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.

[Peter McKillop]

No offence taken, Aris. I was vice president of the OCA during the 2001/02 period. Otherwise, I've had no involvement with the OCA other than as a member. Kerry is correct. I let my CFC/OCA memberships lapse in December, 2008.

And you are absolutely correct, Aris, when you say that the questions I've asked "...should have been thought of (by any of the various investigative attempts) long ago." These same questions were asked by me long ago. They're not hard questions. Either the OCA has the information needed to make a proper report on the Trillium matter, or they don't. If they do, then let's see that proper report. If they don't, then where did that information go?

A long time ago (well over a year I think), either here or on ChessTalk, someone (I think it was Chris Mallon) said that the OCA did not have any of the Trillium grant documentation. It was presumed that someone (?) had taken it all. Further, if I remember correctly, Chris said that the Trillium Foundation had rebuffed their attempts to obtain copies of the documentation. What gives with that? It sounds irregular to say the least.

Question for Chris Mallon: are you, or is one of the OCA's officers, in possession of the Trillium grant documentation?

This whole business smells very badly: missing documentation, no one except the key individual even knows what the so-called project entailed, the Trillium Foundation refuses to provide copies of the documentation to the OCA. Almost makes one wonder if a complaint should be filed with the York Regional Police.

[Tony Ficzere]

I am very surprised to hear this. Missing documentation from a provincial grant?!

Here in Alberta we get many provincial grants. If we fail to provide all our receipts in a timely fashion, we simply get cut off. End of story. I would think that the paper pushers at Trillium would be wanting to cover their own buts here.

And its not just a matter of providing receipts. The money has to be spent on approved expenditures. You can't just take the money and buy a boat, or take a holiday!

If this sort of thing happened here in Alberta, the person would be up on criminal charges.

[Peter McKillop]

Jeez, you Westerners are awful nosy, aren't ya? :)

The thing that gets me, Tony, is that except for a small handful of people there is no outrage here. Nobody seems to give a damn, as clearly demonstrated by successive generations of do-nothing OCA executives. And the biggest do-nothing exec is the one who promised a full scale report for the OCA's 2009 AGM: Eric Van Dusen. We're talking about 120 freaking grand!!. If the OCA could save up all of its dues every year it would take almost 20 years to accumulate this amount. And yet only a small number of people are even interested.

And what about the Trillium Foundation? Does it seem likely that they would approve a grant that was going to,


From the Trillium Foundation's website:


Ontario Chess Association Inc.
$120,000 over two years to pilot an integrated chess program in York Region, which will provide children and youth with an alternative recreational experience and build their critical thinking and tactical skills.
if they thought that more than 75% of the grant was going to be paid out in salaries & wages, allegedly to just one person?

Unbelievable! Get up on your hind legs, Chris Mallon, and do something right.

[Kerry Liles]

Jeez, you Westerners are awful nosy, aren't ya? :)

The thing that gets me, Tony, is that except for a small handful of people there is no outrage here. Nobody seems to give a damn, as clearly demonstrated by successive generations of do-nothing OCA executives. And the biggest do-nothing exec is the one who promised a full scale report for the OCA's 2009 AGM: Eric Van Dusen. We're talking about 120 freaking grand!!. If the OCA could save up all of its dues every year it would take almost 20 years to accumulate this amount. And yet only a small number of people are even interested.

And what about the Trillium Foundation? Does it seem likely that they would approve a grant that was going to,


From the Trillium Foundation's website:


Ontario Chess Association Inc.
$120,000 over two years to pilot an integrated chess program in York Region, which will provide children and youth with an alternative recreational experience and build their critical thinking and tactical skills.
if they thought that more than 75% of the grant was going to be paid out in salaries & wages, allegedly to just one person?

Unbelievable! Get up on your hind legs, Chris Mallon, and do something right.

Peter, it may be worthwhile to state (or re-iterate, if that is the case) what exactly you would like to see happen. I recall you mentioned some time ago that you intended to forward the OCA's report to your MPP (although it might be somewhat embarrassing to send what appears to be 'the report' as we have it). Aside from that action, what exactly can be done?

It would *seem* that Trillium actually places very few constraints on their grant money and it also appears that they are satisfied that the grant was used as it was intended (otherwise one would think THEY would be pursuing the matter and as far as I know, they are not).

I would imagine that your MPP might fire off a query to Trillium and they very well might reply that they are satisfied and therefore your MPP should not get his knickers in a twist. I would expect that would be the end of that.

The OCA can hardly mount a legal action to recover any of the money (it isn't clear to me that such action would have the faintest hope in hell of being a success - just IMHO).

