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

[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.

I don't know who Lynne and Jill are nor care at this point. I did look at Austin's facebook page as it was such a big buzz in other sources. He is not the right guy for the job.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the William Shine from Bethesda, who contributed $200 to Stephen Austin's campaign, is Bill Shine, the Fox News guy and former Trump White House chief of staff?

I also wonder how the North Potomac family that contributed $450 would feel if they were reassigned from Frost MS/Wootton HS, which are further away, to their closer, neighborhood schools of Ridgeview MS/Quince Orchard HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the William Shine from Bethesda, who contributed $200 to Stephen Austin's campaign, is Bill Shine, the Fox News guy and former Trump White House chief of staff?

I also wonder how the North Potomac family that contributed $450 would feel if they were reassigned from Frost MS/Wootton HS, which are further away, to their closer, neighborhood schools of Ridgeview MS/Quince Orchard HS.

Right? Portions of that neighborhood have a 40 to 45 min bus ride to their currently assigned MS, yet the parents seem fine with the loooong bus ride. No complaints there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you’re equating withholding information to avoid being targeted by those who might try to get you fired with a BOE that has hidden its mismanagement for decades? Right. Your lack of a sense of proportionality is astounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you’re equating withholding information to avoid being targeted by those who might try to get you fired with a BOE that has hidden its mismanagement for decades? Right. Your lack of a sense of proportionality is astounding.

I'm equating withholding information with withholding information.

I'm trying to imagine a world where Lockheed Martin financial division would fire one of their money-pushers for using the "neighborhood schools" slogan while running for a seat on the local school board, based on the say-so of some local activists, and utterly failing. Maybe I need to expand my imagination, or maybe the idea is sheer paranoia.

[Anonymous]

People here are focusing on the wrong things. Austin has kids IN MCPS. Most BOE members do not. It's important to have people on the board who really understand things from the perspective of a current parent and who have a vested interest in the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People here are focusing on the wrong things. Austin has kids IN MCPS. Most BOE members do not. It's important to have people on the board who really understand things from the perspective of a current parent and who have a vested interest in the system.

Many of the at-large candidates do, not just Austin.

And, as far as I know, all of the at-large candidates who have kids in MCPS have done more volunteering with MCPS than Steve Austin, who hasn't done ANY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you’re equating withholding information to avoid being targeted by those who might try to get you fired with a BOE that has hidden its mismanagement for decades? Right. Your lack of a sense of proportionality is astounding.

I'm equating withholding information with withholding information.

I'm trying to imagine a world where Lockheed Martin financial division would fire one of their money-pushers for using the "neighborhood schools" slogan while running for a seat on the local school board, based on the say-so of some local activists, and utterly failing. Maybe I need to expand my imagination, or maybe the idea is sheer paranoia.

Nope. Proportionality and justification for withholding information. Also, legal disclosure requirements. You still don’t seem to understand those concepts.

Activists will use anything they can, even making things up, to get him fired. Doesn’t matter if it isn’t true. He will be tainted in the eyes of his employer.

You must live in a world where people never invoke the mantra that the ends justify the means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Proportionality and justification for withholding information. Also, legal disclosure requirements. You still don’t seem to understand those concepts.

Activists will use anything they can, even making things up, to get him fired. Doesn’t matter if it isn’t true. He will be tainted in the eyes of his employer.

You must live in a world where people never invoke the mantra that the ends justify the means.

Jaw-dropping levels of paranoia here. Really astonishing, even by DCUM standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Proportionality and justification for withholding information. Also, legal disclosure requirements. You still don’t seem to understand those concepts.

Activists will use anything they can, even making things up, to get him fired. Doesn’t matter if it isn’t true. He will be tainted in the eyes of his employer.

You must live in a world where people never invoke the mantra that the ends justify the means.

Jaw-dropping levels of paranoia here. Really astonishing, even by DCUM standards.

