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

[Anonymous]

For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
She is not on the ballot but she is the leading actor of an ongoing lawsuit that affects many MCPS families.

You know when I lived in New England and New York, I didn't hear all these talks about race.

After I moved to Progressive Montgomery County, I was startled to read: "EVERYTHING IS ABOUT RACE."

Then I realized that I'm below Mason-Dixon line, and I'm in the American South.

She's not on the ballot.
She's not on the ballot.
She's not on the ballot.
She's not on the ballot.

If you didn't hear talk about race in New England and New York, you weren't paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

I think the boundary analysis woke up a lot of people to really look at what MCPS does and how they do it. We have 15 candidates running for this seat. When has it ever been that high? No matter what positions the candidates may take, the fact there are so many candidates shows that a lot of people finally saw what's going on at MCPS and want to change it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

I think the boundary analysis woke up a lot of people to really look at what MCPS does and how they do it. We have 15 candidates running for this seat. When has it ever been that high? No matter what positions the candidates may take, the fact there are so many candidates shows that a lot of people finally saw what's going on at MCPS and want to change it.

No, 13.

In 2018, there were 8 candidates for the at-large seat. In 2016, there were 5 candidates for the at-large seat. In 2014, there were 4 candidates for the at-large seat.

I don't think the increase shows increased dissatisfaction with MCPS; I think it shows increased willingness to run for something (which I support).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She is not on the ballot but she is the leading actor of an ongoing lawsuit that affects many MCPS families.

You know when I lived in New England and New York, I didn't hear all these talks about race.

After I moved to Progressive Montgomery County, I was startled to read: "EVERYTHING IS ABOUT RACE."

Then I realized that I'm below Mason-Dixon line, and I'm in the American South.

She's not on the ballot.
She's not on the ballot.
She's not on the ballot.
She's not on the ballot.

If you didn't hear talk about race in New England and New York, you weren't paying attention.

+1 seriously

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/de-blasio-considering-eliminating-gifted-programs-to-achieve-racial-parity-in-nyc-schools/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

I think the boundary analysis woke up a lot of people to really look at what MCPS does and how they do it. We have 15 candidates running for this seat. When has it ever been that high? No matter what positions the candidates may take, the fact there are so many candidates shows that a lot of people finally saw what's going on at MCPS and want to change it.

It was also the fact that hundreds of parents spoke at BOE meetings, but were essentially ignored in favor of the BOE's agenda. On top of that, the BOE continues to move the goalposts. I keep hearing that they BOE isn't considering busing as part of the boundary changes, but the BOE hasn't said that it absolutely will NOT consider busing kids to achieve its goal of economic diversity. It's nice that the BOE is pushing what it's for (economic diversity), but won't be just as clear about what it's not for. It strikes me that the BOE wants to keep the option of busing open, but not say that it's for busing, which might cause even more backlash than has already occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

I think the boundary analysis woke up a lot of people to really look at what MCPS does and how they do it. We have 15 candidates running for this seat. When has it ever been that high? No matter what positions the candidates may take, the fact there are so many candidates shows that a lot of people finally saw what's going on at MCPS and want to change it.

Sure, but most of the people running have some background in education or have done some volunteering. Not so Austin. Other candidates are also talking about boundary changes but are not as divisive as Austin. Other candidates also want "neighborhood schools", but only Austin has indicated that returning to the previous FAA policy was his #1 priority. Seriously.. with all the issues that MCPS is facing, that should not be the #1 priority right now. It's only the #1 priority for the select few who have drunk the "cross county busing" koolaid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

You seem to be implying that the bold text above isn't a valid reason to take an interest in BOE politics? I can't think of a better reason than something that affects one's own children is often the catalyst for people to run for a BOE seat. Also, property values isn't an irrelevant consideration. What about higher taxes in MOCO slated for funding education? (which then allows MOCO to move money around - kinda like state lottery money). That's also a financial consideration (like property values), but based on your logic, nothing that has a financial impact on people living in MOCO is an "approved" reason to get involved with BOE politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

I think the boundary analysis woke up a lot of people to really look at what MCPS does and how they do it. We have 15 candidates running for this seat. When has it ever been that high? No matter what positions the candidates may take, the fact there are so many candidates shows that a lot of people finally saw what's going on at MCPS and want to change it.