Even when I was part of the OCA Executive, and was frustrated by the lack of information, I could not see any reasonable course of action other than to make sure Barry T. was not in a position to influence the OCA policy or actions (that is why I accepted a post on the OCA Executive - my reasons for subsequently resigning that post have nothing to do with the Trillium Grant).

I wish the OCA could produce a report containing much more solid information, but it seems that is not the case.

[Peter McKillop]

I'll get back to you on this, Kerry. First I want to see what I can dredge up from archives here and at ChessTalk. I'm certain that someone (I think it was C. Mallon but I could be wrong) stated here or at ChessTalk that:

1. a third person (guess who?) had taken all of the OCA's Trillium documentation and would not return it to the OCA;
2. the Trillium Foundation would not provide any copies of the grant documentation to the OCA.

Now, if the above is correct then this is definitely not a normal situation and raises some obvious questions. Why would "someone" take all of the OCA's grant docs and then refuse to return them? Why would Trillium refuse to provide copies of documents to the OCA? I could see them charging a fee for the copying, but, refusing to give copies to an entity to whom you've already given $120k? Convince me that this is normal behaviour. I intend to puruse this until there are some acceptable answers to my questions.

[Peter McKillop]

And another thing, Kerry - why the hell aren't we, the chessplayers of Ontario, from whom the freaking CFC extorts $7 every year to fill the pockets of the OCA, entitled to a full accounting of what happened to that money?? Every freaking penny of it !!!! I don't intend to stop until that full accounting has been made public. Some freaking jackass pockets $91,000 to do what?? The Trillium Foundation should have an obligation to be transparent in its dealings and I'd be willing to bet some money that it does. Can you imagine the p.r. scandal if Trillium's motto was something like: "We're Giving Away Ontarians Hard-Earned Tax Dollars And You'll Never Be Able To Find Out Where." I think my MPP will be able to get a lot more than a shoo-go-away response.

[Christopher Mallon]

Unbelievable! Get up on your hind legs, Chris Mallon, and do something right.

What exactly do you want me to do?

After the 2008 AGM, most people present were unhappily convinced that we had done what we could do, which was to get BT off the OCA Exec. Some wanted more, the most vocal of which was Eric Van Dusen, and so I agreed to let him form a committee and even suggested people from SWOCL and GTCL he could contact who had not been involved in the matter to be on the committee with him.

At the 2009 AGM, lingering anger led to BT being barred for life from chess governance in Ontario.

And now we see the "result" of the "investigation."

[Christopher Mallon]

A long time ago (well over a year I think), either here or on ChessTalk, someone (I think it was Chris Mallon) said that the OCA did not have any of the Trillium grant documentation. It was presumed that someone (?) had taken it all.

I don't think I said that publicly (which is probably why you can't find the post) but I was quoted as saying something along those lines.


Further, if I remember correctly, Chris said that the Trillium Foundation had rebuffed their attempts to obtain copies of the documentation. What gives with that? It sounds irregular to say the least.

Pretty sure that was Eric Van Dusen. I told him that I'd be happy to sign any request forms he wanted to fill out - even if Trillium for some reason wouldn't deal with that, a Freedom of Information request is not much money at all. I never heard back from him about that.


Question for Chris Mallon: are you, or is one of the OCA's officers, in possession of the Trillium grant documentation?

No. BT insists to EVD that he gave me the documentation, but I and others have been over every piece of paper he gave me and it is not there. I was also never given the official corporate seal of the OCA (not very useful perhaps, but it DID cost $155). EVD is in fact in possession right now of most of the documents Barry gave to me, including banking records from the old TD account.


This whole business smells very badly: missing documentation, no one except the key individual even knows what the so-called project entailed, the Trillium Foundation refuses to provide copies of the documentation to the OCA. Almost makes one wonder if a complaint should be filed with the York Regional Police.

It was within the mandate of the investigation committee to recommend such an action... but for this type of crime we're well past the statue of limitations. That's why the committee was originally supposed to report over a year ago.

[Kerry Liles]

And another thing, Kerry - why the hell aren't we, the chessplayers of Ontario, from whom the freaking CFC extorts $7 every year to fill the pockets of the OCA, entitled to a full accounting of what happened to that money?? Every freaking penny of it !!!! I don't intend to stop until that full accounting has been made public. Some freaking jackass pockets $91,000 to do what?? The Trillium Foundation should have an obligation to be transparent in its dealings and I'd be willing to bet some money that it does. Can you imagine the p.r. scandal if Trillium's motto was something like: "We're Giving Away Ontarians Hard-Earned Tax Dollars And You'll Never Be Able To Find Out Where." I think my MPP will be able to get a lot more than a shoo-go-away response.

I absolutely agree - I didn't mean to damper the inquiry; merely being my usual pessimistic/realistic. I sure hope this matter is sorted out.

