Questions for President of the OCA

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

I'd like to clarify the above because it makes it look like I'm calling Hal Bond a liar. I do *not* believe that Hal Bond is a liar. I do believe, referring to what Kerry said earlier in this thread, that Hal truly did not know where the OCA kept its bank account. What I find so incredibly hard to believe is simply what I said above: that someone with Hal Bond's experience and savvy, both chess and business, could be elected three years running to the VP position in the OCA and yet not know where the OCA kept its bank account. Amazing.

To continue with clarifications :) I should add that I am not certain who was asked directly about the banking information, but all I can say for certain is that the information was never given to me as Treasurer... We were all frustrated by the lack of information and cooperation, but we had essentially no leverage.

The meeting that Barry and Hal had with the Trillium people was (as I understand it) to have Barry clarify that the money was used primarily for the intended purpose (to promote chess in the York region) and Hal was there I believe [as CFC President, I thought] to allay Trillium concerns that no portion of the funds were used outside Ontario (it is an Ontario fund after all). I understand that Hal gave them the assurance that none of the money had been used or administered by the CFC. I have never seen any notes about that meeting or what transpired - what I "know" is what I was told happened.

In retrospect, there are only a few major banks (and a handful of credit unions) and I suppose one could have contacted them all, looking for the OCA account(s). I think by that point we all just wanted to move on, severing all ties with the complete screwups of the past.

It was more than crystal clear that there was zero chance of recovering any of the grant money and more than likely no way to determine where it went exactly, in what proportions and for what purpose. Some of the money clearly was used to purchase the sets and clocks that the OCA still have; a large portion was apparently siphoned off as "administration and salary" [sort of reminds me of the United Way, but that is another story altogether]

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

We knew where the bank was, I'm pretty sure we had the account number.

For whatever reason, TD would not release the account to us as the new Executive - I don't recall exactly anymore, it's been a few years. After a couple months of trying we gave up and opened a new account at another bank.

If the old executive didn't sign off on the change of signing authority, the bank would have no choice but to refuse to deal with the new executive, at least in questions about the bank account which they did not have signing authority over.

The reason Trillium didn't need lots of extra paperwork was likely that Barry admitted right away that he had in fact paid himself... so the question was never "what was done with the money" but "what should be done about it" which in the end, for Trillium, was "don't do that again" ...

So the lesson in all this is "don't do that again."

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

If the old executive didn't sign off on the change of signing authority, the bank would have no choice but to refuse to deal with the new executive, at least in questions about the bank account which they did not have signing authority over.

That could be an interesting debate. It was moot because there was $-2 in the account so we didn't care too much about pursuing it; had there been a significant amount, it may have been different.

So the lesson in all this is "don't do that again."

Another way they may have put it: "resign, moron" ... had Barry resigned as President and then been hired by the remaining Executive, they would have not had a problem with it (or as big of a problem with it).

[Robert Clark]

Re: OCA - Trillium - Posting of the " Armstrong Report "

OCA - Trillium - Posting of the " Armstrong Report "

Hi Rob Clark, OCA President

Would you please consider posting my volunteer report I did on the OCA Trillium matter, on the OCA Website, wherever there are other public postings of reports, etc. on this matter? It was posted on the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum on April 1, 2010, and Egis has given the link to it in the archive ( I guess ).

I think all information on it should be available to the public, given its nature, and the credibility problem it still creates for OCA.

Also, Peter McKillop, a regular poster here, has indicated he thinks it should be posted.

Please post here your decision.

Thx.

Bob A, author of report

Hi Bob,

I read the report you composed when you first wrote it. Its an impressive report and I genuinely thank you for the time and effort you put into it. Truthfully, if I had written it I would have been far more scathing. Furthermore I do think its important that an outside source looked into the matter in addition to the official report.

However, I don't think that this report has a place on the OCA website. I shudder to think what I would see in my inbox if the OCA started posting volunteer reports. If your report is posted then I would also feel obligated to post other reports. No doubt, I would learn a few new words.

