How Come BOE Candidate Stephen Austin Won’t Say What His Employment Is??

[Anonymous]

I think he’ll fit right in on the BOE. He’s manipulative and underhanded, just like the rest of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think he’ll fit right in on the BOE. He’s manipulative and underhanded, just like the rest of them.

You can't generalize like that. Some of the BOE are just plain incompetent, like the 79 year old (Docca) who doesn't even use email.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of you teacher's union folks posting about how terrible Steve Austin is are just making me more sure that he is my guy for the BOE. All this hate is actually fear and that tells me that he is the right man for the job. Thanks for making my vote easy.

? I'm not a "teacher union folk", and I'm not voting for Austin because he doesn't think we should look at adjacent clusters when redrawing boundaries to adjust overcrowding. He's fine with redrawing boundaries *within* a cluster, but not with neighboring clusters. Why? Because he wants the status quo.

It's much cheaper to redraw boundaries than it is to build new wings or new schools. You'd think a "finance" person would realize this, and someone who is all about fiscal conservatism would push for the more sensible and budget friendly option of redrawing boundaries between overcrowded and under capacity neighboring clusters. But no, that's not what he wants.

And no, BOE is not looking to do cross county busing. That lie just needs to be put to rest.

Further, some of the current boundaries are NOT considered neighborhood schools. This was one of the eye opening things I learned from the boundary analysis. There are pockets of islands everywhere, and some neighborhoods are bused further away rather than going to the true neighborhood school -- look at Potomac Glen as a perfect example. It makes zero sense to me why this neighborhood goes to Churchill rather than Wootton, or in the future, Crown HS. That is their true neighborhood cluster, not Churchill. There are neighborhoods that are closer to Churchill than PG is, and yet, those neighborhoods are not zoned for Churchill. Much of the current boundary makes zero sense from a proximity perspective.


These folks who are for Austin are for keeping the status quo regarding the boundaries, and they are this single issue voter. That is the anti-thesis of "shaking things up".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The difference is the president has absolute power in certain areas. The BOE is one of 7 (8 with SMOB, right?). One rogue board member can't do much unless they convince a few others of their side. I like the alternative viewpoint Austin may bring. Why do so many BOE votes end up unanimous? It shows they're all a bunch of yes-women. MoCo values diversity, let's get some viewpoint diversity also.

So you're ok with voting for a rogue board member (your term), because he'll be ineffective, too?

We need a diversity of viewpoints, including the viewpoint of a person who has no experience with the system they're supported to be overseeing?

I just don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The difference is the president has absolute power in certain areas. The BOE is one of 7 (8 with SMOB, right?). One rogue board member can't do much unless they convince a few others of their side. I like the alternative viewpoint Austin may bring. Why do so many BOE votes end up unanimous? It shows they're all a bunch of yes-women. MoCo values diversity, let's get some viewpoint diversity also.

So you're ok with voting for a rogue board member (your term), because he'll be ineffective, too?

We need a diversity of viewpoints, including the viewpoint of a person who has no experience with the system they're supported to be overseeing?

I just don't get it.

^^^I mean, I guess it will be interesting, in a rubbernecking-at-car-crashes kind of way, to see what happens when people start accusing him of the things he's accused current board members of - if he gets elected. Maybe he thinks it wouldn't happen to him, but it would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The difference is the president has absolute power in certain areas. The BOE is one of 7 (8 with SMOB, right?). One rogue board member can't do much unless they convince a few others of their side. I like the alternative viewpoint Austin may bring. Why do so many BOE votes end up unanimous? It shows they're all a bunch of yes-women. MoCo values diversity, let's get some viewpoint diversity also.

So you're ok with voting for a rogue board member (your term), because he'll be ineffective, too?

We need a diversity of viewpoints, including the viewpoint of a person who has no experience with the system they're supported to be overseeing?

I just don't get it.

