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.
Just a quick update in case anyone is still interested in this (yaaawwwwnnnn).
On March 7/10, I submitted a freedom of information request to Trillium regarding the $120,000 grant to the OCA. I specifically requested that I be copied with the document(s) that contractually set out the precise purposes for which the grant had been approved as well as all of the terms and conditions governing the transaction.
On April 9/10, Trillium advised by email that my request was declined, primarily on the grounds that I was not a member of the OCA's governing board.
I intend, at my leisure (this Trillium thing is an irritation, not my life), to appeal Trillium's decision. After all, if a request for information as innocuous as this can be refused, then what purpose does Ontario's freedom of information legislation serve?
"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
Just a quick update in case anyone is still interested in this (yaaawwwwnnnn).
On March 7/10, I submitted a freedom of information request to Trillium regarding the $120,000 grant to the OCA. I specifically requested that I be copied with the document(s) that contractually set out the precise purposes for which the grant had been approved as well as all of the terms and conditions governing the transaction.
On April 9/10, Trillium advised by email that my request was declined, primarily on the grounds that I was not a member of the OCA's governing board.
I intend, at my leisure (this Trillium thing is an irritation, not my life), to appeal Trillium's decision. After all, if a request for information as innocuous as this can be refused, then what purpose does Ontario's freedom of information legislation serve?
If I remember correctly (and that itself is a crap shoot) didn't someone who IS on the OCA board indicate that they had requested the info from Trillium and were denied? If so, it makes one wonder on what grounds the OCA's request was denied!
Maybe your MPP can look into Trillium's "policies" on disclosure
The Ontario Trillium Foundation distributes its funding to charities and not-for-profits through two granting programs: Community and Province-Wide. Within those programs, funding is allocated in four sectors: Arts and Culture, Environment, Sports and Recreation, and Human and Social Services.
The Community Program is for activities that take place in one catchment area and have a local impact in one or more communities within that catchment area. Community grants account for 80% of the Ontario Trillium Foundation's funding.
Through the Community Program, the Foundation makes grants of up to $375,000 over five years. This can include up to $75,000 per year for operating or project expenses and up to $150,000 over one or more years for capital initiatives such as building renovations and/or equipment purchases. The decision to fund all or part of a request depends on how well an application fits with OTF’s granting priorities and assessment criteria as well as the overall demand and granting budget in the catchment area.
The Province-Wide program is for activities that have a province-wide impact. At a minimum, the work must take place in three catchment areas or two catchment areas in the North. Province-Wide grants account for 20% of Trillium's funding.
Through the Province-Wide Program the Foundation makes grants of up to $1.25 million over five years. This can include up to $250,000 per year for five years for operating and project expenses and up to $150,000 over one or more years for capital initiatives such as building renovations and/or equipment purchases. The decision to fund all or part of a request depends on how well an application fits with OTF’s granting priorities and assessment criteria as well as the overall demand and granting budget in the Province-Wide Program.
Ratified by the Ontario Trillium Foundation Board of Directors on March 4, 2010
"Canadian Youth Chess Championship Windsor 2010 c/o Ontario Chess Association
$19,600 over one year for promotions, facility rentals, volunteer recognition and clocks to organize and run the Canadian Youth Chess Championship in Windsor in July 2010."
Indeed! And, they managed to get the funds despite having a reference to the OCA!! That is most remarkable... /end-of-tongue-in-cheek-mode
Well done.
If you browse through some of the money that is granted it is astonishing! It likely is possible to get money for nearly anything of modest size that improves public "infrastructure" or offers a service to the public or an identifiable subset of the "public". How cool is that?
Just a quick update in case anyone is still interested in this (yaaawwwwnnnn).
On March 7/10, I submitted a freedom of information request to Trillium regarding the $120,000 grant to the OCA. I specifically requested that I be copied with the document(s) that contractually set out the precise purposes for which the grant had been approved as well as all of the terms and conditions governing the transaction.
On April 9/10, Trillium advised by email that my request was declined, primarily on the grounds that I was not a member of the OCA's governing board.
