If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
$120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!
Vlad, here's another idea that I posted here on October 16, 2008:
I wonder why the OCA, which is a provincial organization, got involved in a project for only York Region. I thought they are supposed to concern themselves with the entire province.
I'm amazed Trillium doesn't understand the difference between regional and provincial organizations.
Re: $120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!
Barry Thorvardson first became president of the Ontario Chess Association in May 2003, taking over from the disastrous David Gebhart regime; the OCA was virtually on life support at that stage. For example, I was organizing the 2003 Ontario Open in Kingston on short notice, when the group which had undertaken that project withdrew, about two months before the scheduled dates. Gebhart, OCA President at the time, would not return my emails concerning the tournament, nor did he even bother to respond to my application for OCA funding for the event, the premier chess event in the OCA's calendar.
Thorvardson, after taking office as President, implemented a number of my practical suggestions on improving the OCA in short order, and he and I established what I thought was a productive working relationship, which I hoped would lead to significant steps to improve organized chess in Ontario.
Reflecting that relationship, Thorvardson asked me to serve as OCA Secretary, beginning with the OCA Annual General Meeting in Brantford, May 2004, which was held in conjunction with the Ontario Open; I attended both the tournament and the AGM. I was elected as Secretary without opposition. It was at that AGM that I first heard, from Thorvardson, his idea to apply for grant funding from the Trillium Foundation for chess development in Ontario. I said it sounded like an excellent opportunity, and gave my encouragement. I also obtained from Thorvardson a post as an Assistant Arbiter (unpaid) for the upcoming 2004 Canadian Zonal in Toronto, set for August 2004, which the OCA was running and which Thorvardson was in charge of.
Unfortunately, within a few weeks of taking over the post of OCA Secretary, I became uncomfortable with several key decisions which Thorvardson made, and the LACK OF CONSULTATION AND DISCUSSION, between Thorvardson and other OCA Executive members, concerning those decisions. That wasn't at all what I had in mind when I took the position. I was bringing close to 20 years of successful volunteer involvement in Canadian chess organization to the table; this was very much more than Thorvardson himself had. I also brought a background of significant business success, university qualifications, and volunteer achievement in other aspects of Canadian life, notably golf committee work and competitive golf experience.
Notably, Thorvardson appointed Mark Dutton as Head Arbiter for the upcoming Zonal, without consulting the OCA Executive. I believed at the time that this appointment would lead to problems with the Zonal, and I decided to step down from the OCA Executive, in late June 2004, and also cancelled my planned Arbiter participation in the 2004 Zonal (instead, I successfully assisted with the 2004 Kapuskasing Canadian Open in July 2004 in an Arbiter's role). My premonition on potential problems with Dutton's appointment for the Zonal proved accurate, when a major controversy erupted over a controversial (to say the least) pairing in round 8 of the Zonal, involving FM Goran Milicevic, who represented Dutton's Club "Dutton Chess'' in interclub competition, both before and after the Zonal. That situation, never entirely cleared up to this day, generated one of the hottest debates ever seen on chesstalk.
After leaving the OCA Executive, I found other productive avenues for my chess organizational interests, notably with the Post-Secondary portfolio, which I successfully affiliated with the CFC through debate in CFC Governors' Letters; I also played a central role in organizing several Canadian Post-Secondary events between 2003 and 2009. Notably, the 2009 event, hosted last January by Queen's University in Kingston, attracted the largest field ever seen in the history of the event, with 17 teams. I served as Assistant Arbiter for the 2005 HB Minneapolis Global Challenge, assisted with the 2006 and 2007 Canadian Opens, contributed as a patron for several Canadian events, wrote and helped edit the magazine Chess Canada, joined wikipedia as a chess Editor, and continued to coach the Queen's University chess team.
I noted that Thorvardson was making a strong contribution to chess organization, since he had taken over as OCA President in 2003. This was a bit of a surprise, since he had been involved hardly at all before that.
I paid slight attention to the dealings with the OCA, but eventually heard that the Trillium funding had apparently come through.
Re: $120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!
I don't know, Gary. Maybe Thorvardson lived there, or had some contacts there.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Re: $120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!
This is a continuation of my earlier post, on the Thorvardson / OCA / Trillium file, which I had to interrupt at that time, to deal with other matters. Sorry about that.
One vital point with Thorvardson is that he first became OCA President in May 2003, more than six years ago, and served continuously in that role for something like five years, so he had plenty of time to become familiar with the organization's guidelines on financial accountability, particularly as they pertained to his rights and responsibilities. He simply can't credibly claim that he didn't know that there was and is a $5,000 limit on his personal signing / approval authority, as president, for OCA financial transactions. Not that ignorance is a defence in any case.
It would be one thing if the amount of money involved were a bit over the $5,000 limit and if there had been a rush priority on a decision, and he had trouble getting quick approval from the rest of the OCA Executive. But we are talking about $120,000 here. He knew the decision was in the pipeline for approval, he had worked on the file for several years, and he knew more about it than anyone else.