You just want to silence alternative viewpoints because you are afraid of them. Of course, you and the rest of your colleagues at the Teacher's Union should be scared because we want BOE members fighting for our students and not the union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The difference is the president has absolute power in certain areas. The BOE is one of 7 (8 with SMOB, right?). One rogue board member can't do much unless they convince a few others of their side. I like the alternative viewpoint Austin may bring. Why do so many BOE votes end up unanimous? It shows they're all a bunch of yes-women. MoCo values diversity, let's get some viewpoint diversity also.

So you're ok with voting for a rogue board member (your term), because he'll be ineffective, too?

We need a diversity of viewpoints, including the viewpoint of a person who has no experience with the system they're supported to be overseeing?

I just don't get it.

You just want to silence alternative viewpoints because you are afraid of them. Of course, you and the rest of your colleagues at the Teacher's Union should be scared because we want BOE members fighting for our students and not the union.

Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The difference is the president has absolute power in certain areas. The BOE is one of 7 (8 with SMOB, right?). One rogue board member can't do much unless they convince a few others of their side. I like the alternative viewpoint Austin may bring. Why do so many BOE votes end up unanimous? It shows they're all a bunch of yes-women. MoCo values diversity, let's get some viewpoint diversity also.

So you're ok with voting for a rogue board member (your term), because he'll be ineffective, too?

We need a diversity of viewpoints, including the viewpoint of a person who has no experience with the system they're supported to be overseeing?

I just don't get it.

I'm saying worst case scenario. I think he's competent, and I thikn he's good at financial stuff. I also think even if he's mediocre at those, he'll be better at those than any current board members. We don't need more ex-teachers on the board --we have plenty of those already.

Worst case: he's incompetent and is the lone dissenting vote
Best case: he pushes for more financial controls and auditing, and convinces other board members that's worthwhile so it passes

I'm willing to take that risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The difference is the president has absolute power in certain areas. The BOE is one of 7 (8 with SMOB, right?). One rogue board member can't do much unless they convince a few others of their side. I like the alternative viewpoint Austin may bring. Why do so many BOE votes end up unanimous? It shows they're all a bunch of yes-women. MoCo values diversity, let's get some viewpoint diversity also.

So you're ok with voting for a rogue board member (your term), because he'll be ineffective, too?

We need a diversity of viewpoints, including the viewpoint of a person who has no experience with the system they're supported to be overseeing?

I just don't get it.

I'm saying worst case scenario. I think he's competent, and I thikn he's good at financial stuff. I also think even if he's mediocre at those, he'll be better at those than any current board members. We don't need more ex-teachers on the board --we have plenty of those already.

Worst case: he's incompetent and is the lone dissenting vote
Best case: he pushes for more financial controls and auditing, and convinces other board members that's worthwhile so it passes

I'm willing to take that risk.

But why vote for someone who will disagree, won't get anyone else to agree with him, and doesn't know much, when you could instead vote for someone who will disagree, is far more likely to persuade others to agree, and knows something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The difference is the president has absolute power in certain areas. The BOE is one of 7 (8 with SMOB, right?). One rogue board member can't do much unless they convince a few others of their side. I like the alternative viewpoint Austin may bring. Why do so many BOE votes end up unanimous? It shows they're all a bunch of yes-women. MoCo values diversity, let's get some viewpoint diversity also.

So you're ok with voting for a rogue board member (your term), because he'll be ineffective, too?

We need a diversity of viewpoints, including the viewpoint of a person who has no experience with the system they're supported to be overseeing?

I just don't get it.

I'm saying worst case scenario. I think he's competent, and I thikn he's good at financial stuff. I also think even if he's mediocre at those, he'll be better at those than any current board members. We don't need more ex-teachers on the board --we have plenty of those already.

Worst case: he's incompetent and is the lone dissenting vote
Best case: he pushes for more financial controls and auditing, and convinces other board members that's worthwhile so it passes

I'm willing to take that risk.

But why vote for someone who will disagree, won't get anyone else to agree with him, and doesn't know much, when you could instead vote for someone who will disagree, is far more likely to persuade others to agree, and knows something?

