English Chess Forum

Charles Wood's early morning post today, posted to the 'Resignation Rumours' thread and heavily hyping his own 'credibility', makes my decision to post what follows alot easier. On that other thread, I explained my quandary. That thread also contains other relevant context. I'm opening up a separate topic so that issues can be clarified to everyone's benefit, without confusion in a thread begun for a different purpose.

In order that everyone can make up their own minds on CWW's credibility in the light of his comments, I publish below in the public interest CWW's email to me yesterday. I have to confess that CWW's credibility has been in doubt for me from the very beginning. Having read through this email, I no longer have any doubt. Charles W Wood is not a person with whom I would wish to do business. No one who writes an email like this would in my experience survive scrutiny by professional people. There are no circumstances under which I would introduce Charles W Wood as a credible person representing ECF interests to an officer of any LEA, school or otherwise, based on this evidence. There are no circumstances under which I would put my own reputation at risk, or that of others, by association with Charles W Wood or any venture associated with him. I have no doubt whatsoever I will have the full backing of the MCA, and of the vast majority of its member clubs, should that ever be tested. Others may take a different view on the evidence before them; that's up to them.

One final point of background before moving to the text. Reference is made below to two MCA Junior Officers, myself and another person. Following the MCA AGM on Tuesday evening, that is the current state-of-affairs. MCA had had no Junior Officer for more than ten years until I stepped in two years ago. Then suddenly, someone else wants to contest the post. Obviously there is a background to that which need not trouble us here. You can wade through the vast thread on the Atticus forum if you have a spare week or two. Had it gone to a vote, I'd have won overwhelmingly. But the AGM resolved to avoid conflict, and appointed both candidates. This was in my view a mistake.

Deleted by moderator

I hope this puts everyone in the picture. The full email, bar the introductory pleasantries of the first paragraph, follows without forensic analysis by me at this point. The list of 53 schools culled from the ECF list of 1000 schools is omitted for no reason other than space.

Charles W Wood wrote:Just to give background, it is vital that this information does not find its way into the public domain, so I ask you to keep this information private. I hope that it will go no further than Merseyside CA Committee and coaches.

David has rightly asked for the information of the schools which had a representative (15 people) sent to learn about the wider chess world. These schools as you can see number more than 15, thats because we are using agencies with budget that can help roll out chess across these schools and most work in more than 1 school at once. Most (if not all) of the schools will have signed up to the Chess for Schools project anyway. To give you both an idea of why more than 15 schools were represented here are some of the job rolls, one was a policeman with a mandate to help schools with their underachievers in 12 schools, another was a youth worker with an mandate to aid community cohesion covering several schools too. etc.

The way forward, I have many contacts working toward a total roll out covering as many schools as can be done. So heres the tricky bit, I know that the British is in Liverpool this year and there are many other great events going on too, and you are both volunteers, so do I work with one or both of you. I do not mind either way, I'm not here to dictate MCA actions, I'm just here to give you guys the smoothest hand over as possible so the MCA can get as much out of Chess for Schools that will benefit the organisation as a whole.

The next step will be to meeting the contacts within the agencies across the MCA. One of the LEA's has ask that we check your "Big 3", so after talking to the ECF board it was decided the best way to go about this would be to ask if you could send a copy of your Child Protection Policy, and an original certificate of your Public Liability Insurance to Cynthia at the ECF office. This way we can say we have seen it and dispense with carrying them to every meeting. This is a request not a demand.

I look forward to working with Merseyside CA in this great year for the area. Whoever I end up working with I look forward to coming to the area and working closely together to make the testbed for the whole country

David Robertson
Atticus CC & MCA JUnior Officer

David,

Personally I haven't got a problem with having a commercial aspect to the intentions of creating something fantastic. Let's be honest could it really be achieved otherwise?

However I would take exception if people were claiming to be working for free, yet ultimately had desires to achieve commercial success.

The one aspect of Charles Wood's operation that worries me is the certification programme, price list contained in the following link :-

http://www.renaissanceacademy.org.uk/fo ... cation.pdf

Now, what I am surprised at with this is that to my knowledge the ECF already have a certification scheme that they use in junior chess, the Bronze, Silver and Gold Award scheme. When you take this into context with Andrew Martin being completely out of the loop things do start to look a little fishy.

So I would like Charles to state on here publicly if the certification programme and prices he has developed are to be 'sold' to all participating schools in the "Chess For Schools Project" and if they are what percentage profits are to be taken by the ECF?

Doing that would at least to me define Mr Woods overall credibility.

I have considered my comments with care, Ernie. Where one is invited into partnership, or similar, with another party, credibility and trust are of paramount importance - as you know. It is essential that, before involving other public (or private) agencies and responsible bodies, great care should be taken to ensure due diligence has been exercised concerning the parties involved. Claims are often made, sometimes reckless claims; only the prudent subject them to scrutiny. That way confidence, or otherwise, is established. You've been doing your bit; others, theirs. This is my bit too. At the end of this process, we should have a clearer idea of where things stand. Both Holloid and the ECF should welcome the process. Charles W Wood should invite it. And if the facts change, I change with them

The schools named? No, nothing is so clear. As I have already explained on the other thread, I have been supplied with the names of 53 schools, mostly primaries. My original challenge to CWW concerned his claim that representatives from 10 secondary and 5 primary schools from the MCA area had visited him in Bradford. The exact reference is here:

Charles W Wood wrote:I've just had 15 Schools Chess Club organisers from the MCA area (10 Secondary and 5 Primary) coming across to see the Bradford Blatherer to get an idea of how to put their school chess clubs together and will be entering local and national events in the new academic year. All the 15 people I met are all going to use the chess sets to make far more than the 20 we ask for

