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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread. However, the premise of the threat title is wrong -

what business is it of anyone where Stephen Austin works?

(yes, I know people have indicated where he does work, but I'm not going to repost that info). If Mr. Austin has complied with the requisite election and ethics disclosures, he has no obligation to disclose more. In this case, his non-disclosure is apparently warranted because some folks would like to misuse that information to get him fired.

If you're demanding to know where Mr. Austin works, and think he's being dishonest by not disclosing that information, then don't vote for him. Would knowing where Mr. Austin works really change your mind about him? Somehow I doubt it.

This goes for any politician. If you want information about a candidate that s/he isn't legally obligated to disclose, then you have two options: (i) advocate for a change in the disclosure requirements, or (ii) don't vote for that candidate.

Just because someone runs for public office doesn't mean every aspect of their life becomes an open book. Everyone has a right to privacy, except apparently where someone may want that information in order to ruin someone's life. Being a "public figure" doesn't entitle you to know their personal business.

You don't think it's reasonable for the voting public to want to know where a candidate works for pay?

I hope you're not one of the people hollering for greater "transparency" on the BoE and in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread. However, the premise of the threat title is wrong - what business is it of anyone where Stephen Austin works? (yes, I know people have indicated where he does work, but I'm not going to repost that info). If Mr. Austin has complied with the requisite election and ethics disclosures, he has no obligation to disclose more. In this case, his non-disclosure is apparently warranted because some folks would like to misuse that information to get him fired.

If you're demanding to know where Mr. Austin works, and think he's being dishonest by not disclosing that information, then don't vote for him. Would knowing where Mr. Austin works really change your mind about him? Somehow I doubt it.

This goes for any politician. If you want information about a candidate that s/he isn't legally obligated to disclose, then you have two options: (i) advocate for a change in the disclosure requirements, or (ii) don't vote for that candidate.

Just because someone runs for public office doesn't mean every aspect of their life becomes an open book. Everyone has a right to privacy, except apparently where someone may want that information in order to ruin someone's life. Being a "public figure" doesn't entitle you to know their personal business.

There are so many assumptions and gaps in logic in your post. As you noted, he currently works at a Lockheed Martin subsidiary. You then claim that “some folks would like to misuse that information to get him fired.” Really? A multi-billion dollar defense contractor is going to fire a guy because of some sort of pressure coming from “some folks” involved in a local BOE election? C’mon. I assume Mr. Austin is good enough at his job to keep it.

You then say Mr. Austin shouldn’t supply information about his work history because there is no disclosure requirement. That’s true, but it misses the point. Mr. Austin calls himself a “finance guy” and touts that as a key reason to support him. If his expertise is so important, some details about that expertise would give voters the information necessary to evaluate that expertise. A resume that outlines his skills is hardly akin to “every aspect” of his life becoming “an open book.” He worked for a couple of hedge funds. Is that a good thing? A bad thing? When did he work for them? Which ones? Why did he leave? You’d think a guy who portrays himself as a financial expert would want to show what he’s done. But, he hasn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the whole thread. However, the premise of the threat title is wrong - what business is it of anyone where Stephen Austin works? (yes, I know people have indicated where he does work, but I'm not going to repost that info). If Mr. Austin has complied with the requisite election and ethics disclosures, he has no obligation to disclose more. In this case, his non-disclosure is apparently warranted because some folks would like to misuse that information to get him fired.

If you're demanding to know where Mr. Austin works, and think he's being dishonest by not disclosing that information, then don't vote for him. Would knowing where Mr. Austin works really change your mind about him? Somehow I doubt it.

This goes for any politician. If you want information about a candidate that s/he isn't legally obligated to disclose, then you have two options: (i) advocate for a change in the disclosure requirements, or (ii) don't vote for that candidate.

Just because someone runs for public office doesn't mean every aspect of their life becomes an open book. Everyone has a right to privacy, except apparently where someone may want that information in order to ruin someone's life. Being a "public figure" doesn't entitle you to know their personal business.

There are so many assumptions and gaps in logic in your post. As you noted, he currently works at a Lockheed Martin subsidiary. You then claim that “some folks would like to misuse that information to get him fired.” Really? A multi-billion dollar defense contractor is going to fire a guy because of some sort of pressure coming from “some folks” involved in a local BOE election? C’mon. I assume Mr. Austin is good enough at his job to keep it.

You then say Mr. Austin shouldn’t supply information about his work history because there is no disclosure requirement. That’s true, but it misses the point. Mr. Austin calls himself a “finance guy” and touts that as a key reason to support him. If his expertise is so important, some details about that expertise would give voters the information necessary to evaluate that expertise. A resume that outlines his skills is hardly akin to “every aspect” of his life becoming “an open book.” He worked for a couple of hedge funds. Is that a good thing? A bad thing? When did he work for them? Which ones? Why did he leave? You’d think a guy who portrays himself as a financial expert would want to show what he’s done. But, he hasn’t.

