Jim Ferrier ( there has been some question whether it was Alice Laimer for part of the 2-year period ), BT hired himself on a 2-year salary contract to implement the balance of the grant contract. Even the V-P, Hal Bond, was unaware this had happened. This action by BT was in breach of the OCA By-law, and in breach of the Trillium Grant Contract, according to a report by Hal Bond, on a justification meeting he and BT had with 2 Trillium Grant administrators, when they had questions about the implementation of the grant, near its end. This showed very bad judgment on the part of BT., perhaps bad intention, and should never have happened. But I do not believe the evidence supports any criminal charge against BT in this matter. When the OCA Executive found out what Barry had done, they asked for his resignation. BT refused, saying he was doing nothing wrong. Apparently the OCA Executive had no one willing to replace BT as President, if they impeached him, and so the status quo uncomfortably remained, with BT continuing to earn a salary as the worker under the grant.

4. BT did hold some youth events in York Region apparently, but it seems they were generally unsuccussful. BT apparently also advised that the implementation of the grant was more difficult than he expected because there was a real shortage of affordable space in York Region to hold youth events. After 2 years, there was apparently very little to show for the significant grant amount.

5. OCA has almost no information/documentation on what BT did as employee under the grant over 2-years. It appears there may have been an interim report or two, and maybe a final report, to Trillium by BT, but again there is dispute about whether or not these documents ever were given to OCA. If BT has copies of any such documents, he is now refusing to hand them over to OCA ( he seems, though, to be saying he no longer has any Trillium/OCA documentation ). Again, it appears Trillium might not even be willing to give copies of any such reports to OCA, since they want this whole grant situation to just go away and are treating the matter as closed. Certainly from outside observation by the OCA, they could find no significant benefit had been brought to York Region youth chess by the grant. Whether this is because BT did little/nothing to earn his salary over 2 years, or because he tried and was unsuccessful, is an open question.

6. Late in the grant, Trillium asked for a meeting with OCA because they were concerned about a number of things about the grant. BT and V-P Hal Bond met with 2 Trillium administrators of the grant. BT was apparently able to convince them that there was no grounds for them seeking to recover the grant funds - that the grant was being implemented. Trillium gave no indication they wished to challenge the use of the grant money after the fact. But they did express their strong disapproval, according to the Hal Bond report of the meeting, that BT had hired himself as employee under the grant. But their disapproval was not strong enough to lead them to take any kind of punitive action against OCA with respect to the grant. It seems they felt it was a bad experience, but that it was best to just close the books on it. All indications are that BT's actions have likely killed OCA's possibilities of future chess grants with Trillium.

7. As a result of BT's actions in breach of the OCA By-law, his lack of transparency as OCA President, and the dire consequences of this actions to future OCA Trillium grant applications, the OCA banned BT for life from holding any OCA office. This is a significant penalty for his improper behaviour. It must be remembered that prior to this fiasco, BT had made significant contributions to Ontario chess, was well-respected, and even ran for the CFC Presidency ( unsuccessfully ).

8. Les Bunning has noted that a civil lawsuit against BT by the OCA could likely still be brought - the 2-year limitation period for bringing an action likely not yet having run. It would be for fraudulently taking OCA funds as salary over the 2-year period, when he in fact did nothing to earn the salary, and was earning the salary without disclosing such to the OCA ( except the Treasurer who was the second signature on the dispersement of grant moneys to BT as salary ). But the issue is whether there is any concrete evidence to support a lawsuit that BT did " nothing " to earn the salary. First of all, it is almost impossible to bring a lawsuit of this kind where there is absolutely no documentation of the grant nor its alleged implementation. Secondly, the OCA has almost no non-documentary information, and BT will likely have all kinds of anecdotal evidence of all the time he spent on the grant, what he tried to do, etc.. BT can even agree that he was totally unsuccessful at implementing the grant - that is not the issue - whether he succeeded. The issue is whether he made " reasonable effort " to do work under the grant towards promotion of youth chess in York Region. I do not know whether he did or not - what I do think however, is that OCA will never be in position to prove that he did not. And they would lose any civil lawsuit against BT in an Ontario Court. And they would likely have to cover BT's legal costs if OCA lost, as well as paying their own legal costs, which likely would be significant.

9. The OCA structural weakness that allowed all this to happen was an overly " presidential " approach to the governance of the OCA under BT's Presidency. An OCA " Executive " approach is definitely preferable, where issues are determined by majority OCA executive vote.