It was also the fact that hundreds of parents spoke at BOE meetings, but were essentially ignored in favor of the BOE's agenda. On top of that, the BOE continues to move the goalposts. I keep hearing that they BOE isn't considering busing as part of the boundary changes, but the BOE hasn't said that it absolutely will NOT consider busing kids to achieve its goal of economic diversity. It's nice that the BOE is pushing what it's for (economic diversity), but won't be just as clear about what it's not for. It strikes me that the BOE wants to keep the option of busing open, but not say that it's for busing, which might cause even more backlash than has already occurred.

That was indicated in the memo by Jack Smith to the BOE for the upcounty boundary changes but some of you, for some reason, refuse to believe the words written in black and white. I think it's called "fear mongering" and "paranoia".


They have and will continue to look at "busing", but not "cross county busing". There neighborhoods in the W cluster that currently have a 40+min bus ride to their W zoned school even though there are non W schools that are closer. Those boundaries were created a while ago; new boundaries may also involve a 40min bus ride to their new school. So, that has not changed since the "especially" word was added to the policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

So you're saying that demanding fiscal responsibility by MCPS won't make schools better? Somehow I think that working as a BOE member to reduce fraud, waste and abuse is a great reason to run for the BOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

You seem to be implying that the bold text above isn't a valid reason to take an interest in BOE politics? I can't think of a better reason than something that affects one's own children is often the catalyst for people to run for a BOE seat. Also, property values isn't an irrelevant consideration. What about higher taxes in MOCO slated for funding education? (which then allows MOCO to move money around - kinda like state lottery money). That's also a financial consideration (like property values), but based on your logic, nothing that has a financial impact on people living in MOCO is an "approved" reason to get involved with BOE politics.

That's an interesting point.. we have overcrowded schools adjacent to under capacity schools. If we don't look at adjacent boundaries to try to help alleviate overcrowding, then we have to build more, and that probably means more taxes because MCPS budget is already short as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

So you're saying that demanding fiscal responsibility by MCPS won't make schools better? Somehow I think that working as a BOE member to reduce fraud, waste and abuse is a great reason to run for the BOE.

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

So you're saying that demanding fiscal responsibility by MCPS won't make schools better? Somehow I think that working as a BOE member to reduce fraud, waste and abuse is a great reason to run for the BOE.

That's not Austin's #1 priority. Removing the word "especially" is his #1 priority, even if it means MCPS has to spend time, money and effort on fighting a lawsuit about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

So you're saying that demanding fiscal responsibility by MCPS won't make schools better? Somehow I think that working as a BOE member to reduce fraud, waste and abuse is a great reason to run for the BOE.

Once again, having experience in "investments" is not the same as having experience with "budgets". IMO, he knows nothing about managing school budgets. I'm not saying the current BOE is great, but I don't think Austin has any experience to root out fraud or waste in education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the bottom line on Stephen Austin is that, until the boundary issue arose and raised concerns in his mind that his property value might decline and his kids might have to attend schools different than the ones he assumed they would attend, he did absolutely nothing to help make county schools better. Nothing. Every other candidate for the At-Large seat has at least done SOMETHING to address issues/concerns in MCPS. His Facebook posts consistently show him to be a thin-skinned Johnny come lately who thinks simple questions about his touted financial expertise are just too personal and certainly not to be scrutinized by the voters he wants to represent. You want an independent audit of MCPS books? I am with you! You want an IG? I am with you. You want a guy who had no interest in anything MCPS just a few months ago? No thanks.

You seem to be implying that the bold text above isn't a valid reason to take an interest in BOE politics? I can't think of a better reason than something that affects one's own children is often the catalyst for people to run for a BOE seat. Also, property values isn't an irrelevant consideration. What about higher taxes in MOCO slated for funding education? (which then allows MOCO to move money around - kinda like state lottery money). That's also a financial consideration (like property values), but based on your logic, nothing that has a financial impact on people living in MOCO is an "approved" reason to get involved with BOE politics.

That's an interesting point.. we have overcrowded schools adjacent to under capacity schools. If we don't look at adjacent boundaries to try to help alleviate overcrowding, then we have to build more, and that probably means more taxes because MCPS budget is already short as it is.

Another idea for saving money, and reducing busing, is to have high school kids take public buses (RideOn, Metrobus) to school where possible, instead of providing a separate school bus.

He opposes that idea, though.