What did Martin Regan Do?????????????

[Charles W. Wood]

Martin Regan wrote (to Charles W Wood)
Of course, you could easily have forgotten the two-hour phone conversation we had when I told you that unless you stopped insisting that you had the support of Holloid and that the "academy" materials were the only ones that would go into the school then I would immediately withdraw the ECF from the scheme and schedule a press conference to explain why.

Can this really be true? Did you really have the power to withdraw the ECF from the CfS project? If you did, wouldn't it be simpler to just replace Charles W Wood?

Matthew do see my answer first third one from the top of this page.

Here it comes:
Ah yes I remember this conversation your dead right. This is the one where you wouldn't explain why Andrew was not on board. And the description as you use it "the "academy" materials were the only ones that would go into the school" the would part should be could. As the DfE meeting had revealed some changes were needed in the ECF Cert of Excellence scheme hence the reason it was withdrawn the minute Andrew was brought in. And forgetting completely that Holloid was very frustrated with the lack of action from .. well you.

It did conveniently did slip your mind.

[Richard James]

The use of the word 'vocational' suggests to me they were thinking about secondary schools, but of course the vast majority of junior chess is currently played in primary schools. How would 'vocational' be applied to primary school children?

Of course, a book or course aimed at 7-year-olds should be very different from one aimed at 14-year-olds.

For what it's worth, my view is that a certificate of this nature should have three aspects: technical knowledge, puzzle solving and practical play. The first of these could be tested via a multiple choice quiz, the second is probably better not done in that way.

If anyone's interested I have online tests corresponding to the nine classes in chessKIDS mark 1 at http://www.chesskids.com/ckrj/

[Peter Turner]

From Peter Turner, ECF Officer in Charge of the Certificate of Excellence

I cannot begin to tell you how much I am enjoying this exchange of information concerning the CofE. Since Matthew & I introduced and developed the scheme we have deposited over £25,000 profit into the BCF/ECF coffers. It has been used exclusively as additional support to junior chess. As a former Director of Junior Chess & Education and loyal (unpaid) servant to the Federation I'm disappointed that I was not invited to some of the discussions that I can now see were taking place.

Regards

Peter T

[andrew martin]

Just to correct Richard James on one small point. When I talked to him about his book ' Chess in the Classroom ' ( not my title - its on the ECF website), I tried to get him an upfront royalty payment of £ 500 with exactly the same conditions mentioned to him by Robert Richmond - £ 1 per book sold - and a contract to that effect.

I have asked repeatedly for that contract to be issued, as well as a contract for myself regarding the DVD. I am still not sure whether it has been issued ; perhaps Richard could tell us. My contract is nowhere to be seen and I must have asked for it at least a dozen times. I asked for the contracts long before I even thought of becoming Director,back in August 2008. I queried the idea of becoming Director given that I had been paid an upfront royalty payment for the DVD,but was assured it was OK. Of course, nobody else was interested in the post; we can see why now.


This is the level of inaction we are dealing with.

Regarding Certificate of Excellence vs the new Certificate of Merit. I have no issues with them running side by side, although they both cover the same ground, more or less. The whole point of the the new online scheme was/is to raise as much revenue for junior chess as possible, set against the then background of 25,000 schools and coping with the colossal demand. Written testing could not cope with the numbers.


Andrew

[Peter Turner]

Andrew
I'm sure that you know that I have no issues with an online testing method, if for no other reason that, indeed, I could not and do not want to, cope with the hoped for numbers involved. The point I was trying to make is that it perhaps would have been appropriate to include me in some of the discussions. I also believe that there is a place for both methods.

All the very best

Peter

[Richard James]

Andrew

I have received no contract. The book is almost complete but I'm not intending to release it until I see a contract.

[John Upham]

Andrew
I'm sure that you know that I have no issues with an online testing method, if for no other reason that, indeed, I could not and do not want to, cope with the hoped for numbers involved. The point I was trying to make is that it perhaps would have been appropriate to include me in some of the discussions. I also believe that there is a place for both methods.

All the very best

Peter

I would totally concur with Peter. I also believe that CoE and CoM can happily co-exist and will have different markets and different end users. The CoE has a strong sponsor (Wincanton Capital Management, previously the Institue of Actuaries) which incidentally, appears to deserve no mention on

http://www.ecfcertificate.com/

I have repeatedly asked that all sponsors be highlighted strongly and appropriately on the ECF site.

(it also contains the wonderful

how do you enter tHE CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE scheme?

line of text which glares at me!

CoM does not have a sponsor and is not yet up and running. I have just released the SCCA Results Service and can now turn full-time to the CoM development at long last.

I am embarrassed (on behalf of the ECF) by the way Peter has been treated "mushroom like" in this matter. He should have been included in all pertinent discussions. However, lack of communication with its volunteers is symptomatic of a general ECF malaise.

The KJCA are doing great things with the CoE and I hope that the efforts of Chris Ward, Peter Bayliss and others will produce dividends.

[Justin Hadi]

Was the idea of the letters going to MP's right? At that point in time I think is was a good call on the information Gerry and Peter had at the time. It may look hasty now but thats only with hind sight.

Really? Well, given the information they had OK, but shouldn't they have gone to companies house to investigate the company prepared to donate 250,000 chess sets to schools? The turnover and profit figures have been stated elsewhere on the forum and were small enough to suggest that it would have been a very tricky proposition to put it mildly. I take it this wasn't part of your remit Charles? I didn't think even the ECF could fail to do such basic research.