[Peter McKillop]

What exactly do you want me to do? ....

The item below was posted here by Eric Van Dusen on November 13, 2008. Here is something you can do for me: make the agreement executed by the OCA and the Trillium Fund publicly available. I'm assuming that by now, more than 13 months later, someone has actually managed to get off their duff and obtain a copy of the executed agreement from Trillium. Please post it here or at the OCA's website so that anyone who is interested can see it.

Can you do that in a timely fashion? Or should we expect another committee to be struck, perhaps headed up by Eric Van Donothing, with a major report to be tabled at the 2010 AGM?


Hi Peter,

I am assuming that Chris Mallon is so busy that he has not been keeping up with his emails.

Chris Mallon has formed the OCA Action Committee consisting of Michael von Keitz, SWOCL; Eric Van Dusen, EOCA; and Egidijus Zeromskis, GTCL.

The committee will be investigating issues pertaining to the Trillium Fund and the 2006 Canada Closed, both administered by Barry Thorvardson. A report with recommendations will be issued by the OCA Executive by March 2009. Of course, the committee is trying to be efficient as possible but the committee wants to be thorough and fair in its investigation.

With regards to the documentation pertaining to the Trillium Fund, Barry has continued his position that he has turned all documentation to Chris Mallon. As we can see, Chris has not received all of the documentation. All documentation regarding the Trillium Fund is the property of the OCA, as the agreement was between the OCA and the Trillium Fund. I have been in touch with the Trillium Fund and the Project Manager is willing to release the agreement signed between the OCA and the Trillium Fund, but he is not willing to release the reports submitted by Barrry.

Any help you would like to give, Peter is very much appreciated.

Eric Van Dusen
Secretary EOCA
CFC and OCA Governor

[Kerry Liles]

The item below was posted here by Eric Van Dusen on November 13, 2008. Here is something you can do for me: make the agreement executed by the OCA and the Trillium Fund publicly available. I'm assuming that by now, more than 13 months later, someone has actually managed to get off their duff and obtain a copy of the executed agreement from Trillium. Please post it here or at the OCA's website so that anyone who is interested can see it.

Can you do that in a timely fashion? Or should we expect another committee to be struck, perhaps headed up by Eric Van Donothing, with a major report to be tabled at the 2010 AGM?

Note this segment: "I have been in touch with the Trillium Fund and the Project Manager is willing to release the agreement signed between the OCA and the Trillium Fund, but he is not willing to release the reports submitted by Barrry."

This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a copy of the agreement was requested (and then received). Trillium was willing to release the agreement, but I have no idea whether the OCA (ie: Eric or anyone else) requested a copy.

On the Trillium Web site, it used to be possible to rummage around and find copies of the grant requests, but I have not been able to do so (perhaps they online have certain number of years online and that stuff has since fallen off the website)...

[Peter McKillop]

.... This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a copy of the agreement was requested (and then received). ....

Correct. Which is why I said that I assumed that someone had obtained it by now.

[Peter McKillop]

What exactly do you want me to do? ...

This one is also from ChessTalk, posted on October 15, 2008. That's 14 months ago. Do you have a copy of the final version of the agreement between Trillium and OCA?


More Questions for Chris Mallon and One for Frank Dixon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris: Does the OCA have copies of all of the Trillium grant documentation? How about making them available for the rank and file to see? What about the resolution authorizing the application to the Trillium Foundation? Was it passed with due regard to the applicable provisions of the OCA constitution (e.g. conflict of interest)? Were expenditures in excess of $1,000 authorized in accordance with the constitution? And by the way, why was York Region (this is from memory; if it's wrong then whatever the geographical region was) singled out for this bit of munificence? It is the Ontario Chess Association, after all. What was the OCA's rationale for choosing this locale and excluding others?

Frank Dixon: Frank, why hasn't your voice been heard with respect to this matter?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Peter McKillop; October 16th, 2008 at 12:45 PM. Reason: I'm too lazy to start another thread.

[Christopher Mallon]

Peter,

I stated flat-out following my June 2008 election that, while I was not happy with the overall result, I was not sure that anything productive would come out of any further investigations. Some people wanted a lawsuit however I pointed out that even IF we happened to win it, assuming that we could afford it (we had $-2 in the account and $5000 of debt), Trillium would quite possibly just demand to get it back themselves.

With all that considered I said I was not going to personally pursue the matter; if some were still interested in doing so, they could form a committee. Eric accepted.

My opinion has not changed in the year and a half since then. I still see no benefit into investigating any further, and therefore I won't. I'm not going spend/waste time arguing with Trillium to get documents released that won't change anything. So, to answer your actual question, no we do not have any of the trillium paperwork (other than an early draft of the original proposal) - unless Eric happened on to anything. That's all I've seen.

