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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because I think he does know a lot.

Political or education advocacy experience (public elected offices held and when, as well as unsuccessful campaigns for office and which years; can include PTA or similar experience; do not include political party positions): None

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which candidate said that a kid’s school enrollment sHould be determined every year by roll a dice every year?

Ooo! Ooo! I know the answer to that question!

None of them.

Yep. They keep rolling this one out. We’ve seen the email and it doesn’t say that. Told you his supporters are nuts!

Do you have a link to the email because I really did think that Lynn Harris said that. (not sarcastic)

[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/

It boils down to this single issue... if you don't want adjacent clusters to be looked at to alleviate over crowding and would rather have your child in over crowded schools or have your taxes raised so they can build/expand schools then vote for Austin because he is against looking at adjacent clusters.

If you want your boundary to remain status quo in the cluster then sure vote for Austin. He's not a "shake things up" person. He's the "keep it status quo so that our property values are kept safe" person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

It boils down to this single issue... if you don't want adjacent clusters to be looked at to alleviate over crowding and would rather have your child in over crowded schools or have your taxes raised so they can build/expand schools then vote for Austin because he is against looking at adjacent clusters.

If you want your boundary to remain status quo in the cluster then sure vote for Austin. He's not a "shake things up" person. He's the "keep it status quo so that our property values are kept safe" person.

He also wants financial accounatbilty and an independent auditor. No idea why we havent' had that all along, but I guess that qualifies as "shake things up" given the BOE hasn't done this so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which candidate said that a kid’s school enrollment sHould be determined every year by roll a dice every year?

Ooo! Ooo! I know the answer to that question!

None of them.

Yep. They keep rolling this one out. We’ve seen the email and it doesn’t say that. Told you his supporters are nuts!

Do you have a link to the email because I really did think that Lynn Harris said that. (not sarcastic)

She didn't say that a kid's school enrollment should be determined every year by a roll of the dice. She asked how things would be different, in a school district where some people firmly believe that the school conveys with the house, if kids were assigned to schools randomly rather than by address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
He also wants financial accounatbilty and an independent auditor. No idea why we havent' had that all along, but I guess that qualifies as "shake things up" given the BOE hasn't done this so far.

$2.5 billion budget and no auditor. If it was a private company of that size, the CEO would be tossed for not having it. Why has the current BOE been against it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He also wants financial accounatbilty and an independent auditor. No idea why we havent' had that all along, but I guess that qualifies as "shake things up" given the BOE hasn't done this so far.

Everybody says they want financial accountability. Nobody says they don't. It starts getting trickier, though, when you have to define exactly what you mean by "financial accountability."

As for having an IG - some school districts have them, some school districts don't have them, and do you think that somebody who explicitly defended the booing, jeering parents at Julius West MS is likely to persuade the other members of the BoE to create an IG position (or even to break for lunch)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He also wants financial accounatbilty and an independent auditor. No idea why we havent' had that all along, but I guess that qualifies as "shake things up" given the BOE hasn't done this so far.

Everybody says they want financial accountability. Nobody says they don't. It starts getting trickier, though, when you have to define exactly what you mean by "financial accountability."

As for having an IG - some school districts have them, some school districts don't have them, and do you think that somebody who explicitly defended the booing, jeering parents at Julius West MS is likely to persuade the other members of the BoE to create an IG position (or even to break for lunch)?

FCPS is a similar size to MCPS and they have one. People have asked for it for years. No action by the BOE. Are any other BOE candidates even calling for one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He also wants financial accounatbilty and an independent auditor. No idea why we havent' had that all along, but I guess that qualifies as "shake things up" given the BOE hasn't done this so far.

Everybody says they want financial accountability. Nobody says they don't. It starts getting trickier, though, when you have to define exactly what you mean by "financial accountability."

As for having an IG - some school districts have them, some school districts don't have them, and do you think that somebody who explicitly defended the booing, jeering parents at Julius West MS is likely to persuade the other members of the BoE to create an IG position (or even to break for lunch)?

FCPS is a similar size to MCPS and they have one. People have asked for it for years. No action by the BOE. Are any other BOE candidates even calling for one?

I don't know.