[Robert Clark]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

A couple of years ago I applied to an agency for funding. I thought I was well prepared for the interview, but one question threw me: "What is the role of the OCA?"

I froze in stunned silence, then stammered some sort of generic baffle-gab answer.

Which, when you think of it, was a pretty accurate description.

The truth of the matter is that the OCA does serve a purpose. It was created to allow us to pursue grants, to distribute funding to the leagues, to help out with the overseeing and running of Ontario-wide tournaments and to be able to promote the growth of chess among other things. It does serve a purpose, heck, I participated in the interuniversities awhile back and every clock I saw had the OCA's name on it.

Its unfortunate that what transpired did, because the OCA is now synonymous with that one event. I'm not trying to downplay what happened, but at this point I don't think its possible to continue forward with any action in the transpired matters. Therefore the only thing that I can see that results in anything positive is trying to move forward and allow the OCA to fulfil its intended purpose.

If you want something to talk about in terms of the OCA, how about the OVSA nominations I submitted to recognize some of the hard working volunteers in Ontario chess a few weeks back; the fact that right now we're looking at an Ontario-wide team championship with 3 out of the 4 leagues on board, or that the Ontario open is back in Thunder Bay this year (my hometown) and personally, I'm really excited about the fact that Thunder Bay will finally have a CFC tournament again after our area got pretty badly burned by the CFC before. It's a great opportunity to rebuild bridges. There's a lot of positive things that are going on in Ontario chess and the OCA plays a role in that.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

Vlad, here's something you wrote in a related thread with my responses in bold:

I'm not sure. I was never a governor of the OCA. I was there as an observer during the OYCC, I think, and only attended because John Coleman wanted to be there.

No need for an investigation. The procedures were in place. Were they? It looks like the current constitution at the OCA website was last updated in 2010. I don't know what the constitution looked like during Thorvardson's reign of error. The rules were in place. Barry chose to ignore them. The 'investigation' I have in mind would examine the OCA's constitution and procedures with a view to reducing the risk of one executive exercising undue control due to the laxness of the other executives. The penalty was a lifetime ban which is not much of a penalty. It sucks but that is the position that we are staring at. You may have had your queen before the blunder but now you have to play without it or resign. But, if you're interested in improving your game, wouldn't you also have a close look at the game afterwards to try to understand how you lost your queen and how you might avoid such blunders in future? It is time to move on. Endlessly covering the same ground doesn't make the outcome any different. I'm not proposing to cover the same ground endlessly. I'm proposing to cover it once and do it thoroughly.

Key records were shredded if my understanding is correct by a person charged with investigating all of the details of the situation.

Never assume malfeasance when simple incompetence is a sufficient explanation. Occam's razor and all that. Surely the Trillium fiasco was a case of both malfeasance and incompetence.

The records were largely irrelevant at that point. The facts of the case had been established. I don't think that the funds from Trillium flowed through the OCA account though I could be wrong on that. And wouldn't that be a stunning example of the malfeasance of the officers who arranged this and the incompetence of the officers who failed to catch it. Time for a procedural tune up.

And the following is from this thread.

If the old executive didn't sign off on the change of signing authority, the bank would have no choice but to refuse to deal with the new executive, at least in questions about the bank account which they did not have signing authority over.

So the lesson in all this is "don't do that again." Well, perhaps the lesson(s) could be boiled down to this :) but I think if you take this as your sole 'learning' from the Trillium fiasco then you're simply begging for something similar to happen in future.

[Steve Karpik]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

...that the Ontario open is back in Thunder Bay this year (my hometown) and personally, I'm really excited about the fact that Thunder Bay will finally have a CFC tournament again after our area got pretty badly burned by the CFC before.

Perhaps this is opening up old wounds but what exactly did the CFC do to Thunder Bay?

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

The truth of the matter is that the OCA does serve a purpose. It was created to allow us to pursue grants, to distribute funding to the leagues, to help out with the overseeing and running of Ontario-wide tournaments and to be able to promote the growth of chess among other things. It does serve a purpose, heck, I participated in the interuniversities awhile back and every clock I saw had the OCA's name on it.