As for your other questions, I can't answer them, since other than being around for the initial "Hey we should think about applying to Trillium" when I was OCA VP 2004-2005, I had nothing to do with it. I don't know why they chose York Region, I don't know what the voting procedure was, I don't know if it did or didn't follow the constitution. I wasn't even an OCA Governor at the time.

[Eric Van Dusen]

It is easily understandable that OCA members would be disappointed with the Trillium report.

A few comments may suffice:

1) The Trillium Foundation refused to release any information except the legal agreement that was signed between the OCA and the Trillium Fund. In particular, Trillium refused to release the reports submitted by Thorvardson to the fund.

2) Thorvardson has always maintained that he gave all pertinent documentation to Chris Mallon. Mallon has always maintained that Thorvardson gave him none or very little documentation regarding the Trillium fund.

3) At the 2009 OCA AGM, the meeting voted to direct the committee from ever contacting the Trillium Fund again.

4) Regarding the Canada Closed, most participants from this championship were contacted but many could not remember the details of payment. As far as could be determined, Thorvardson did not have or was unwilling to release financial records for the Closed.

5) While I, Eric Van Dusen, had grave concerns over Thorvardson's handling of the Trillium grant and the Canada Closed, much of the EOCA executive including Garland Best and Aris Marghetis were much angrier than myself.

6) The underlying purpose of the exercise was not to assign blame, mete out punishment or retrieve the lost money, but to identify weaknesses in the OCA governance structures and make recommendations to stengthen those governance structures. Since the OCA is made up of four leagues, my only suggestion was to require a signature from treasurer's of three of the four chess leagues. It was the only way I could see that no one person or league dominate the executive structure. That particular suggestion was dismissed as too bureaucratic or cumbersome at the 2009 OCA AGM.

In closing, it is my opinion that the trail was way too cold in order to gather the kind of evidence that is required for a legal proceeding. The committee was simply unable to gather the legal documents from Thorvardson or the Trillium Fund.

The president, Chris Mallon showed little interest and gave little or no support in facilitating the committee's investigation. The OCA AGM decided that no further contact with the Trillium Fund would be permitted and had no interest in strengthening governance structures because they felt that such restructuring would be too bureaucratic.

That was the democratic will of the attendees of the OCA AGM. While I may disagree with the decision of the assembly, I am required to respect it and carry out its will to the best of my abilities. After the AGM, it was my feeling that in practical terms, the investigation committee was not in the position to make significant progress.

Hence, I submitted my findings to Michael von Kietz. He wrote the first draft of the report, which was then reviewed by Egis and myself. This revised version was then presumably was sent to the OCA Executive.

I commend all the committee members for their hard work. All of us tried our best. However, I do feel that the committee did come up short.

Eric Van Dusen

[Peter McKillop]

Eric, you and Chris are a real pair. You guys were so apathetic about this thing that you couldn't even be bothered to obtain what Trillium offered you - a copy of the final contract. You guys and von Keitz have done all this "investigating" and you know dick about the most fundamental aspect of all this; i.e. the terms of the grant. You guys, who reportedly have banned Thorvardson from holding office in the OCA again, don't even know what the hell was supposed to have happened with the grant money. For all you guys know, Thorvardson might have complied fully with all of the terms and conditions stipulated by Trillium. The circumstances suggest other possibilities but the point is that you guys, who presumably have some responsibility for looking out for the best interests of chessplayers in Ontario, know dick. Thanks for your valiant efforts on our behalf!!

[Christopher Mallon]

I had nothing to do with the investigation other than allowing the committee to form. I have never spoken with Trillium and they have never offered me anything at all.

You are correct in that BT may well have complied with Trillium regulations. Trillium has already said they consider the matter closed. It's also plain fact that BT violated several OCA regulations.

My personal opinion is that absolutely nothing can be done about it anymore, so why not put effort into something worthwhile? But since others did want to investigate, I gave them the opportunity to do so, and we can now see the result.

[Eric Van Dusen]

Eric, you and Chris are a real pair. You guys were so apathetic about this thing that you couldn't even be bothered to obtain what Trillium offered you - a copy of the final contract. You guys and von Keitz have done all this "investigating" and you know dick about the most fundamental aspect of all this; i.e. the terms of the grant. You guys, who reportedly have banned Thorvardson from holding office in the OCA again, don't even know what the hell was supposed to have happened with the grant money. For all you guys know, Thorvardson might have complied fully with all of the terms and conditions stipulated by Trillium. The circumstances suggest other possibilities but the point is that you guys, who presumably have some responsibility for looking out for the best interests of chessplayers in Ontario, know dick. Thanks for your valiant efforts on our behalf!!