So far as the localized "York Region" aspect of the funding goes, Thorvardson lived in Brampton, which is likely part of that region. I agree that it would make far more sense to have had this money directed to chess development throughout Ontario. Had there been any debate at the OCA Executive level on that point!? It would be worthwhile knowing that, and also, if there were debate, whether it is on the record.
Thorvardson's lengthy service as OCA President did see quite a good degree of success, I am not disputing that.
But, looking at this particular file, from Thorvardson's perspective, the combination of his lengthy presidential service, his lengthy planning for the Trillium grant, his lack of consultation with the OCA Executive on other matters (as I explained in some detail in my first post today), his vast advantage in familiarity with the file, and the enormous difference between the grant amount and his presidential signing authority, all TAKEN TOGETHER, indicate a clear case for serious concern. I am NOT saying that it is criminal fraud; I'm not qualified to make that assessment, being myself neither in the legal profession nor in the police investigative field. However, in my view, the accumulation of troubling information IS CERTAINLY SUFFICIENT to be passed to the Ontario Provincial Police, White-Collar Crime Unit, for further investigation by trained professionals, who are at arms-length from the situation, and who are experienced in determination of qualification on sufficient grounds to proceed further.
The information which Thorvardson gave to the CFC, when it investigated the matter internally, and which led to the report recently released, could also be included as part of any submission to the OPP. If any significant portion of this information obtained from Thorvardson turns out to be untrue or incomplete, then we are into another section of potential offence.
I plan to meet with my lawyer in Kingston within the next week to ten days, to discuss this file. My lawyer is already somewhat familiar with it. One potential scenario would be a formal complaint and request for investigation, put forth by me, as a CFC member, to the OPP, on behalf of the Ontario and Canadian chess communities. Based on past research and advice, on another (unrelated to chess) case I am pursuing, I believe that a third-party complaint is possible, and has been accepted, with precedent, in some similar cases (that is, not necessarily coming from a governing body for chess [CFC, OCA]). After I meet my lawyer, I will endeavor to post on this site, reporting any developments.
I don't think we can simply let this case go. I am concerned primarily for the future of potential funding from cultural entities for Canadian chess development. If we let this case sail by, with no sanctions and without a professional investigation, then the Canadian chess community will have a black eye for the forseeable future in the wider societal mosaic. That is unacceptable to me, and it should also be unacceptable to anyone who truly cares about Canadian chess. We have too many good people who have donated huge amounts of time, effort, and skill, to try to build Canadian chess against difficult odds. We also need to learn the appropriate lessons. What will happen next time, if a similar case involves $200,000 or more!? Getting funding for chess is tough enough in the first place. You will see worthy chess organizers drop out, for one thing; they will have no interest in associating with people who engage in this sort of behaviour. And when they drop out, then chess shrinks further, while other activities are growing.
Re: $120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!
And a couple more questions:
1) Does anyone know whether or not Thorvardson declared as income on his tax returns his receipted money from the Trillium grant to the OCA!?
2) And if he did declare it, over what time frame did he do so!?
These questions should be part of any formal inquiry which may develop.
Similar questions, about large, rather secretive, payments from wheeler-dealer Karlheinz Schreiber (now finally deported by Canada to Germany to face multiple fraud charges), proved to be very troublesome for former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in the Oliphant Inquiry (the report of which has apparently been delayed until April 2010; it had been scheduled for Dec. 31, 2009 [tomorrow]).
Re: $120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!
Frank .
Brampton is in the Region of PEEL not York Region.
No matter how this thing turns out I'd doubt that any Government organization would venture into the chance with anything to do with Chess Organizations in Ontario. WE have already posted enough on Chess Talk to draw a RED FLAG ( Stay away from Ontario Chess Associations ) they will scam you out of your money.
Hey Barry scammed us, be thankful he did not take the rest of the Provinces and Territories with him as well.
Re: $120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!
I think that there is probably a statute of limitations which has likely passed on any legal issues. I was at the OCA meeting where this was discussed at length for the second time. It seems that there was an ethical violation of both OCA bylaws and possibly the terms of the grant but since the Trillium fund is not interested in pursuing it, hashing it over and over does no good and may prevent future legitimate chess projects from receiving Trillium funding.
Barry was censured and removed from the board of the foundation (which took way too long to happen).
The only person who can answer whether taxes were paid is Barry and I would assume that he did that.
Is the OCA useful or relevant in this day and age or would it be better to leave the $7 per member in the hands of the individual members? I'd rather have the $7 if it was left up to me.
Re: $120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!
Anyone involved with CYCC this decade is well aware of the potential dangers of Canadian chess organizations or politicians trying to skim money into whatever project they deemed more worthy. In this perspective, Barry probably felt 100% justified in his project, he's just following the lead of Nadeau's or the FQE in the past.
I'm sure many of these volunteers justify their labour as the reason they can divert funds as they wish. Kapaskasing CYCC 2003 was not unlike Barry's project in many ways.
Re: $120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!
I doubt that there was a corresponding T4 that Revenue Canada could use to cross-check the declaration of income. If I was a betting man, (apparently since I am still a CFC and OCA member - I am by definition a betting man), I would bet he did not declare it as income... but I suppose we can add that to the list of things we will likely never know.