Let's take your points one by one.

Yes, big corporations fire people all the time in response to a vocal group. History is replete with examples. They might not fire him for his political positions during a BOE run, but you can bet that if they want to get rid of him to get public pressure off them as a corporation, you can bet they will find a reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with how good someone is at their job.

You concede that where he works isn't a legal requirement. Discussion is over from a legal perspective. What he does for his employer is also confidential unless he's been authorized to speak on its behalf, so any questions you might want to ask him about his work at his employer are off the table. So what's the point of knowing where he works? He could speak in generalities about his finance background and skill set (e.g., budget analysis, auditing, fraud detection, etc... But again, what does this have to do with where he works?

As for his resume and hedge fund experience, the same rule(s) apply. He can't likely discuss what he did at those funds in any detail. He can speak in generalities. In regard to his leaving, he might have an agreement in place that precludes discussions. This doesn't mean he has anything to hide. It's a very common practice with departing employees as part of an exit interview. I bet you've signed an offer letter with a confidentiality clause, as well as an exit letter saying the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Let's take your points one by one.

Yes, big corporations fire people all the time in response to a vocal group. History is replete with examples. They might not fire him for his political positions during a BOE run, but you can bet that if they want to get rid of him to get public pressure off them as a corporation, you can bet they will find a reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with how good someone is at their job.

You concede that where he works isn't a legal requirement. Discussion is over from a legal perspective. What he does for his employer is also confidential unless he's been authorized to speak on its behalf, so any questions you might want to ask him about his work at his employer are off the table. So what's the point of knowing where he works? He could speak in generalities about his finance background and skill set (e.g., budget analysis, auditing, fraud detection, etc... But again, what does this have to do with where he works?

As for his resume and hedge fund experience, the same rule(s) apply. He can't likely discuss what he did at those funds in any detail. He can speak in generalities. In regard to his leaving, he might have an agreement in place that precludes discussions. This doesn't mean he has anything to hide. It's a very common practice with departing employees as part of an exit interview. I bet you've signed an offer letter with a confidentiality clause, as well as an exit letter saying the same thing.

Imagine if Steve Austin took this position while serving on the BoE - essentially, We are only going to tell you the things we're legally obligated to tell you, and anything else is none of your beeswax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's take your points one by one.

Yes, big corporations fire people all the time in response to a vocal group. History is replete with examples. They might not fire him for his political positions during a BOE run, but you can bet that if they want to get rid of him to get public pressure off them as a corporation, you can bet they will find a reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with how good someone is at their job.

You concede that where he works isn't a legal requirement. Discussion is over from a legal perspective. What he does for his employer is also confidential unless he's been authorized to speak on its behalf, so any questions you might want to ask him about his work at his employer are off the table. So what's the point of knowing where he works? He could speak in generalities about his finance background and skill set (e.g., budget analysis, auditing, fraud detection, etc... But again, what does this have to do with where he works?

As for his resume and hedge fund experience, the same rule(s) apply. He can't likely discuss what he did at those funds in any detail. He can speak in generalities. In regard to his leaving, he might have an agreement in place that precludes discussions. This doesn't mean he has anything to hide. It's a very common practice with departing employees as part of an exit interview. I bet you've signed an offer letter with a confidentiality clause, as well as an exit letter saying the same thing.

Imagine if Steve Austin took this position while serving on the BoE - essentially, We are only going to tell you the things we're legally obligated to tell you, and anything else is none of your beeswax.

The BoE has already taken this position with its current membership. It only seems to turn over the materials it would prefer not to make public when it receives a FOIA-type request, and even then, will fight the request if there is truly something to hide. When the BoE does speak voluntarily, it often buries its true motivations in double-speak and hides behind consultants to justify its actions. Mr. Austin seems to want to change this, and that's one of the reasons many people are opposing his candidacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's take your points one by one.

Yes, big corporations fire people all the time in response to a vocal group. History is replete with examples. They might not fire him for his political positions during a BOE run, but you can bet that if they want to get rid of him to get public pressure off them as a corporation, you can bet they will find a reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with how good someone is at their job.

You concede that where he works isn't a legal requirement. Discussion is over from a legal perspective. What he does for his employer is also confidential unless he's been authorized to speak on its behalf, so any questions you might want to ask him about his work at his employer are off the table. So what's the point of knowing where he works? He could speak in generalities about his finance background and skill set (e.g., budget analysis, auditing, fraud detection, etc... But again, what does this have to do with where he works?

As for his resume and hedge fund experience, the same rule(s) apply. He can't likely discuss what he did at those funds in any detail. He can speak in generalities. In regard to his leaving, he might have an agreement in place that precludes discussions. This doesn't mean he has anything to hide. It's a very common practice with departing employees as part of an exit interview. I bet you've signed an offer letter with a confidentiality clause, as well as an exit letter saying the same thing.

Imagine if Steve Austin took this position while serving on the BoE - essentially, We are only going to tell you the things we're legally obligated to tell you, and anything else is none of your beeswax.