Normally, I would not respond to such a discourteous response.

I do in fact know pretty much what the grant was for as pretty much almost everyone in the OCA does. The OCA had a contract with the Trillium Foundation where its grant was for a pilot project in York Region to support youth chess activities. The grant was primarily for a salary of a Program and Volunteer Coordinator and the purchase of chess equipment (boards and clocks).

Thorvardson hired a person to do this work. He soon fired this person and notified the OCA Executive that he was going to do some work for the pilot project and "pay himself a little something", as quoted from David Gordon, an OCA governor at the time from the EOCA. What he did not inform the OCA Executive, that he, as president of the OCA, was going to hire himself out as the Program Coordinator and renumerate himself with the Trillium Grant that he, himself had applied for.

I remember quite well the idea for this grant because Barry had explained it to me over a few dinners we had shared at the Canada Open, when it was held at Kapaskasing for the second time. It never ocurred to me at the time that the grant would be for a salaried person, let alone that Barry would pay himself with the grant.

The contract with the Trillium Fund is and still remains well understood. If Chris Mallon, the President of the OCA wants a copy of the contract, he, himself can contact the Trillium Fund and get a copy of the contract.

What he cannot get and what I desired most was the reports that Thorvardson was contractually obligated to submit to the Trillium Fund describing the results of the pilot project.

The Trillium Fund referred to privacy laws and stated uncategorically that it could not release these reports to the OCA. The Trillium fund manager stated that what Thorvardson had done was not criminal but unethical. This manager had assured Hal Bond, CFC President at the time, that as long as Thorvardson was eliminated from the OCA, then the OCA would be in the position of receiving more grants from the Trillium Fund in the future.

Thorvardson is now banned for life from holding any official position in the OCA and in turn, the CFC. Thorvardson was requested to resign his position from the Chess Foundation as directed by myself under the order of the 2009 CFC AGM. What else do you want done, Peter? I do have the power to refer his case to the CFC Ethics Committee which could consider a lifetime ban from the CFC.

I am still puzzled about how privacy regulations can over ride the contractual obligations between the Trillium Fund and the OCA. The OCA should be able to have full access to the file that is held by the Trillium Fund and yet, it does not have this access. It would be a very good question to refer to a lawyer or better yet, your local Member of the Provincial Parliament at Queen's Park.

The ball is in your court, Peter.

Eric Van Dusen
OCA Member

[Steve Douglas]

Normally, I would not respond to such a discourteous response.

<snippage of lots of hearsay>

The ball is in your court, Peter.

Eric Van Dusen
OCA Member

How is the ball in Peter's court? He doesn't represent the OCA. If his reply was discourteous it's probably because he's frustrated with the buck-passing that's going on. How can you (or anybody) be satisfied with that report. Your own post that I'm replying to contains more information than the report.

But even your post has the same problems as the report does: it doesn't cite anything. It uses language such as "everybody knows". How about a report that includes the following:

- letters or other communications between the OCA and the CFC about the 2006 closed

- financial statements from the OCA about both the closed and the Trillium grant

- a list of all people contacted in preparation of the report including why they were contacted and when they were contacted (this should include Barry Thorvardson)

- a written statement from somebody at Trilllium about the grant (preferably a somebody with, umm, a *name*)

- a copy of the agreement between Trillium and the OCA

- references to specific OCA by-laws that were violated with respect to the Trillium funding (if any)

- references to specfic provisions of the grant agreement that may have been violated (if any)

- if any supporting documents are missing: a statement of why they are missing and what steps were taken to acquire them

Peter's not the only one who wants to know what happened and filling a report with a whole bunch of "everyone knows" and "everyone agrees" and making references to verbal statements of un-named individuals is not a "report". What has been presented so far is an incomplete executive summary of a report.

As Clara Peller would say, "Where's the beef?"

Steve

[Bob Gillanders]

Steve, well said.

I was very disappointed in the report myself. Thanks to Peter, we now know a little bit more from Eric's reply.

You have an excellent list of report deficiencies. I hope the committee will now go back to the drawing board and try again!

If the chess community is ever going to be taken seriously, we need to be accountable and transparent in our financial and political dealings.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I doubt that you will ever see the Committee reconstituted to improve their report.

Eric, who I believe was one of the most vocal of those wanting an investigation, is no longer the OCA Secretary - he resigned to focus on CFC matters. I think he is still an OCA Governor, but I doubt he wants to pursue it further. Maybe he will contradict me on this.

The current President of the OCA, Chris Mallon, was never very much in favour of the investigation in the first place, feeling the trail was too cold.

Thorvardson was cooperating only limitedly, if at all.