I doubt that there was a corresponding T4 that Revenue Canada could use to cross-check the declaration of income. If I was a betting man, (apparently since I am still a CFC and OCA member - I am by definition a betting man), I would bet he did not declare it as income... but I suppose we can add that to the list of things we will likely never know.
Yes, I think you're right. Kerry; a T4 would be for a employer-employee relationship; this was 'sub-contracting'. But remember that Al Capone, for all his heinous crimes, was eventually busted on tax evasion. Revenue Canada might take a great interest; they have the best auditors and lawyers, and since it was 'their' money that disappeared, retribution may be a factor. I dunno.Maybe an anonymous tip to R.C could be warranted. Certainly a statute of limitations would not exist there, I'll hazard to guess. As for Mr.Dixon; get him back into the OCA mix, now that he's caught his wind again. You get along w/ Chris Mallon, Frank?:) As for criminal charges, yes, pursue, but a better 'bet' may be through civil litigation. Damage to the OCA's reputation seems not to be in doubt, as Czary alluded to earlier, all posters agree on this. (Does this make Barry an imposter?:)) So, Frank, when you meet with your lawyer, as an OCA member minimally, pursue it through these two veins.Good luck, and maybe a chessloving litigationalist will come forward pro bono? Then you,Frank, can get cooking?:)
And a couple more questions:
1) Does anyone know whether or not Thorvardson declared as income on his tax returns his receipted money from the Trillium grant to the OCA!?
2) And if he did declare it, over what time frame did he do so!?
These questions should be part of any formal inquiry which may develop.
Such information is not public domain.
If you have strong beliefs Thorvardson or any other resident has not declared all his revenues, you can always report your suspicions to Revenue Canada.
You will not know whether Revenue Canada investigated the case and the results of said investigation unless charges are laid and you somehow become aware of the (public) fact.
I personally find your two questions to be at best extremely distasteful and at worst defamatory. You may want to mention your post to your lawyer when you next talk to him.
***
Given Trillium believes nothing illegal has occured, what exactly do you believe Thorvardson did illegally?
It seems to me you can always verify the transactions of the bank account the monies were deposited in - the grant was deposited in the OCA bank account, right? - and work from there. One problem you may face if the executive was aware of the situation while it was occuring and did nothing to stop it is why the executive censured Thorvardson but did not contact the bank to stop the payments or consult an attorney at the time. From the outside, it looks like the executive was unhappy with the situation but let it happen anyway, believing (one hope) there was no illegal activities.
Last edited by Daniel Rouleau; Thursday, 31st December, 2009, 04:13 PM.
I doubt that there was a corresponding T4 that Revenue Canada could use to cross-check the declaration of income. If I was a betting man, (apparently since I am still a CFC and OCA member - I am by definition a betting man), I would bet he did not declare it as income... but I suppose we can add that to the list of things we will likely never know.
Of course this is all old news.
Because Spraggett posted it on his blog with the tabloid heading "$120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!", it brings the subject back into the limelight.
First, the money did not "disappear". Barry was given the lions share of these funds. I assume the Treasuer at that time had to sign the cheques. Was a T4 given to Barry? Well the better question would be, was Barry hired (by himself) as an employee of the OCA or did he log on as a contractor. It would make more sense for him to log on as a contractor and I would not be surprised if the cheques were made out to his company...but you know, this is not rocket science...you simply check the cheque stubs for that period...if for some reason they have disappeared...you ask the treasurer.
Secondly, as we go back to the tabloid headline...yes questions were asked...but only after the fact. The OCA executive at the time is fully responsible. They have a duty to keep an eye on things. When Hal realized there was a problem, he confronted Barry. But by this time...it was already too late.
Ever heard of "Director's liability insurance?" CMA has this but I doubt any other non-profit chess organization in Canada does (I stand to be corrected). Without it, you are putting those good folks who volunteer their time for the cause, personally liable.
If this was the U.S. it would make sense to pursue things. However, this is Canada. The land where Conrad Black would never have been charged...and today he is doing time in a U.S. prison.
The only rules that Barry broke were those of Trillium and the OCA. Believe me, Canadian law can't be bothered with this stuff.
A Montreal detective told me a few years ago...as long as you don't kill someone, you have great chances of getting away with your crime...and white collar crime is the best vehicule."
Have you noticed that bank robberies are very rare these days...most of these folks have gone the non-violient but very lucrative route.
On that note, have an awesome 2010! Just don't kill anyone LOL
Because Spraggett posted it on his blog with the tabloid heading "$120,000 disappears into thin air and no questions asked!", it brings the subject back into the limelight.
Completely agreed about the "news" aspect of this. One of the problems with this whole issue, and I believe that's one of the main things that Peter McKillop has been trying to resolve, is that *nowhere* does there exist a set of documentation and/or report of exactly what happened or who was involved. Everything is piecemeal and/or unsupported (or worse, innuendo).
So I'll ask the big question on my mind right now:
Who were the OCA executive/directors over the period that this transpired?
Tweet
Comment