10. My conclusion - it was a bad experience for OCA; BT has been significantly punished for his " transgressions "; OCA has no chance of recovering any of the 2-year salary paid to BT; Trillium does not wish to deal with this grant ever again, and will likely not cooperate with any action OCA might take, and without the Trillium documentation, OCA is doomed to failure in whatever they try. Therefore, OCA, like Trillium, unhappily, should now treat the matter as " closed ", and move on.

Bob

[David McTavish]

POSTED TODAY (all responses on Chesstalk.com, of course) in response to Bob Armstrong from David McTavish:

Re: The OCA/Trillium Grant - My Report ( From the Outside )

Judge and jury for you.

Is anyone, preferably w/ OCA credents, going to or has contacted an MPP or the OPP? An e-mail, phone call, anonymously even...




POSTED TODAY in response to Bob Armstong from Ernest Klubis

Re: The OCA/Trillium Grant - My Report ( From the Outside )


It's like having King and 2(!) Knights and Barry has a lonely King. We have definite advantage and we can prance all around the forum (including banging our heads against the wall) without making any real progress.


POSTED TODAY by in response to Ernest Kublis from David McTavish

Hi Ernest,

But Jim Ferrier, or another from the darkness, is Thorvardson's Black Pawn. If it hasn't crossed the big W threshhold, then the OCA can still deliver justice.This isn't necessarily about the $ anymore, as Bob seems to think. This is worth pursuing. Would still have draw in hand. And , any publicity for the OCA would be good publicity it would seem in these dire times right now. Don't be scared off by Bob's 'court costs' -- he is not a lawyer -- lets ask someone who would know -- Mr.Bunning,LLB (sorry, Les) -- please advise

POSTED TODAY in response to Bob Armstrong, as well as Bob Gillanders from David McTavish

Re: The OCA/Trillium Grant - My Report ( From the Outside )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders
Thanks Bob for this summary of the Trillium Fiasco. It should be required reading (along with all relevant info and members' posts of outrage) for anyone involved in not for profit organizations, as an example of "what not to do". We now have a better idea of what happened.

As unsatisfactory a conclusion as it is, I agree that it is now time to move on. (End of Bob Gillanders' response to Armstrong)


Hi Bob (the trusteed one) ,

Are you, too, looking from the outside?

Oh, and Mr.Armstrong, I apologize, just getting up to speed here, you are indeed a tremendous class-action licensed litigationalist. Just did websearch. good newsletter you have too on chess. Couple of points of contention, though.

In newsletter www.chess.ca/misc2008/Issue9-20.pdf, we see you actively promoting Mr.Mallon for OCA presidency. Outsider?
Your ''successful' Grassroots Campaign, similar to a class-action approach ( which has hurt many a TD across the country -- ask Tony Ficzere, Roger Patterson for starters) would also indicate you are a 'non-outsider',
You have represented the CFC pro bono before on other matters,
You are an active CFC Governor, Outsider?
You go to great length to pre-warn all governors of the lack of liability insurance in recent newletter,http://www.chess.ca/misc2009/Issue10-15.pdf.
Is this a concern for going forward here for some of us?
You seem to want to concentrate the power in the hands of a few. And control the agenda through mind-boggling governance structural changes starting from the top, the CFC, through the OCA, then to the GTCL (you get to declare who are governor-candidates for this district?), right to Canada's epicentre of chess: The Scarborough Chess Club! I thought that it was Brampton! Outsider? Hmm.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi David:

" Outsider " = not on the OCA Executive at the time of the fiasco, nor subsequently.

" interested party " = OCA Life Member

" active in Canadian chess at many levels " - yes

" lawyer " - yes to some modest court litigation experience over the years ( now retired ) - have never officially done any pro bono work for CFC.

" Chess Community Organizing " - yes - Grassroots' Campaign; CFC Constitutional Coalition - both have contributed a lot to bettering the CFC.

" CFC Power Concentration " - NO - believe very much in representative democracy and like the governor system; want to see an active membership that leadership meaningfully dialogues with, and gets input from.

- you do research your positions - like to see that.

Bob

[David McTavish]

You know that pos when a pawn hugging an otherwise lone king causes regicide vs two cavaliers, too, eh?

[Hal Bond]

Bob Armstrong's summary is not quite correct. Mark Dutton was never hired. Roman Pelts was the other payee for a couple seminars. By the time I found out in August 2007, all moneys had been paid. Barry was certainly not allowed to continue drawing a salary. When he refused to resign, he was censured and the matter was deferred to the annual meeting.

[Peter McKillop]

Egidijus, I'm not sure how to get this information. Would you help me? Also, I'd like to have the OCA's 2008 financial statements. Thanks.

[John Coleman]

Peter, check your email

JC