Trillium has closed the matter and doesn't want to deal with it ever again ( we don't know if they are happy with it or unhappy, after their explanation meeting with Hal Bond ).

That leaves Michael von Keitz, OCA VP, and Egis Zeromskis, as the other 2 members of the Committee I believe. Neither of them have said squat about their report, and the criticisms of it. Nor have they, in the light of the criticisms, voluntarily come forward to ask the OCA to reconstitute their committee - do they also feel now, that what could be done, has been done? And that further investigation will be fruitless? Maybe we will hear from them on this, but I kind of doubt they will want to stick up their heads at this point, and have them blown off.

Peter McKillop is not even a CFC member or OCA member, and so he has no standing to formally bring any motion himself, to get back on the trail of all this.

To me, the biggest point made, has been that the OCA felt Barry breached the OCA Bylaw in acting as he did on the grant, and he has been soundly thrashed for it - permanent ban from ever holding OCA office again.

The biggest difficulty is that Trillium won't cooperate - they won't even release Thorvardson's Grant Report to the OCA , who got the grant, or anyone for that matter it seems ( which Thorvardson claims he gave the OCA, and which OCA claims never to have received, and Barry has no copy, or won't now make a copy available ). How can anyone get anywhere if they can't obtain any relevant documentation?? How could they ever get the police/Crown attorney to even consider laying any criminal charges ( I myself do not believe that there is a crime here, just bad judgment, and perhaps bad intention )??

Those are my thoughts as to why this matter, unfortunately, just has to be let drift into history as a bad OCA experience.

Bob

[Aris Marghetis]

Hi Bob:

I doubt that you will ever see the Committee reconstituted to improve their report.

Eric, who I believe was one of the most vocal of those wanting an investigation, is no longer the OCA Secretary - he resigned to focus on CFC matters. I think he is still an OCA Governor, but I doubt he wants to pursue it further. Maybe he will contradict me on this.

The current President of the OCA, Chris Mallon, was never very much in favour of the investigation in the first place, feeling the trail was too cold.

Thorvardson was cooperating only limitedly, if at all.

Trillium has closed the matter and doesn't want to deal with it ever again ( we don't know if they are happy with it or unhappy, after their explanation meeting with Hal Bond ).

That leaves Michael von Keitz, OCA VP, and Egis Zeromskis, as the other 2 members of the Committee I believe. Neither of them have said squat about their report, and the criticisms of it. Nor have they, in the light of the criticisms, voluntarily come forward to ask the OCA to reconstitute their committee - do they also feel now, that what could be done, has been done? And that further investigation will be fruitless? Maybe we will hear from them on this, but I kind of doubt they will want to stick up their heads at this point, and have them blown off.

Peter McKillop is not even a CFC member or OCA member, and so he has no standing to formally bring any motion himself, to get back on the trail of all this.

To me, the biggest point made, has been that the OCA felt Barry breached the OCA Bylaw in acting as he did on the grant, and he has been soundly thrashed for it - permanent ban from ever holding OCA office again.

The biggest difficulty is that Trillium won't cooperate - they won't even release Thorvardson's Grant Report to the OCA , who got the grant, or anyone for that matter it seems ( which Thorvardson claims he gave the OCA, and which OCA claims never to have received, and Barry has no copy, or won't now make a copy available ). How can anyone get anywhere if they can't obtain any relevant documentation?? How could they ever get the police/Crown attorney to even consider laying any criminal charges ( I myself do not believe that there is a crime here, just bad judgment, and perhaps bad intention )??

Those are my thoughts as to why this matter, unfortunately, just has to be let drift into history as a bad OCA experience.

Bob
Hi Bob, on the one hand, there is merit in what you are saying about letting this go. On the other hand, I and it seems some others, are finding it hard to let this go. Sometimes I stop and ask myself why, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why it bothers me so bloody much. If anything, my bitter frustration seems to be getting worse. All I can think of is that I believe that I could let it go if it were less money? However, who knows, the amount of money doesn't change the obvious questions that keep getting asked, but which people seem hesitant to answer, or hunt down answers for. Finally, there is a dark feeling that there is something else that most of us don't know? I hate this feeling, like the accounting scandals when I was at Nortel, but in the end, the chess world is much better for me than Nortel was, LOL!

If someone more in the know would be willing, I would gladly pay the long distance to call you and pick your brain about this, "no questions asked" ;)

P.S. Thank you to the people who have shed more light on this via the above posts, and those who have been squeezed between a rock and a hard place investigating, reporting, etc. I know you're all busy, and you took the time.

Did anyone ever propose to Barry that he clear the air, I guess on his terms? Who knows, maybe he could convince us it was less money than we think? I am serious, for example, there would be legitimate expenses he recorded, etc.

