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 :D 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

[David McTavish]

POSTED BY STEVEN DOUGLAS @ chesstalk January 8, 2010 5:00pm approx:


Re: $120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Bond

Bob Armstrong's report has some inaccuracies.

1. Mark Dutton was not hired, it was Roman Pelts.
2. Barry was NOT permitted to continue drawing a salary after I found him out. The contract was already over. When he refused to resign he was censured and the matter was deferred to the AGM.

Peter - yes the equipment was purchased in accordance with the grant, using grant funds.

I agree that we need to move on. Wouldn't it be nice if this much interest could be generated toward a more positive future? The concentration of power is the flip side of community apathy. Too many jobs and too few people to do them. (No shortage of critics though!) I have held chess office of some description now for almost 10 years. The only time I wasn't acclaimed was when Barry ran against me for CFC President (a month before the grizzly discovery).

END OF HAL"S QUOTE, STEVEN DOUGLAS NOW, IN RESPONSE:

Hi Hal:

I'm not quite sure why this post of yours came in reply to an old post of mine. But in any case. I agree that things need to move on. But I also think it's necessary to gather all of this information in *one place* so that we don't have a periodic re-hashing of this. This issue has gotten waaaay out of hand. I think Peter McKillop originally wanted to just know the facts, and more specfically what the OCA had done to ensure that this wouldn't happen again (I'm speculating and I may have misread Peter's statements). But over the past few weeks, several people have been salivating to pursue old grievances against CFC/OCA members where the grievances have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Others want to simply stir the pot while doing nothing themselves to actually *do* the things they *say* need to be done. So they bombard the board with post after post demanding that others do things that won't lead anywhere (imagine that).

Larry has stated repeatedly that this is old news. This is true. You have said the same things. Again, it is true. There was much discussion of this matter at the time it first came up. Several of your (and other's) current posts are re-posts of things I've seen before. But not always. The problem lies in that there is no definitive, comprehensive report of what happened. So when somebody asks "What happened?" the answer always starts with "Well everybody knows...."

The von Keitz report sparked the outrage because it was nowhere near adequate enough to fulfill what many people thought was its mandate. I have copied several of the posts made here (including yours) to the relevant thread on the CFC discussion board so that we can begin to attempt to get all of the relevant pieces in one place.

Bob Armstrong's off-the-cuff summary of things was a far better report than what the average CFC/OCA member has seen up until now. I know there are several innaccuracies in it, but I think it is quite feasible that several people, including Bob if he would be willing to take part, could form a group to gather up, sort, and collate the relevant information and produce a "report". I think that would satisfy everybody outside the "lunatic fringe". On the CFC board I listed the obvious deficiencies of the von Keitz report so that can be used as a starting point since it's mostly a matter of collecting information and presenting it in a coherent manner with cites of the supporting documents.

Steve

[Christopher Mallon]

Since I'm apparently too close or too involved with this issue (or part of the conspiracy even) depending on who you ask, is there someone "independent" who'd like to pull together all the information into one file?

[Peter McKillop]

Since I'm apparently too close or too involved with this issue (or part of the conspiracy even) depending on who you ask, is there someone "independent" who'd like to pull together all the information into one file?

If they have time, I think two candidates who most people would consider to be relatively unbiased are Steve Douglas and Bob Gillanders.

For a quick-and-dirty summary, I like part of Daniel Rouleau's rant at the other board:


... You had an unmanaged, unsupervised, undocumented project with no measurable deliverables and you're shocked with how it ended? What else did you expect? All parties involved were incompetent and none appears to have performed any due diligence.

Your executive - not just BT - f***ed up royally and while I can understand your anger and you wishing to recover the monies, it won't happen. ...

[Peter McKillop]

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.

1. In the interests of full disclosure I don't understand why you can't do this. But that's fine. I'll give the freedom of info route a try.

2. You're in your second term as President and you're telling me that the OCA has no reliable record of who has served in executive positions in the recent past? That is truly pathetic.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

...