Its unfortunate that what transpired did, because the OCA is now synonymous with that one event. I'm not trying to downplay what happened, but at this point I don't think its possible to continue forward with any action in the transpired matters. Therefore the only thing that I can see that results in anything positive is trying to move forward and allow the OCA to fulfil its intended purpose.

If you want something to talk about in terms of the OCA, how about the OVSA nominations I submitted to recognize some of the hard working volunteers in Ontario chess a few weeks back; the fact that right now we're looking at an Ontario-wide team championship with 3 out of the 4 leagues on board, or that the Ontario open is back in Thunder Bay this year (my hometown) and personally, I'm really excited about the fact that Thunder Bay will finally have a CFC tournament again after our area got pretty badly burned by the CFC before. It's a great opportunity to rebuild bridges. There's a lot of positive things that are going on in Ontario chess and the OCA plays a role in that.

I think you may be conflating the stated purpose of the organization with its acutal performance.

[Robert Clark]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

I think you may be conflating the stated purpose of the organization with its acutal performance.

While it may not have met its objectives in the past I'm trying to ensure that it does so now.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

While it may not have met its objectives in the past I'm trying to ensure that it does so now.

Unless you can remember back to the early 1970's, you might not even want to concede that much.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

Steve wrote:

what exactly did the CFC do to Thunder Bay

Was it anything to do with the 2007 Ontario Open (which Barry won)? How did John Rutherford play in both the Open and U1600 of this event simultaneously (he appears in both crosstables - playing all games)? Or is there some sort of typo in the crosstable(s)?

http://www.chess.ca/crosstable?tourn...269d56260243a1
http://www.chess.ca/crosstable?tourn...269d56260243a1

[Robert Clark]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

Perhaps this is opening up old wounds but what exactly did the CFC do to Thunder Bay?

The summarized version is that a few years back the CFC didn't rate submitted tournaments or give people their due memberships. We were left without rated tournaments for a substantial period of time despite the fact that we were submitting them with the correct fees. Bob Gillanders as CFC president was really helpful and he ended up getting the majority of the tournaments rated. The ones he wasn't able to rate were not his fault, it was simply that too much time had passed and records were shoddy. However, by that time people in Thunder Bay were fed up with the previous disrespect from the CFC and a lot of bridges were burned. I also approached some of the members of the then CFC exec (and up until Bob), was told that there were more pressing matters than what happened to our club. There were some other things as well such as a member of our club being mistreated when it came to the Canadian closed and some other things. It becomes hard to justify paying a membership fee when you're not getting anything for it.

I would like to state that this was the past and both Bob and Mike have been great to deal with as presidents. They were also both sympathetic to what happened. I'm glad to see that the days of that quality of service are behind the CFC and Mr. Litchfield deserves a lot of credit.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

Vlad, here's something you wrote in a related thread with my responses in bold:



And the following is from this thread.

There are checks and balances in any corporate structure. If two people with signing authority work together there is little that you can do to stop them until they are caught and prosecuted. There was no danger of that here because doing a bad job is not illegal and the rules broken were Trillium's rules and OCA rules and perhaps some rules of morality and not any laws. The only thing you could have done different is requiring three signatures on every check but that is not realistic in an organization with signing officers spread across the province and I am not aware of any organization that requires three signatures on a check though there may be some out there.

Hal Bond was the one who uncovered this fiasco despite the stonewalling from Barry and his buddies. As such he deserves our thanks and not criticism over this deplorable situation which he brought to everyone's attention. That being said, I don't see what is accomplished by dredging this up again and will probably refrain from commenting on this further.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

The only thing you could have done different is requiring three signatures on every check but that is not realistic in an organization with signing officers spread across the province and I am not aware of any organization that requires three signatures on a check though there may be some out there.

Actually, IIRC, there were THREE execs all from the Brampton club - Prez, Sec and Treas.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Questions for President of the OCA

Hi Chris:

Obviously a bad implementation of an executive structure.

Bob A