[Mark S. Dutton, I.A.]

----- Original Message -----
From: Hal Bond
To: Mark S. Dutton ; Patrick McDonald
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 6:14 AM
Subject: Fw: Motion of Censure


Gents;
FYI.

Hal
----- Original Message -----
From: Hal Bond
To: Barry Thorvardson
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4:01 PM
Subject: Motion of Censure


Dear Barry;

Below is a brief discussion and text of an executive motion which passed unanimously by Patrick McDonald Mark Dutton and I. As you know I have struggled with the issue of your self hire from the Trillium grant and have deliberated extensively on the correct course of action. The motion of censure is the result of these deliberations. I would be grateful if a copy of the interim Trillium Report, the final report, and the new applications be forwarded to me either by email or by post. In case of the latter my address is:

Hal Bond
6 Wildwood Place
Guelph, ON N1H 7X9

Good luck with the executive meeting tonite. As you know I am not available due to work. I look forward to an update from the meeting at your convenience.

Best regards,

Hal
Gentlemen;

For the past month we have been discussing the actions of OCA President Barry Thorvardson, particularly his decision to hire himself with respect to the Trillium Grant. This decision resulted in $ 80,000- $ 90,000 in salaries being paid to Mr. Thorvardson without written disclosure of any kind.

I believe that Mr Thorvardson should be removed from Office for these actions. They are contrary to our constitution. Given the current state of the OCA Executive however, it also seems that replacement candidates are not in view. As OCA Vice President I am next in line but this is not practical given my Presidency with the CFC. Mr. Thorvardson is prepared to stay on as OCA President, and has indicated that he has no further interest in paid positions resulting from Trillium funding.

Hence the motion: (Bond, McDonald) that the Executive Board of the OCA pass a motion of censure against President Thorvardson for hiring himself as Trillium Program Coordinator. Mr. Thorvardson is reminded that any future remuneration connected to his role as OCA President is strictly forbidden. Furthermore, any contracts which may arise with the OCA shall not be awarded without full and written disclosure.
Please cast your vote to my email address by midnight, September 15, 2007.

Thank you

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hal Bond, Vice President, OCA

halbond@rogers.com


VOTE RESULT: Unanimous IN FAVOUR

that the Executive Board of the OCA pass a motion of censure against President Thorvardson for hiring himself as Trillium Program Coordinator. Mr. Thorvardson is reminded that any future remuneration connected to his role as OCA President is strictly forbidden. Furthermore, any contracts which may arise with the OCA shall not be awarded without full and written disclosure.

[Steve Douglas]

Steve, well said.

I was very disappointed in the report myself. Thanks to Peter, we now know a little bit more from Eric's reply.

You have an excellent list of report deficiencies. I hope the committee will now go back to the drawing board and try again!

If the chess community is ever going to be taken seriously, we need to be accountable and transparent in our financial and political dealings.

Hi Bob:

Unfortunately the level of urgency in clearing this matter up reminds me of the four stages of dealing with a crisis from Yes, Prime Minister:

"Stage One: We say that nothing is going to happen.

Stage Two: We say that something may be going to happen, but we should do nothing.

Stage Three: We say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.

Stage Four: We say that maybe there was something we could have done but it's too late now."

Steve

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob:

Unfortunately the level of urgency in clearing this matter up reminds me of the four stages of dealing with a crisis from Yes, Prime Minister:

"Stage One: We say that nothing is going to happen.

Stage Two: We say that something may be going to happen, but we should do nothing.

Stage Three: We say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.

Stage Four: We say that maybe there was something we could have done but it's too late now."

Steve

:D Yes Prime Minister is one of my all time favourite shows.

Humour is a powerful tool. It can help you keep your perpective in stressful situations. Yes Prime Minister should be required study for anyone thinking of entering Canadian Chess Politics!;)

[Steve Douglas]

This was posted by Hal Bond on Chesstalk. I felt it should be included here since it adds further details that some (or all) may not have been aware of.

Steve

-----------------------

Dear Chess Talk readers;

Spraggett's story is untruthful. My VP report below was filed for the 2008 OCA AGM. At the 2009 AGM Barry received a lifetime ban. Most recently he was replaced as a Chess Foundation Trustee.

How could this happen you may ask? The biggest deception tool in Barry's arsenal the story that "the best is yet to come". The York region grant was a pilot project which if successful had reasonable chances of rolling out province wide. There was also a second grant, based on Nevada tickets if I recall, which would be an indefinite annuity. Couple these promises of gold with a lack of forthrightness and an opportunity is created. Sad but true.

It's not clear to me what a second report was supposed to achieve. The Trillium folks told be point blank that they would not consider recovering the money.