Are any other candidates evidently unaware of the fact that civil servants are not political appointees? That seems like something a BoE member should have a good understanding of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He also wants financial accounatbilty and an independent auditor. No idea why we havent' had that all along, but I guess that qualifies as "shake things up" given the BOE hasn't done this so far.

Everybody says they want financial accountability. Nobody says they don't. It starts getting trickier, though, when you have to define exactly what you mean by "financial accountability."

As for having an IG - some school districts have them, some school districts don't have them, and do you think that somebody who explicitly defended the booing, jeering parents at Julius West MS is likely to persuade the other members of the BoE to create an IG position (or even to break for lunch)?

Clearly you’re in the camp that is going to keep the BOE as it is.
As we start replacing the board members, stuff will get done. You gotta start somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He also wants financial accounatbilty and an independent auditor. No idea why we havent' had that all along, but I guess that qualifies as "shake things up" given the BOE hasn't done this so far.

Everybody says they want financial accountability. Nobody says they don't. It starts getting trickier, though, when you have to define exactly what you mean by "financial accountability."

As for having an IG - some school districts have them, some school districts don't have them, and do you think that somebody who explicitly defended the booing, jeering parents at Julius West MS is likely to persuade the other members of the BoE to create an IG position (or even to break for lunch)?

Clearly you’re in the camp that is going to keep the BOE as it is.
As we start replacing the board members, stuff will get done. You gotta start somewhere.

That's silly, PP. Nobody in the at-large race is an incumbent. Each one of the 13 candidates, if elected, will be a replacement for a current board member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He also wants financial accounatbilty and an independent auditor. No idea why we havent' had that all along, but I guess that qualifies as "shake things up" given the BOE hasn't done this so far.

Everybody says they want financial accountability. Nobody says they don't. It starts getting trickier, though, when you have to define exactly what you mean by "financial accountability."

As for having an IG - some school districts have them, some school districts don't have them, and do you think that somebody who explicitly defended the booing, jeering parents at Julius West MS is likely to persuade the other members of the BoE to create an IG position (or even to break for lunch)?

Clearly you’re in the camp that is going to keep the BOE as it is.
As we start replacing the board members, stuff will get done. You gotta start somewhere.

That's silly, PP. Nobody in the at-large race is an incumbent. Each one of the 13 candidates, if elected, will be a replacement for a current board member.

You’re silly to take things so literally, and also condescending. Clearly you want another “yes” person to go along with the rest of them. One who does not question anything. Does that make more sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He also wants financial accounatbilty and an independent auditor. No idea why we havent' had that all along, but I guess that qualifies as "shake things up" given the BOE hasn't done this so far.

Everybody says they want financial accountability. Nobody says they don't. It starts getting trickier, though, when you have to define exactly what you mean by "financial accountability."

As for having an IG - some school districts have them, some school districts don't have them, and do you think that somebody who explicitly defended the booing, jeering parents at Julius West MS is likely to persuade the other members of the BoE to create an IG position (or even to break for lunch)?

Clearly you’re in the camp that is going to keep the BOE as it is.
As we start replacing the board members, stuff will get done. You gotta start somewhere.

That's silly, PP. Nobody in the at-large race is an incumbent. Each one of the 13 candidates, if elected, will be a replacement for a current board member.

You’re silly to take things so literally, and also condescending. Clearly you want another “yes” person to go along with the rest of them. One who does not question anything. Does that make more sense?

Not really. Every one of the other candidates with more experience with MCPS than Steve Austin - which is basically all of the other candidates - has plenty of experience questioning MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not really. Every one of the other candidates with more experience with MCPS than Steve Austin - which is basically all of the other candidates - has plenty of experience questioning MCPS.

Only Austin said that the superintendent's contract should not have been renewed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not really. Every one of the other candidates with more experience with MCPS than Steve Austin - which is basically all of the other candidates - has plenty of experience questioning MCPS.

Only Austin said that the superintendent's contract should not have been renewed.

Well, if that's your single issue as a single-issue voter, then go for it.

I, personally, don't think it would be a good idea for MCPS to embark on its 4th superintendent search in 9 years -- or to fire 2 superintendents in a row -- but everyone gets to have their own opinion about that.