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

[Les Bunning]

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

The real question in my mind is whether Thorvardson did the appropriate amount of work for the $120,000 he received. Does anybody know what he did? The Ontario Limitation period of two years runs from the date that the claim is discovered which leads to some uncertainty as to when it expires but from what I have seen I doubt that the Limitation period has expired at this time.
Les Bunning

[Ernest Klubis]

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

Does anybody know what he did?

From the horse mouth: Barry Thorvardson wrote in his president report "The York Region Trillium Project successfully completed last July and the area continues to have great school programs and even more chess camps scheduled for this summer", while one month ago he (Barry) and H.Bond were questioned by Trillium fund (see the vice-president report) and two month ago were discussed at chesstalk?

Les, your advice is highly appreciated.

[Bob Armstrong]

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

[Ernest Klubis]

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

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

+1

Thanks, Bob

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.

[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...

[David McTavish]

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

+1

Thanks, Bob

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.

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:))-- your advice?

[Ken Craft]

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

Bob is a lawyer, Mr. Mctavish.

[David McTavish]

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

I agree with Chris Mallon that the facts should all be collected together at one website. I would add that the website should have a timeline with links to the on-site documents. As further facts become available (even down to the $ amount of each cheque, payee, and who signed it), they should be added to the timeline. More context came to light after the publication (at the CFC forum) of the final OCA report less than a month ago, than in years of postings up to and including that time.

How can it get started? Egis has link above that has all OCA AGM's from 2003 to 2008. Minutes I have not seen for 2009. That would suffice according o Berry's timeline specs,no? Chris Mallon also would like this to be summarized, i think,yes Chris?, elsewhere, for conciseness, more orderliness ( enough of our dirty laundry left out if a different action plan is conceived). I like his idea of a Bank Reconciliation being included for all OCA Treasurer reports. Can past ones, esp. 2008, be re-constucted? It shows all cheques incoming and outgoing, as well as amounts. Easily understood, even by math challenged individuals. Is it possible to speculate that Jim Ferrier received cash from Thorvardson that would not be recorded in such a bank recon.? Can Egis, if you want Egis, post to that site any new financial pertinences, esp .during BT's reign, w/ the then possibility of presenting to a lawyer/accountant for advice? Let's stop blaming each other ( unless OBVIOUS), like Duncan likes to do, and COOPERATE.

[Bob Gillanders]

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

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

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.

[David McTavish]

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

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.

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.

[Peter McKillop]

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

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.

I appreciate Bob Armstrong's good intentions but his summary contains a number of points that haven't been confirmed as fact yet (and perhaps never will be). If someone wants to compile a chronological summary of the Trillium fiasco to date, then I think anything based on the writer's opinions, or interpretations, or on hearsay, should be noted as such. Otherwise these non-factual items will tend to become fact (legend?) over time. In my opinion, then, Bob's summary is not helpful in its present form.

A couple of questions, which aren't necessarily for you, Bob G., but which I'll put here anyway:

1. Here's what the Trillium website says about the grant to the OCA:

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.

Now, if the grant proceeds were supposed to benefit children and youth in York Region then why is the OCA still sitting on a *bunch* (definition of bunch??? = who the hell knows) of chess boards, sets and clocks? That is, Thorvardson's royal screw up (IF that is what really happened) doesn't absolve subsequent generations of OCA **leaders** (that's a laugh !!) from trying to do the right thing with the remaining Trillium assets, does it? What have they done??? Chris Mallon, are you into your second term as OCA president? What have you done about these Trillium assets?

2. Bob G., you're a chartered accountant - correct? When I look at the OCA's fiscal 2006 and 2007 financial statements (apparently prepared by Jim Ferrier) I see $120,000 in credits that are clearly identified as Trillium-related but I only see $106,203 in debits that are clearly identified as Trillium-related. Where is the other $13,797 buried?

[David McTavish]

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

Bob is a lawyer, Mr. Mctavish.

How's that book by Naka? Getting ready to take the wrapping off, yet?:)

[John Coleman]

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

Now, if the grant proceeds were supposed to benefit children and youth in York Region then why is the OCA still sitting on a *bunch* (definition of bunch??? = who the hell knows) of chess boards, sets and clocks? ... What have you done about these Trillium assets?

I can help you with a couple of your questions...

1. All grant programs that buy assets face the issue of "who gets the stuff" after the program ends. That issue is usually covered in the grant application.

2. The OCA owns "83 sets and 72 working clocks (out of an original 200 sets and 100 clocks, though some of the sets were sold)" according to the OCA AGM 2009 report on the internet at http://www.chessontario.com/2009/OCA-AGM-2009.pdf

[Bob Gillanders]

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

2. Bob G., you're a chartered accountant - correct? When I look at the OCA's fiscal 2006 and 2007 financial statements (apparently prepared by Jim Ferrier) I see $120,000 in credits that are clearly identified as Trillium-related but I only see $106,203 in debits that are clearly identified as Trillium-related. Where is the other $13,797 buried?

Hi Peter,

No, I am not a CA. There are 3 major accounting designations in Ontario, they are:

CA = Chartered Accountants
CMA = Certified Management Accountants
CGA = Certified General Accountants

I am a CMA. I obtained my CMA designation in 1987. However, in my younger days I have worked in CA firms doing audits.

All 3 designations are highly respected in the profession.

I did attend the OCA AGM in 2007. I posed a number of questions regarding the financial statements presented. Some of the numbers just didn't add up. I don't know who prepared them, but my sense was that it was an honest attempt by inexperienced people, but nothing deceptive. I will try and find my notes from that meeting and get back to you. Kinda busy today.

[Duncan Smith]

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

I had some interest in getting involved around the years 1998-2000. At the time, the CFC and the OCA were run by a fairly private group who were dead sure they knew exactly how to run these organizations and where they were going. CYCC in Montreal in 2002 was an eye opener to me because I couldn't believe :

a. How stupid the CFC governors could be passing motions ( the gender based motion
passed almost unanimously was probably illegal before it was revoked ).

b. How badly an event could be organized because certain volunteers wanted to
siphon off youth entry fees to subsidize their self inflicted organizational issues.

So as of 2002 I was definately done with ever working with these organizations. A lot has changed since 2002, now I don't have much reason to be involved even if things improve now.