To Messrs. Mallon, Van Dusen, von Keitz and Other Current/Former OCA Directors

[Peter McKillop]

5. Directors Not Remunerated

The Directors of the Corporation shall serve as such without remuneration, and no Director shall directly or indirectly receive any profit from his or her position as such; provided that a Director may be paid reasonable expenses incurred by him or her in the performance of his or her duties as a Director in accordance with the Corporation’s policies relating to reimbursement of expenses.

3.3 Signing Authority – The Board shall designate from among the Officers two or more individuals who shall have signing authority for all financial transactions, contracts and documents conducted in the name of the Corporation. All such transactions, contracts and documents shall require two signatures and once signed shall be binding upon the Corporation.

3.6 Books and Records – The Board shall ensure that all books and records of the Corporation required to be kept by virtue of the Constitution, these Bylaws or any statute of law are regularly and properly kept.

4.32 Duties – The duties of the Officers are as follows:


d) Treasurer: The Treasurer shall keep and maintain all account books of the Corporation, which shall contain all receipts and disbursements, and shall have custody of all such books of account, bank books, cancelled cheques, vouchers, statements, and other documents pertaining to the accounts of the Corporation, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, he shall: from time-to-time, when requested by the President, furnish information about the financial situation of the Corporation; annually, on the last day of the fiscal year, (March 31st), or as set at the discretion of the Board/Executive, stop-gap the Corporation’s accounts, prepare a financial statement for the Board, and file a copy with the Secretary, over his signature; at the direction of the Board, file a copy of these statements with the Auditor appointed by the Board, submitting for examination all records that the Auditor may require in order to effect an appropriate examination and in order to issue a certificate; prior to, or within thirty (30) days following the Annual Meeting, prepare a budget for the fiscal year.


Conflict of Interest

4.38 A Governor, Officer, Special Officer or member of any Committee who has an interest, or may be perceived to have an interest, in a proposed contract or transaction with the Corporation shall disclose such interest to the Board or to the Committee; shall not vote or speak in debate of such contract or transaction; and shall otherwise comply with all requirements of law respecting conflict of interest.

6.2 Shall Not Indemnify – The Corporation shall not indemnify a Governor, Director, or Officer or any other individual for acts of fraud, dishonesty or bad faith.


Hi folks. I wanted to get this up on the discussion board so that thinking people can give some thought to the implications of the OCA's constitution and bylaws as they pertain to the Trillium grant and how it was handled. I intend to write more on this, and shall, but am out of time at the moment.

[Kerry Liles]

Unfortunately, unless I missed reading it somewhere else in the OCA Constitution, there is no specification of penalty for not living up to those obligations.

An additional point that has to be seriously considered is whether or not the OCA is even necessary as an entity. I believe it provides no services of any value and this has been true for some time (perhaps all time).

[Bob Gillanders]

An additional point that has to be seriously considered is whether or not the OCA is even necessary as an entity. I believe it provides no services of any value and this has been true for some time (perhaps all time).

Kerry, this is a sentiment I hear often. Why do we have the OCA anyway? In the last couple of years, it hasn't done much other than be a conduit for provincial dues collected by the CFC to the 4 regional leagues. This is very frustrating for everyone because it could be more! It has been more before, and could again be a useful organization. But since Chris hastily posted a budget and agenda last May in time for the AGM, we haven't seen much life. One viable alternative to the status quo would be to have the leagues affiliate directly with the CFC.:D The OCA could be eliminated or simply go dormant until it was needed again.:rolleyes:

I would be happy to see the OCA revitalized once more, promoting provincial championships and programs. What is required is an executive willing to step forward, present a plan, and justify the continued existence of the OCA.

Ontario chess officials should be already thinking about their 2010 political schedules. The leagues need to schedule their AGM's before the OCA, which in turn needs to be before the CFC AGM. I know it all seems far away, but every year......

[Peter McKillop]

From Eric Van Dusen's post dated December 19, 2009, in another thread at this site:
"...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 st(r)engthen those governance structures. ...

In other words, if I may paraphrase, to restore the OCA's credibility and integrity which, in the eyes of many people, had been so badly damaged. You're absolutely correct, Eric. The quote above should have been one of the key points in the terms of reference for the committee investigating the Trillium grant. What happened? How did you guys start out with the right idea and wind up so far off the rails?

[Aris Marghetis]

Please excuse my ignorance, but who (2 people?) were signing OCA cheques?

Other than that, Happy New Year!

[Peter McKillop]

Please excuse my ignorance, but who (2 people?) were signing OCA cheques?

Other than that, Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to you, too, Aris.

You've asked one of the good questions that should have been addressed in the so-called report by von Keitz. Yes, indeed, who was it that kept signing cheques without having any information at hand to support the cheque requests and apparently without asking any of the right questions? Hal Bond says that he was surprised by the whole thing in 2008 so presumably he wasn't co-signing any cheques. In fact, was anyone co-signing cheques? Just because the constitution says two-to-sign doesn't necessarily mean that those instructions made it through to the bank. Maybe B.T. had carte blanche with the bank account and wasn't accountable to anyone? Nice work, all of you other people who served on the OCA executive during B.T.'s presidency!!! What a great job you did looking out for the interests of Ontario chessplayers.

