Peter Hornsby for ECF : Tomorrow's Candidate Today!

[Angus French]

The next set of ECF elections are in (ironically!) 2020

Umm...

[NickFaulks]

Last year it was possible to vote for Julie Denning and Peter Hornsby. This year it isn't.

Yes, I wondered where 2018 and 2019 had gone.

[Mick Norris]

The next set of ECF elections are in (ironically!) 2020

Umm...

Well, the winner of Peter v Julie is in place until 2020, but the other NED comes up for election before then

[Andrew Zigmond]

A few others have beaten me to it but obviously it is just the candidates who are up for election this year who won't face re-election until 2020. There will be elections in 2018 and 2019. Peter's misunderstanding does concern me slightly.

All the positions on the board have a specific remit and set of responsibilities, including non executive director. Peter may be slightly vague on what the role of a NED is but it is hard to pinpoint a board level role that suits him better. And it is certainly hard to make the case that Julie Denning should be ousted to make way for him.

And yet, and yet ... If I pretend for a minute that I actually have a vote and my pen is poised over the ballot paper I have to admit that I keep finding the point drawn to Peter Hornsby's box. Why? Because Peter wants to represent the younger chess playing generation at board level, ensure that their voices are heard within the national body and work to provide opportunities for them to get involved. It's not as if there are any non board level postions that are really suitable either, just administrative roles like the one I am handing over. Give Peter a strategic role as (for example) manager of youth chess, a budget and a voice at board level when it's appropriate and I'd be posting here suggesting he withdraw (Jack Rudd in disabled chess and Stewart Reuben in senior chess should have the same; Sarah Longson speaks for female players on the board but has no budget). As it is I'd rather have Peter as NED than have the next generation shut out on the sidelines.

[John McKenna]

Peter, thanks for taking the time to reply.

As Roger implies, publicising your campaign here was wise if you wanted to make sure you reached more of the ECF Council's 'electors' than can be reached by facebook alone.

Facebook is probably the best way, at present, for networking with younger generations and advertising chess to them.

Horses for courses.

I think I understand the principles of democratic dynamism, on which you are standing for Non-Executive Director (NED). I just think they are in danger of being somewhat misapplied in relation to the position of NED.

It could be workable to have one backroom NED - keeping an eye on the internal machinations of the ECF - and one front-of-house NED barking "roll up, roll up" to the punters.

But, I still have the sneaking suspicion that would significantly dilute the oversight and governance at the ECF and that the role of chief barker should be that of a different directorship, not that of a NED.

Andrew should be a bit more careful what he wishes for. Ralph Nader the US political activist and polymath stood in Presidential Elections on the principle that the electorate deservered a choice between a third 'popular' candidate and the ubiquitous Democrat and Republican 'party' ones.

There was probably at least one unfortunate result of Nader's various candidacies - in the 2000 Presidential Election his votes in Florida may have disavantaged Al Gore and allowed George W. Bush to win that state by only 537 votes and thus become the US President. (Nader was actually against Gore's election and perversely thought that 4-years of G.W. would cure America of rabid Republicanism leading to a reinvigoration of the Democrats. Nader miscalculated that and G.W. won a second term... )

A cautionary tale? One with much greater repercussions than possible in an ECF election for NED. But, no election is without some repercussions of one sort or another.

I am not questioning Peter's principles or motives for standing. I still think he is just standing for the wrong position to do the things he wants to continue to do.

Anyhow, Peter, all the best whatever happens at the AGM.

[Peter Hornsby]

Update

Hi all, as I haven't received any questions via email (or many more on here) and because I've been informed that this evening England are playing football at the same time as the planned Facebook live event I will be postponing it until next Wednesday night.

Also yes thanks for those pointing out my error (and for the kind words), it wasn't worded as intended I mean the next election for 'this' NED is in 2020 though there is another one for the 'other' NED taking place before that.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Andrew should be a bit more careful what he wishes for. Ralph Nader the US political activist and polymath stood in Presidential Elections on the principle that the electorate deservered a choice between a third 'popular' candidate and the ubiquitous Democrat and Republican 'party' ones.

There was probably at least one unfortunate result of Nader's various candidacies - in the 2000 Presidential Election his votes in Florida may have disavantaged Al Gore and allowed George W. Bush to win that state by only 537 votes and thus become the US President. (Nader was actually against Gore's election and perversely thought that 4-years of G.W. would cure America of rabid Republicanism leading to a reinvigoration of the Democrats. Nader miscalculated that and G.W. won a second term... )

I take your point and last year I proposed to my association that we supported Stephen Woodhouse as NED (along with Julie) despite my view that Peter would bring a Northern and youthful perspective to the board. This was with the aim of keeping an unpalatable candidate out. This year it is just a straight choice between Julie and Peter (or none of the above but I don't see that happening).