I intend, at my leisure (this Trillium thing is an irritation, not my life), to appeal Trillium's decision. After all, if a request for information as innocuous as this can be refused, then what purpose does Ontario's freedom of information legislation serve?
Hi Peter:
I'm not surprised that they declined it. It won't be so much that they are trying to hide something, more that you have no standing with respect to the matter (notwithstanding that you are a taxpayer). For all they know you are some crank with an axe to grind with the OCA, the Ontario government, or you just like to file FoI requests.
If you want this to move forward, I would suggest that the best course of action would be to get whoever the new OCA president is, to submit a letter to them essentially requesting the same thing and requiring a response in writing. If they choose to decline that, then the OCA should go through the FoI process.
Right now you (and the OCA) are at cross-purposes with Trillium. You want to find out exactly what happened. Trillium wants to keep a can of worms from being opened which will end up consuming a bunch of their time.
I'm not surprised that they declined it. It won't be so much that they are trying to hide something, more that you have no standing with respect to the matter (notwithstanding that you are a taxpayer). For all they know you are some crank with an axe to grind with the OCA, the Ontario government, or you just like to file FoI requests.
If you want this to move forward, I would suggest that the best course of action would be to get whoever the new OCA president is, to submit a letter to them essentially requesting the same thing and requiring a response in writing. If they choose to decline that, then the OCA should go through the FoI process.
Right now you (and the OCA) are at cross-purposes with Trillium. You want to find out exactly what happened. Trillium wants to keep a can of worms from being opened which will end up consuming a bunch of their time.
Steve
Hi Steve. I hear what you're saying but disagree with some of it.
First, it shouldn't be up to the recipient of an FoI request to make a decision on that request based on assumptions ("For all they know...") about the issuer's motives.
Second, in my view I do have standing: I'm a taxpayer, as you said, and I was a member of the OCA during the period of the Trillium grant. This should be sufficient as far as I'm concerned.
Third, the new president of the OCA is M. von Keitz; the same von Keitz who co-authored the report that was issued on the Trillium matter last fall. In fairness to von Keitz, he probably did the best job he could given that Eric Van Dusen did the dump-and-run and that Chris Mallon was uncooperative with respect to obtaining critical information. However, it shouldn't be up to me to ask von Keitz to do the right thing. If von Keitz can't figure it out by himself then there is no point in asking.
Finally, regarding the "can of worms," it's very hard to do but I prefer to at least try to keep an open mind on this until the information is freely available to OCA members.
"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
Hi Steve. I hear what you're saying but disagree with some of it.
First, it shouldn't be up to the recipient of an FoI request to make a decision on that request based on assumptions ("For all they know...") about the issuer's motives.
Second, in my view I do have standing: I'm a taxpayer, as you said, and I was a member of the OCA during the period of the Trillium grant. This should be sufficient as far as I'm concerned.
Third, the new president of the OCA is M. von Keitz; the same von Keitz who co-authored the report that was issued on the Trillium matter last fall. In fairness to von Keitz, he probably did the best job he could given that Eric Van Dusen did the dump-and-run and that Chris Mallon was uncooperative with respect to obtaining critical information. However, it shouldn't be up to me to ask von Keitz to do the right thing. If von Keitz can't figure it out by himself then there is no point in asking.
Finally, regarding the "can of worms," it's very hard to do but I prefer to at least try to keep an open mind on this until the information is freely available to OCA members.
Hi Peter:
I have to dash so this is very quickly off the top of my head:
You are dealing with a bureaucracy. Attillia the Hun could show up at their gates, claim "Krang Smash Now!", hit it with all his might, and their wall would still stand. But a small line of ducks (all in a row) with a toothpick, could cause all of their wall to tumble.
Well John and I were wondering how long it would take someone to post here. Considering it was a major item of discussion at the OCA AGM it's a little surprising it took this long :p
Anyway John and his team did virtually all the work (I did sign some stuff :D) and deserve all the credit. Put that should put an end to any "OCA Blacklisted by Trillium" crap that is still going around out there. Obviously completely untrue.
Tweet
Comment