Nope. Just being realistic. Let’s add realpolitik to the concepts you don’t understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Proportionality and justification for withholding information. Also, legal disclosure requirements. You still don’t seem to understand those concepts.

Activists will use anything they can, even making things up, to get him fired. Doesn’t matter if it isn’t true. He will be tainted in the eyes of his employer.

You must live in a world where people never invoke the mantra that the ends justify the means.

Jaw-dropping levels of paranoia here. Really astonishing, even by DCUM standards.

Nope. Just being realistic. Let’s add realpolitik to the concepts you don’t understand.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the William Shine from Bethesda, who contributed $200 to Stephen Austin's campaign, is Bill Shine, the Fox News guy and former Trump White House chief of staff?

I also wonder how the North Potomac family that contributed $450 would feel if they were reassigned from Frost MS/Wootton HS, which are further away, to their closer, neighborhood schools of Ridgeview MS/Quince Orchard HS.

Notice how dirty the anti-Austin people are -- naming names of campaign donors. Yes, this is in the campaign finance reports, but it's like they are picking apart each donor and their address. This has really gotten out of hand.

Who makes a donation to a campaign with the concern their address and name will be discussed in detail by the campaign's opponents?

[Anonymous]

I'm concerned about Mr Austin's angry responses. I looked at his webpage last night and his tact is to go after his opponents and not really focus on the issues. He needs to stick to the facts and not trash others. We do not need anger we need results.

Plus he doesn't seem to have a lot of experience which is concerning.

And some ties to some extremely conservative groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the William Shine from Bethesda, who contributed $200 to Stephen Austin's campaign, is Bill Shine, the Fox News guy and former Trump White House chief of staff?

I also wonder how the North Potomac family that contributed $450 would feel if they were reassigned from Frost MS/Wootton HS, which are further away, to their closer, neighborhood schools of Ridgeview MS/Quince Orchard HS.

Notice how dirty the anti-Austin people are -- naming names of campaign donors. Yes, this is in the campaign finance reports, but it's like they are picking apart each donor and their address. This has really gotten out of hand.

Who makes a donation to a campaign with the concern their address and name will be discussed in detail by the campaign's opponents?

Why is wrong to check out his donors? We should be able to do that for all parties.

As for "dirty anti -Austin" , his own website is not what I would call nice. He's definitely got some anger issues and doesn't exactly focus on what he will do.

Give some examples of what he brings to the table experience wise?

On Facebook someone asked that question of him and he didn't answer, he just sent them to his website. That has me concerned. He should be all over the answers to what he want to do and what's his plan outlined. Not just oh my opponent is a .......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the William Shine from Bethesda, who contributed $200 to Stephen Austin's campaign, is Bill Shine, the Fox News guy and former Trump White House chief of staff?

I also wonder how the North Potomac family that contributed $450 would feel if they were reassigned from Frost MS/Wootton HS, which are further away, to their closer, neighborhood schools of Ridgeview MS/Quince Orchard HS.

Notice how dirty the anti-Austin people are -- naming names of campaign donors. Yes, this is in the campaign finance reports, but it's like they are picking apart each donor and their address. This has really gotten out of hand.

Who makes a donation to a campaign with the concern their address and name will be discussed in detail by the campaign's opponents?

Why is wrong to check out his donors? We should be able to do that for all parties.

As for "dirty anti -Austin" , his own website is not what I would call nice. He's definitely got some anger issues and doesn't exactly focus on what he will do.

Give some examples of what he brings to the table experience wise?

On Facebook someone asked that question of him and he didn't answer, he just sent them to his website. That has me concerned. He should be all over the answers to what he want to do and what's his plan outlined. Not just oh my opponent is a .......

I"m not on his Facebook group, but I don't see anyone calling out individual donors, anywhere, for the other BOE candidates.

People are calling out the PACs donating to each campaign, which I think is fair game. It's like the anti-Austin supporters are trying to intimidate individuals from donating to his campaign.