[John McKenna]

Thanks for your reply, Andrew.

Ralph Nader actually stood as a "non-of-the-above" candidate, but in this case I, too, assume it will be a contest between the two persons you named.

[Mick Norris]

As it is I'd rather have Peter as NED than have the next generation shut out on the sidelines.

Alternative view: we have spent years lamenting the lack of women in chess; Julie steps forward, works tirelessly in the role of NED, and you oust her in favour of a man who doesn't appear to know exactly what the role of NED entails; what message does that send to half the population?

[Jonathan Rogers]

I have been following this thread with a feeling of irritation, because what is bound to follow is all too predictable, and no one will be the better for it.

No doubt Peter has a lot to offer English chess in terms of organisation and bringing young adults to chess (and keeping them playing too). But for reasons so far not expressed, he wishes to campaign for a quite different role in the ECF, where he would have to unseat a more experienced, and a well regarded, incumbent.

Now for the NED position, one really expects some one a bit older; someone with many years of working experience, who can make comparisons with how decisions are taken by other boards, and can advise on procedure as well as substance. Perhaps it is not essential but it is an obvious asset. This would appear not to favour Peter, who, logically, one might expect to be playing down his relative youth when campaiging for this position.

But far from playing it down, he is playing it up, to the extremes of campainging only on Facebook in order to talk directly with other young people, despite many blunt warnings that the people who actually cast the votes are older, barely use Facebook at all, and still are in the dark as to why he thinks he is more suitable for this particular position than the incumbent.

So what will happen? Unless he switches direction, he will presumably lose quite heavily, and as a result might (I say "might"; hopefully, will not) feel unwelcome in the older environment of the ECF and walk away altogether - which would be to the detriment of everyone, because there is probably a lot of support in giving him a role suited to his talents.

[NickFaulks]

I have been following this thread with a feeling of irritation, because what is bound to follow is all too predictable, and no one will be the better for it.

I think Jonathan is expressing the views held by almost everyone here, and in Council. Because of the different nature of this year's voting ( of which it is not clear that he is even aware ) Peter is unlikely to retain the votes he garnered last year, let alone build on them. He will take entirely the wrong message from this.

[Andrew Zigmond]

As it is I'd rather have Peter as NED than have the next generation shut out on the sidelines.

Alternative view: we have spent years lamenting the lack of women in chess; Julie steps forward, works tirelessly in the role of NED, and you oust her in favour of a man who doesn't appear to know exactly what the role of NED entails; what message does that send to half the population?

If we're talking minority demographics on the board; victory for Peter would leave two women on the board, one of whom has a specific responsibility to speak up for female players. I suppose you could argue that if Julie wins (and assuming Alex Holowczak is re-elected) there will be two board members in their twenties - the slight cosmetic difference is that none of them have a specific brief for young players although Alex's contributions to this thread shows that he is aware of the issues.

Even if you take the most negative assessment of Peter's campaign so far his track record is impossible to attack - almost everything he does is geared around attracting new players to the game and increasing the player base. That is certainly not be to rejected out of hand.

[LawrenceCooper]

If we're talking minority demographics on the board; victory for Peter would leave two women on the board, one of whom has a specific responsibility to speak up for female players. I suppose you could argue that if Peter wins (and assuming Alex Holowczak is re-elected) there will be two board members in their twenties

Sarah is also in her twenties.

[Andrew Zigmond]

If we're talking minority demographics on the board; victory for Peter would leave two women on the board, one of whom has a specific responsibility to speak up for female players. I suppose you could argue that if Peter wins (and assuming Alex Holowczak is re-elected) there will be two board members in their twenties

Sarah is also in her twenties.

I have edited my post as I meant to say `if Julie wins` or `if Peter loses`. The point is that the board currently has three women and two in their twenties. Replace Julie Denning with Peter Hornsby and the split becomes 2/3.

[Mick Norris]

Even if you take the most negative assessment of Peter's campaign so far his track record is impossible to attack - almost everything he does is geared around attracting new players to the game and increasing the player base. That is certainly not be to rejected out of hand.

As I said last year and again this, I think Peter would be a valuable addition to the ECF, just not in the specific role of NED