Peter, could you step forward and become an OCA Secretary, as the previous one (Eric Van Dusen) step down (see http://chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=728 ), Thus you would become responsible of all available records ;)
(as I remember, you've had one of the OCA Executive positions in the past)

and your request for Executives:

2005-06
President - Barry Thorvardson
Vice President - Hal Bond
Treasurer - Jim Ferrier
Secretary - David Gordon
Youth - Patrick McDonald

2006-07

President - Barry Thorvardson
Vice President - Hal Bond
Treasurer - Jim Ferrier
Secretary - Bill Doubleday
Youth Coordinator - Patrick McDonald


2007-08
President - Barry Thorvardson
Vice President - Hal Bond
Treasurer - Alice Laimer
Communications Director - Mark Dutton
Youth Coordinator - Patrick MacDonald

2008-09
President - Christopher Mallon
Vice President - Brett Campbell
Treasurer - Kerry Liles
Secretary - Michael von Keitz
Youth Coordinator - Patrick MacDonald

2009-10
President - Christopher Mallon
Vice President - Michael von Keitz
Treasurer - Brett Campbell
Secretary - Eric Van Dusen
Youth Coordinator - Patrick MacDonald


---

and question to you: When have you heard the first time about OCA & Trillium problems?

[Peter McKillop]

Egidijus, thank you very much for that information. I don't recall precisely when I first heard about the OCA/Trillium issue but it was more than a year and a half ago when I first started to become vocal about it. In my email inbox I still retain an email dated June 10, 2008, from Inge Lubbock, Program Manager, York-Simcoe Regions, Trillium, in which she declined my request for information about the grant to the OCA. In my request for information, however, I did not make reference to Ontario's freedom of information legislation.

Secretary? :) Interesting idea but I let my CFC/OCA memberships lapse in December/08.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Peter:

I guess the government couldn't have every Ontario taxpayer writing them for documentation on all grants they give out in Ontario. The reason for Freedom of Information legislation? I somehow suspect, though, that even getting relevant documentation ( grant contract; interim report; final report ), if you can, will give you much more leverage than you already have. I fear you are climbing a pretty steep mountain here, in terms of any practically beneficial outcome.

Best of luck - there are certainly, it appears, a number who would like to get more documentation, at least.

Bob

[Kerry Liles]

Hi Peter:

I guess the government couldn't have every Ontario taxpayer writing them for documentation on all grants they give out in Ontario. The reason for Freedom of Information legislation? I somehow suspect, though, that even getting relevant documentation ( grant contract; interim report; final report ), if you can, will give you much more leverage than you already have. I fear you are climbing a pretty steep mountain here, in terms of any practically beneficial outcome.

Best of luck - there are certainly, it appears, a number who would like to get more documentation, at least.

Bob

I too suspect that Trillium likely has only the submission originally filed by the OCA; I would doubt that they would have taken minutes of the meeting with B.T. and Hal Bond (for example), but it would be wonderful if they did have minutes of that meeting. I am not sure whether B.T. had to submit any sort of interim report to Trillium (since the grant spanned 2 years if I understand things correctly).

The OCA website should contain a subpage outlining this entire fiasco as a permanent reminder of what can happen when enough people don't bother.

[Steve Douglas]

If they have time, I think two candidates who most people would consider to be relatively unbiased are Steve Douglas and Bob Gillanders.


I have some time and would be willing to participate. I think Bob Gillanders would be an excellent choice, particularly with his accounting background. I think Kerry Liles would be a good choice too.

That having been said, it would be necessary to:

a. clearly define what the purpose and scope are

b. determine what co-operation (if any) would be forthcoming from the OCA executive (particularly given that there has apparently been a voted-upon motion/decision about this)

There exists the strong possibility that even with OCA co-operation that Trillium would choose to stay mute, either on the basis that they have already been pestered enough, or with concerns about liability. Given the assorted noise from certain quarters I can see them being concerned about frivolous lawsuits, etc.

Steve

[Peter McKillop]

Just a point of clarification (in case anyone gives a ****), I will not be participating in this project. I said, somewhere, that I would serve on a properly constituted and empowered committee. The job that you and Chris Mallon are talking about is simply the collecting of anecdotal information into one spot for easy reference (i.e. hopefully an improvement on what Bob Armstrong attempted elsewhere).