David Robertson wrote:Amazing, quite amazing. I'm currently the MCA Junior Officer, the first to do the job in over a decade or more. I may not be the best Junior Officer in the world but I do my best. And I can tell you frankly, I don't believe any of this. I do not believe you've had 15 school chess club organisers from my area visiting you. I do not believe you can name any of them or their schools, and until you do, I won't believe a word of it. So please name the people so that I can contact them; and/or name the schools

Charles Wood has named some schools very loosely from the MCA area. I'll not quibble for the moment on the geography. These could be any schools. Most likely they will be schools taken from the ECF list of schools who have responded to the initial invitation to declare an interest in free chess sets. CWW now parlays this into a claim that 15 representatives from still unspecified schools, presumably on this list but who knows, have visited him in Bradford. That claim I continue to dispute. It makes a sizeable difference to me as MCA Junior Officer if a school, especially ten secondary schools as claimed, show sufficient keenness to visit Bradford to be guided on setting up a chess club, as claimed, as opposed merely to returning a pro forma to ECF expressing initial interest in receiving free chess sets. Frankly, if I had one secondary on my patch that keen, I'd be delighted! But if they were that keen, you'd hardly expect Bradford to be their first port of call.

So I read with particular care that part of CWW's email that might have confirmed the visit. It reads as follows:

Charles W Wood wrote:a representative (15 people) sent to learn about the wider chess world

No schools specified; no mention of Bradford, nor 'sent' by the school. And "sent (where?) to learn about the wider chess world" is blather that could mean anything you want it to mean. What follows in that sentence is waffle and word-salad beyond comprehension.

David Robertson
Atticus CC & MCA JUnior Officer

ps. no worries, Ernie

David Fryer wrote:why mention that half are catholic?

No special reason. It struck me as an unusually high proportion of schools listed compared with their frequency in the total schools population. Also, I cannot recall any (or many) Catholic schools in the area with chess teams/clubs. I included the data out of interest, not out of suspicion (if that is what concerns you)

David R

I confess to finding the continuing silence of the ECF directors on this matter (and indeed other matters) very disquieting. For all we know the ECF might be driving full steam ahead into the biggest PR train crash in its history (and that's against some pretty stiff competition). Burying one's head in the sand in the hope that this and other issues are just going to disappear is not a solution.

This just posted on the ECF website emergency meeting

5. Chess In Schools

It was agreed that an extra member of staff was required for about a year due to the increased workload associated with the Chess In Schools initiative. It was agreed that the ECF would lead by example by funding this for three months and this would allow someone to be recruited on a temporary basis. Thereafter alternative funding would have to be found from other sources.

Sets are still going out and we are trying to get TV coverage. It was suggested that a status report should be produced for the next ChessMoves.

There is a need to think beyond the immediate Chess in Schools initiative to the next steps such as getting coaching in all schools and provision of datapacks.

As someone who has been going on about TV coverage this is encouraging.

The funding issue is interesting, given Ernies previous questions to Charles.

However the last paragraph is rather perplexing, this seems to suggest Charles isn't involved in the coaching side of things and just the logistics of sets provision and secondly why hasn't the coaching provision been thought about a lot earlier?

Then who is involved in the coaching?

I still have not been contacted.

Andrew,

Good question!

If the ECF Manager of Coaching doesn't know, then the ECF information flow leaves a lot to be desired!

Paul Stimpson wrote:This just posted on the ECF website ...

Where?

Where?

Go to what's new then click on The report on ECF Board Meeting No. 22 is now available.

"It was agreed that the ECF would lead by example by funding this for three months and this would allow someone to be recruited on a temporary basis. Thereafter alternative funding would have to be found from other sources."

This is a bit worrying. Funding from where?

Ernie Lazenby wrote:Extra member of staff for about a year , is that Charles W Wood?

I don't think it is Charles W Wood. he was already a key part of the project before the meeting.

Who requested the extra man? Who decided it should be paid?

As is proven Charles has numerous untapped (free?) resources (e.g. A Martin).

Perhaps Chessmaze will sponsor the position

Ernie Lazenby wrote:I think the whole paragraph is worrying

ECF webb site
It was agreed that an extra member of staff was required for about a year due to the increased workload associated with the Chess for Schools initiative. It was agreed that the ECF would lead by example by funding this for three months and this would allow someone to be recruited on a temporary basis. Thereafter alternative funding would have to be found from other sources.

Sets are still going out and we are trying to get TV coverage. It was suggested that a status report should be produced for the next ChessMoves.

There is a need to think beyond the immediate Chess for Schools initiative to the next steps such as getting coaching in all schools and provision of datapacks.

Read the above in the context of the entire debate we have been having and then consider these points.

Extra member of staff for about a year , is that Charles W Wood?

ECF funding it for first three months ? allowing someone to be recruited on a tempory basis ? is that Charles Wood. Is it a paid position if not whats the funding for? A free deal does not appear to be a free deal now does it.

Getting coaching into schools ? is that through the Rennaisance Acadamey a limited company owned by Charles Wood , his wife and one other. Charges for services listed on the academy webb site.

I am trying to be objective but by any standards there are some troubling aspects to all this.

One could reasonably ask the question; who is in overall charge of the ECF and current affairs. I think I need to attend the next ECF AGM.

I said I was free. You have insulted me again. I am still free. so take it back.

And for the Last and final time the Renaissance Academy coaches in and around Bradford and is a "not for Profit Organisation". As you have already pointed out. AMCA Charges but you want Andrew Martin involved, double standards are afoot here.

And as for the Admin Member of staff based at the ECF Office, yes both Fergus and I are trying to find extra funds to cover that persons wage so that the needed admin of this project is covered.