OCA Vice President’s Report, 2007-2008

Before proceeding to the heart of my report, I would like to congratulate a number of Ontario players who have distinguished themselves over the board during the past year. Nikolay Noritsyn earned the IM title at the 2007 Canadian Championship, where Raja Panjwani and Michael Barron both earned their FM titles. Great job, lads! Yuanling Yuan continues to impress everyone and most recently scored an awesome 6.5/9 to take silver at the recent Pan Am Women’s Championship. I hope Yuanling can join the women’s Olympic team where she will gain some vital experience and help move Canada up the rankings.

Unfortunately, there have been very few positive developments within the OCA this past year. Most of my energies has been consumed with the issue of the now infamous Trillium grant to the OCA.

In August of 2007, while pursuing the matter of OCA rebates to the various leagues, I learned that more than 90% of the Trillium grant’s salary budget was paid directly to OCA President Barry Thorvardson. This is contrary to our constitution and contrary to Trillium regulations.

The appointment was made without notice to the OCA Executive. After consulting with the Board, I asked Barry to tender his resignation and he refused. OCA Secretary Mark Dutton was moving to BC, and my availability was reduced due to new CFC duties. Given the weakened state of the Executive, and the absence of an apparent successor for Barry, it was decided to censure the President for his actions and defer the matter to the AGM.

On May 9, 2008 I attended a two hour meeting in Toronto with President Thorvdarson at the request of Trillium Regional Co-ordinator John Pugsley and Inga Lubbock, who worked with Barry on the original application. Their concerns included alleged use of Trillium funds by the CFC, deliverables under the grant, and payment to an OCA board member for staffing costs.

Barry and I convinced the Trillium officials that none of the grant money was used by the CFC. Barry provided explanations for why the deliverables in York Region were less than expected. They questioned these explanations at some length before moving on.

We then discussed the staffing question. Both Pugsley and Lubbock were adamant that board members are ineligible for such funds. They would not have approved the grant had they known that such a move was contemplated. Ms. Lubbock further expressed disappointment that the grant did not result in employment for someone who resides in York Region. They also questioned the governance of the OCA and requested copies of the minutes of the meetings at which Barry was hired. Such minutes do not exist.

At this point I made it very clear that the OCA Executive had not approved Barry’s appointment, that it was discovered in August 2007, he had refused to resign when asked, that he had been censured by the Executive and that further actions were left to our AGM. The Trillium personnel accepted this answer and look forward to learning the outcome of our Annual Meeting. They advised that the file was “red flagged” for the staffing irregularity, and no further actions were contemplated by Trillium.

Among other things, our future success with Trillium will depend on a demonstrated improvement in OCA governance. While new chess projects are not necessarily doomed with respect to Trillium, it is inconceivable that Barry Thorvardson’s name will adorn a successful Trillium grant ever again.

Had Barry resigned as President AND been approved by the Executive to staff the Trillium grant, he would only be accountable to us for its deliverables. Sadly, neither of these critical steps was taken, and we must still hear from Barry exactly what work was performed in exchange for the $90,000 paid to him.

I file this report with great regret. Notwithstanding the Trillium grant, I believe that Barry has been an energetic, positive force in Ontario Chess and I thank him for his service. It is time for new leadership in the OCA and I wish the incoming Executive every success.


Respectfully submitted

Hal Bond
Vice President, Ontario Chess Association

Thursday, June 05, 2008

[Hal Bond]

Looking at the report I filed in 2008, I can see that a few questions remain about Barry's final report to Trillium.

I am only aware of the verbal report which he provided at our face to face meeting with Pugsley and Lubbock. His report was more of an explanation of why so little happened. Barry cited another recreation group that had booked all the available space in York Region. Barry was able to spend over an hour talking about it and both staffers were very disappointed. The equipment purchases were made pro forma.

As for the outrage, I fully empathise. Been there, had to leave.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

pypt. pypt. pypt. (there was more but as always I just deleted...)

Is there any chance to publish openly FULL MINUTES of the 2009 OCA AGM, including a document presented by Van Dusen (interim report of an action committee)?

[Peter McKillop]

... The equipment purchases were made pro forma. ...

Hal, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would you please explain?

[Caesar Posylek]

pypt. pypt. pypt. (there was more but as always I just deleted...)

Is there any chance to publish openly FULL MINUTES of the 2009 OCA AGM, including a document presented by Van Dusen (interim report of an action committee)?

Any chances for us to read and be familiar with those FULL MINUTES, Gents?

:)

[Christopher Mallon]

What do you mean by FULL MINUTES?

[Caesar Posylek]

Chris,
I just repeated Egidijus Zeromskis's question, as in my above mentioned quotation.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

What do you mean by FULL MINUTES?
unabridged.