[Steve Douglas]

Just a point of clarification (in case anyone gives a ****), I will not be participating in this project. I said, somewhere, that I would serve on a properly constituted and empowered committee. The job that you and Chris Mallon are talking about is simply the collecting of anecdotal information into one spot for easy reference (i.e. hopefully an improvement on what Bob Armstrong attempted elsewhere).

I (belatedly, because I have a life of my own--and it sometimes intervenes) responded to your post where you said you wanted me involved. Now you apparently *don't* want me involved. And don't want to be involved yourself??

I give up.

Steve

[Kerry Liles]

I (belatedly, because I have a life of my own--and it sometimes intervenes) responded to your post where you said you wanted me involved. Now you apparently *don't* want me involved. And don't want to be involved yourself??

I give up.

Steve

It was merely a recommendation...

Anyway, I understand Peter's point - collecting all the known speculation (sorry, facts?) into one place seems rather pointless now that I have thought more about it. It would simply document the incompetence of the OCA (at that time). Even though some might say that should be done as a constant reminder (those who fail to understand history are doomed ... yada yada), I see little point.

Since my name was mentioned (again, purely as a recommendation) I feel obliged to also decline - I have had my fill of the chess politics buffet...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Guys:

Does this mean that my much maligned off-the-cuff " report " ( with Hal Bond's 2 corrections ) is now the major reference document on this issue ?? LOL

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

It seems there is no will to collect available information on the Trillium Grant, to create a record of events, to complement the OCA Action Committee Report, which was generally felt to fall far short of a good in-house investigative review. One of the prime movers in this issue, Peter McKillop has declared he is unwilling to become involved in such an exercise.

I think there should be more available to those interested in future, than just the Action Committee Report. So I have sent my private " down and dirty " report ( corrected as per Hal Bond's post; despite Peter's comments on its limitations ) to OCA President, Chris Mallon, to file with the official report in the OCA website archive. Here is my recent letter to Chris:

Hi Chris:

I am writing to you as current OCA President, as an OCA Life Member interested in the problem of the Trillium Grant.

The OCA Action Committee Report was not well received.

So I have done a quick “ report “ attempting to create some record of the issue for posterity, to complement the official investigative report. This is merely a survey collection of facts gleaned from chess chat sites mainly. I hope it will be helpful.

It may be, as has been suggested, that the official report and mine should be archived on the OCA website, so in future there is some record to review, should members or public ever be interested.

Bob

P.S. I have made some corrections to my original report, based on corrections to my facts by then V-P Hal Bond. I would be pleased to have you review my “ report “ and advise me if there are any further corrections for me to make. Thanks.

It seems to me that this may be the end of the road for this issue, but we'll see.

If anyone wants a copy of my final report, just e-mail me : bobarm@sympatico.ca

Bob

[Steve Douglas]

It was merely a recommendation...

Anyway, I understand Peter's point - collecting all the known speculation (sorry, facts?) into one place seems rather pointless now that I have thought more about it. It would simply document the incompetence of the OCA (at that time). Even though some might say that should be done as a constant reminder (those who fail to understand history are doomed ... yada yada), I see little point.

Since my name was mentioned (again, purely as a recommendation) I feel obliged to also decline - I have had my fill of the chess politics buffet...

Hi Kerry:

I was expecting that the collection of information in one place would be a starting point. In other words: produce a proper report and see where we go from there. I don't think I ever said it should be an end unto itself.

I also acknowledge I may have over-reacted to Peter's post. I do not like the way that the OCA executive has handled this so far and to be lumped in as being part of that "do-nothing" approach bothers me, since that is not, nor has ever been my view. And apparently I am now an object of ridicule on the other board.

I understand your point Kerry and was very reluctant to become involved in this. Right now I regret that I said anything.

Steve

[Bob Gillanders]

I understand your point Kerry and was very reluctant to become involved in this. Right now I regret that I said anything.

Steve

Steve, thank you for speaking up. I have found your comments in this matter to be thoughtful and constructive. It is obvious you care. :)

I hope you will attend the SWOCL meeting on March 14th. You input would be most welcome. Greater member participation will lead to better corporate governance at the OCA and CFC levels. There really are no short cuts!