If you don't like the disclosure laws and regulations, help change them. If you're not interested in doing that, then don't vote for the guy (not that you apparently planned to do so anyway).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's take your points one by one.

Yes, big corporations fire people all the time in response to a vocal group. History is replete with examples. They might not fire him for his political positions during a BOE run, but you can bet that if they want to get rid of him to get public pressure off them as a corporation, you can bet they will find a reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with how good someone is at their job.

You concede that where he works isn't a legal requirement. Discussion is over from a legal perspective. What he does for his employer is also confidential unless he's been authorized to speak on its behalf, so any questions you might want to ask him about his work at his employer are off the table. So what's the point of knowing where he works? He could speak in generalities about his finance background and skill set (e.g., budget analysis, auditing, fraud detection, etc... But again, what does this have to do with where he works?

As for his resume and hedge fund experience, the same rule(s) apply. He can't likely discuss what he did at those funds in any detail. He can speak in generalities. In regard to his leaving, he might have an agreement in place that precludes discussions. This doesn't mean he has anything to hide. It's a very common practice with departing employees as part of an exit interview. I bet you've signed an offer letter with a confidentiality clause, as well as an exit letter saying the same thing.

Imagine if Steve Austin took this position while serving on the BoE - essentially, We are only going to tell you the things we're legally obligated to tell you, and anything else is none of your beeswax.

If you don't like the disclosure laws and regulations, help change them. If you're not interested in doing that, then don't vote for the guy (not that you apparently planned to do so anyway).

Steve Austin: "I'm not going to tell you where I work! If you don't like it, don't vote for me!"

What a slogan.

Although actually he did finally say where he worked, so I don't know what the PP is trying to accomplish here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's take your points one by one.

Yes, big corporations fire people all the time in response to a vocal group. History is replete with examples. They might not fire him for his political positions during a BOE run, but you can bet that if they want to get rid of him to get public pressure off them as a corporation, you can bet they will find a reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with how good someone is at their job.

You concede that where he works isn't a legal requirement. Discussion is over from a legal perspective. What he does for his employer is also confidential unless he's been authorized to speak on its behalf, so any questions you might want to ask him about his work at his employer are off the table. So what's the point of knowing where he works? He could speak in generalities about his finance background and skill set (e.g., budget analysis, auditing, fraud detection, etc... But again, what does this have to do with where he works?

As for his resume and hedge fund experience, the same rule(s) apply. He can't likely discuss what he did at those funds in any detail. He can speak in generalities. In regard to his leaving, he might have an agreement in place that precludes discussions. This doesn't mean he has anything to hide. It's a very common practice with departing employees as part of an exit interview. I bet you've signed an offer letter with a confidentiality clause, as well as an exit letter saying the same thing.

Imagine if Steve Austin took this position while serving on the BoE - essentially, We are only going to tell you the things we're legally obligated to tell you, and anything else is none of your beeswax.

The BoE has already taken this position with its current membership. It only seems to turn over the materials it would prefer not to make public when it receives a FOIA-type request, and even then, will fight the request if there is truly something to hide. When the BoE does speak voluntarily, it often buries its true motivations in double-speak and hides behind consultants to justify its actions. Mr. Austin seems to want to change this, and that's one of the reasons many people are opposing his candidacy.

Do what I say, not what I do.

[Anonymous]

I will only vote for candidates who favor deportation.

[Anonymous]

I voted for Austin. Get the incumbents OUT!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will only vote for candidates who favor deportation.

This is a school board election. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will only vote for candidates who favor deportation.

Which one of the candidates favor deportation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Austin. Get the incumbents OUT!

There is no incumbent in the at-large race.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t matter. You ppl are trolls for Lynne and Jill. People in this county including several of you have been harassing this guy.

Just stop and only look at facts. Stop assuming as they say it makes an a... out of you.

None of you have kids because if you did you would care about the bs the current board is pulling. Stop being political. Politics having nothing to do with the board unless you are trying to politically assert yourself for a job to control power.



Wake up stop trolling and enjoy the weather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter. You ppl are trolls for Lynne and Jill. People in this county including several of you have been harassing this guy.

Just stop and only look at facts. Stop assuming as they say it makes an a... out of you.

None of you have kids because if you did you would care about the bs the current board is pulling. Stop being political. Politics having nothing to do with the board unless you are trying to politically assert yourself for a job to control power.

Wake up stop trolling and enjoy the weather.

MCPS parent here. Hi! *waves*

I'm didn't vote for "Lynne." I've never met "Jill." I haven't harassed anybody, except maybe my kids to start their schoolwork before 10 pm. I understand that politics has plenty to do with an elected board that oversees a public school system with a $2.6 billion annual operating budget, 166,000 students, and 24,000 employees. And I really, sincerely hope that "Steve", if elected, doesn't dismiss his constituents the way you just dismissed all the posters on DCUM who think your guy is not a good candidate.