Because I think he does know a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The difference is the president has absolute power in certain areas. The BOE is one of 7 (8 with SMOB, right?). One rogue board member can't do much unless they convince a few others of their side. I like the alternative viewpoint Austin may bring. Why do so many BOE votes end up unanimous? It shows they're all a bunch of yes-women. MoCo values diversity, let's get some viewpoint diversity also.

So you're ok with voting for a rogue board member (your term), because he'll be ineffective, too?

We need a diversity of viewpoints, including the viewpoint of a person who has no experience with the system they're supported to be overseeing?

I just don't get it.

I'm saying worst case scenario. I think he's competent, and I thikn he's good at financial stuff. I also think even if he's mediocre at those, he'll be better at those than any current board members. We don't need more ex-teachers on the board --we have plenty of those already.

Worst case: he's incompetent and is the lone dissenting vote
Best case: he pushes for more financial controls and auditing, and convinces other board members that's worthwhile so it passes

I'm willing to take that risk.

But why vote for someone who will disagree, won't get anyone else to agree with him, and doesn't know much, when you could instead vote for someone who will disagree, is far more likely to persuade others to agree, and knows something?

Didn't Smondrowski warn them they shouldn't move diversity up to the #1 criteria without opening it to public opinion? And they didn't listen to her.
We need a voice and we need a loud one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying worst case scenario. I think he's competent, and I thikn he's good at financial stuff. I also think even if he's mediocre at those, he'll be better at those than any current board members. We don't need more ex-teachers on the board --we have plenty of those already.

Worst case: he's incompetent and is the lone dissenting vote
Best case: he pushes for more financial controls and auditing, and convinces other board members that's worthwhile so it passes

I'm willing to take that risk.

It all boils down to this, if you think MCPS is going in the right direction, vote for one of the equity candidates.

If you think MCPS is going in the wrong direction, vote for Stephen Austin.

Just look at the response from the candidates for question 7. Austin is the only that says that Jack Smith should not have been retained.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2020-primary-voters-guide/montgomery-county-board-of-education-at-large/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying worst case scenario. I think he's competent, and I thikn he's good at financial stuff. I also think even if he's mediocre at those, he'll be better at those than any current board members. We don't need more ex-teachers on the board --we have plenty of those already.

Worst case: he's incompetent and is the lone dissenting vote
Best case: he pushes for more financial controls and auditing, and convinces other board members that's worthwhile so it passes

I'm willing to take that risk.

It all boils down to this, if you think MCPS is going in the right direction, vote for one of the equity candidates.

If you think MCPS is going in the wrong direction, vote for Stephen Austin.

Just look at the response from the candidates for question 7. Austin is the only that says that Jack Smith should not have been retained.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2020-primary-voters-guide/montgomery-county-board-of-education-at-large/

Wow, didn't realize that. I'm definitely voting for Austin then! Smith should have been tossed when his contract came up for renewal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying worst case scenario. I think he's competent, and I thikn he's good at financial stuff. I also think even if he's mediocre at those, he'll be better at those than any current board members. We don't need more ex-teachers on the board --we have plenty of those already.

Worst case: he's incompetent and is the lone dissenting vote
Best case: he pushes for more financial controls and auditing, and convinces other board members that's worthwhile so it passes

I'm willing to take that risk.

It all boils down to this, if you think MCPS is going in the right direction, vote for one of the equity candidates.

If you think MCPS is going in the wrong direction, vote for Stephen Austin.

Just look at the response from the candidates for question 7. Austin is the only that says that Jack Smith should not have been retained.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2020-primary-voters-guide/montgomery-county-board-of-education-at-large/

Why would it boil down to that? There are 13 candidates in the at-large race. I don't know who you consider the "equity" candidates, but I'm pretty sure that category doesn't include ALL of the 12 candidates who aren't Steve Austin. Vote for someone who isn't an "equity" candidate (whatever that is) and also isn't a guy who can't tolerate disagreement and has zero experience working with/in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Didn't Smondrowski warn them they shouldn't move diversity up to the #1 criteria without opening it to public opinion? And they didn't listen to her.
We need a voice and we need a loud one!

They didn't do that.