Of course, heaven forbid that we should ever understand what happened (what went wrong, if you prefer) and what should be done to minimize the chances of it happening again. With people like Mallon, Bond, Van Dusen, Bevand and Liles lobbying against ever seeking out the truth, I'm sure the truth will remain buried.

And speaking of two signatures being required, who signed the Trillium contract with Thorvardson? Please note that I'm just assuming that Thorvardson signed the contract with Trillium since neither Chris Mallon, nor Eric Van Dusen, nor Michael von Keitz could be bothered to get a copy of the final document when it was offered to the OCA.

Not to worry though. Eric Van Dusen says that pretty much everyone in the OCA knows pretty much everything about the Trillium grant. I guess that leaves you and me on the outside looking in, eh Aris?

You know what really irritates me? If Thorvardson did nothing wrong legally, then that means that our provincial government, via its agency, Trillium, authorized $91,000 in salary expenditures over a two-year period to establish a chess program in one muncipality. Does that make sense? And does anyone know what exactly it was that was established in York Region? Oops!! I forgot. Eric Van Dusen and pretty much everyone in the OCA knows pretty much what happened.

Eric Van Dusen, I would pretty much appreciate it, and I'm pretty much sure that Aris would pretty much appreciate it, too, if you would pretty much fill us in on what pretty much happened in York Region to pretty much justify the expenditure of $120,000.

[John Coleman]

A conversation with someone in ... 2008, I think it was...

(1) only 1 signature is required on a Trillium grant application
(2) OCA cheques were signed by the treasurer and president
(3) the rest of the OCA exec was completely in the dark, and, knowing that no-one had been hired, assumed the grant money was still in the OCA bank account.

Also, as was said in the report, there was a very considerable concentration of knowledge and power in the OCA at the time, with the Prez essentially having a free hand.

[Peter McKillop]

A conversation with someone in ... 2008, I think it was...

(1) only 1 signature is required on a Trillium grant application
(2) OCA cheques were signed by the treasurer and president
(3) the rest of the OCA exec was completely in the dark, and, knowing that no-one had been hired, assumed the grant money was still in the OCA bank account.

Also, as was said in the report, there was a very considerable concentration of knowledge and power in the OCA at the time, with the Prez essentially having a free hand.

One might, perhaps incorrectly, jump to the conclusion that BT's decisions were enabled/facilitated by the Treasurers during that period. Would the names of the Treasurers by Ferrier and Laimer?

[Christopher Mallon]

Eric has (or should have) possession of all the OCA's cancelled cheques from that time so he would easily be able to see who was signing them.

Assuming that they are all there.

[Kerry Liles]

Happy New Year to you, too, Aris.

You've asked one of the good questions that should have been addressed in the so-called report by von Keitz. Yes, indeed, who was it that kept signing cheques without having any information at hand to support the cheque requests and apparently without asking any of the right questions? Hal Bond says that he was surprised by the whole thing in 2008 so presumably he wasn't co-signing any cheques. In fact, was anyone co-signing cheques? Just because the constitution says two-to-sign doesn't necessarily mean that those instructions made it through to the bank. Maybe B.T. had carte blanche with the bank account and wasn't accountable to anyone? Nice work, all of you other people who served on the OCA executive during B.T.'s presidency!!! What a great job you did looking out for the interests of Ontario chessplayers.

Of course, heaven forbid that we should ever understand what happened (what went wrong, if you prefer) and what should be done to minimize the chances of it happening again. With people like Mallon, Bond, Van Dusen, Bevand and Liles lobbying against ever seeking out the truth, I'm sure the truth will remain buried.

And speaking of two signatures being required, who signed the Trillium contract with Thorvardson? Please note that I'm just assuming that Thorvardson signed the contract with Trillium since neither Chris Mallon, nor Eric Van Dusen, nor Michael von Keitz could be bothered to get a copy of the final document when it was offered to the OCA.

Not to worry though. Eric Van Dusen says that pretty much everyone in the OCA knows pretty much everything about the Trillium grant. I guess that leaves you and me on the outside looking in, eh Aris?

You know what really irritates me? If Thorvardson did nothing wrong legally, then that means that our provincial government, via its agency, Trillium, authorized $91,000 in salary expenditures over a two-year period to establish a chess program in one muncipality. Does that make sense? And does anyone know what exactly it was that was established in York Region? Oops!! I forgot. Eric Van Dusen and pretty much everyone in the OCA knows pretty much what happened.

Eric Van Dusen, I would pretty much appreciate it, and I'm pretty much sure that Aris would pretty much appreciate it, too, if you would pretty much fill us in on what pretty much happened in York Region to pretty much justify the expenditure of $120,000.

I am not lobbying "against ever seeking out the truth", but I have on several occasions pointed out the probability of that happening... colour me pessimistic. I would dearly love to see the truth come to light, but since B.T. pretty much has control over all the information that might bring light to that subject, I think the results are predictable. I hope I am wrong.

[Peter McKillop]

A conversation with someone in ... 2008, I think it was...

(1) only 1 signature is required on a Trillium grant application ...

That would be Trillium's requirement, I assume. And yet, if the OCA's bylaws stipulated that two must sign then one would think that the OCA would have had to pass a special resolution enabling the president to sign alone. If the president signed alone, in contravention of the OCA's bylaws, what then? More questions!! For example, did BT misrepresent his OCA signing authority to Trillium?