6. At face value, this doesn't look like a company that would want to or be able to invest any significant amounts in a chess set project. Since the accounts for the year ended 30 June 2007 (which themselves do not, based on available information, paint a healthy picture), the economic situation in the UK generally has significantly worsened, and particularly so over the last couple of months, with no obvious sign of any significant economic recovery in the next couple of years. If this was my company I would be battening down the hatches and making sure it survived, rather than considering costly non-essential projects (particularly those with, dare I say, no obvious significant value added PR to the company - and by value added I mean PR that would lead to a significant increase in profitable sales. I doubt that the chess playing fraternity has within it many people who would buy product from Holloid in significant quantities as result of a chess set manufacturing programme - if I was going to invest in marketing I would make sure it was much focused on relevant target markets than this project).

Mike

[Matthew Turner]

Charles W Wood wrote
"3. This ones harder, I wanted Andrew from day one but as I was working on so much I couldn't get hold of him direct. I was also Marketing Dept and him Junior & Education part of the ECF, so I was a bit cagey about inviting him on board (That is definitely my fault as I didn't understand ECF politics and assumed it would work like a normal organisation). So I turned to the board."

This is complete jibberish. If you were in charge of the CfS project and wanted to involve Andrew Martin from day one then it is simple enough to ring him up, send a message to him on here or any of the other myriad of ways of making contact. You didn't because you saw Andrew as a rival and wished to use the CfS project to sell your stuff and make money - let's be honest about it.

[John Upham]

This is complete jibberish. If you were in charge of the CfS project and wanted to involve Andrew Martin from day one then it is simple enough to ring him up, send a message to him on here or any of the other myriad of ways of making contact. You didn't becaues you saw Andrew as a rival and wished to use the CfS project to sell your stuff and make money - let's be honest about it.

At last we reach the crux of this matter!

During the halcyon days of the ill-advised press releases and hobnobbing with MPs, my attention was drawn to publicity material that was being sent to county Junior organisers.

The ones that I know in my locality (Hampshire, Berkshire and Surrey) were aghast at what they had received. At least two of them wanted nothing to do with the CSfS project if they were required to sign-up in the manner described.

I brought this matter to the attention to as many as I could as I felt this material was damaging to the project.
(As this stage I had no idea that no sets were being produced.)

I even attended the 2008 Surrey Congress to talk with the Chairman of the Finance Committee to find out if he knew what was going on.

If anyone has a copy of this material perhaps they could be so kind as to reproduce here the wording. Maybe CWW could be persuaded to do this

[Paul McKeown]

Martin,

Thanks for this. It makes everything much, much clearer. In fact I think we have finally got to the bottom of things. One thing - what was it that GW fell out with Claire about?

Hope to see you properly in charge sometime. Hope I'm not hoping for too much.

Best Regards,
Paul McKeown.

[Sean Hewitt]

Martin's recollection of events is most helpful. Not because his version will necessarily be attested to by the other protaginists, but because it demonstrates that it is the make up of the ECF, rather than the persons involved, that is the problem.

You have to have one person in charge. At the moment, the CEO, the President and [dare I say it] the Office Manager all believe they "run" all or part of the ECF. This is ludicrous.

You have to have accountability. It is perfectly reasonable in any business for a director to make decisions without reference to the board. But, those decisions are always subject to board approval - and the board can of course always undo the decision if it so wishes. Key decisions though should always be taken collectively by the board, and this applies to all directors, whether they be CEO, President or any other director.

The witch hunt against GW and others deflects from the real problem - and one that could surface again if GW were replaced by someone who disagreed with the CEO on certain points of policy. Regarding the CfS project ; I don't think there is anything to be gained by going over who said what to whom now. We are where we are. The key question is how do we proceed. And that question is currently meeting with stoney silence. If it's not to proceed, then lets say so and move on.

I shall take it upon myself to try to put something together regarding the structure to put before council. As Capt Scott said "I may be some time"

[andrew martin]

Martin

You forgot one point:


THE RESIGNATIONS

You and your colleagues should have stuck it out. The ECF was dealt a terrible blow when the four of you withdrew from which it has not recovered.

However each of Peter, Claire, Mike and yourself still have my respect. You all worked very diligently. This is not a time for recrimination; the question is : what happens next?

Firstly,now that some facts are on the table, the current ECF leadership MUST CLARIFY IMMEDIATELY what the situation is with Holloid and the sets. The focus must be to start producing the sets.

Andrew

[Justin Hadi]

Thanks Martin that's very useful and the focus must be on the future. Communication must be one of qualities to bring in.

[Claire Summerscale]

Martin's summary in regard to these matters is also my recollection.

Andrew - you're right, the people that resigned did work very diligently and invested a huge amount of time and effort into their positions. Personally speaking, the Junior Director post was extremely hard work and I would say that I spent at least 5 hours every day working to improve opportunities for English juniors, from 21/10/2006 - 27/04/2008, when with a heavy heart I resigned. Without the support of the directors that resigned, my position was untenable.

It's difficult for me to accept the criticism from you that we should have "stuck it out". You were appointed as an ECF director on 18/10/2008 and resigned one day short of a month later, 17/11/2008, but I respect how difficult your position was and believe your decision to resign was correct.

Paul - I did indeed fall out with GW and the office. I was sick of, for example, fielding complaints about the office from players, parents and coaches about, among many other things, why their emailed questions were being ignored. Being told by the office that they were too busy to do the administration to send a squad of juniors to the Commonwealth Championships etc etc.

I tried to find out how office time is spent. This was not popular!

There are I think 4 employees now in the Hastings office and yet today (7th January) the website front page still says: Please note that the ECF Office will be closed from 24 December to 4 January inclusive.

Claire