Wednesday, March 12, 2014

OCA arrogance continues as Special General Meeting turned down

It is beyond shocking. It is well past arrogant and more than appalling.

Just who do the directors of the Ontario Curling Association think they are?

Last night, I received emails from a handful of zone reps – who were part of a group that, following the OCA by-laws, requested a Special General Meeting of the OCA to deal with all the problems, embarrassments and secrecy going on with that body.

What was in all of those emails was truly disturbing.

In short, the request by more than 10 per cent of the voting body of the OCA for a Special General Meeting has been turned down.

In an alarming one-line letter, the OCA’s president, Ian McGillis said the following:

“Please be advised that the requisition received is not in compliance with the Corporations Act and cannot be considered by the Board of Directors."

That’s it. No indication as to why it’s not in compliance with the Corporations Act, just that it isn’t.
No mention of the OCA’s own constitution under which this Special General Meeting was called. Not even a word of conciliation or compromise. It's one thing to turn down the meeting but another to do it in such a callous, big-headed manner. 

And isn’t this all just like Mr. McGillis? Answer at the 11th hour, don’t provide any details, slam the door, obfuscate, run and hide.

The OCA board clearly doesn’t want to have a Special General Meeting. And the question every Ontario curler should be asking today is why? Why won’t it come clean on details in its spat with the CCA? Why won’t it give answers as to why some sponsors are unhappy? Why won’t it talk about its clearly flawed governance model? Why won’t it discuss the fact that there is almost zero communication with the zone reps? WHY WON'T IT ACCEPT THAT THE GAME IN ONTARIO NEEDS HELP! 

Instead of responding to its members, its zone reps, its clubs, it ignores ITS OWN CONSTITUTION and bypasses the by-laws and tries to hide behind some part of the Corporations Act, which it fails to define.

Any lawyers out there with a knowledge of the Corporations Act, we'd love to hear from you on just how or if this move by the OCA is even possible. 

No comments: