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

[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.

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.

I urge you to read the latest response from BOE in the Clarksburg case.

BOE and the Superintendent repeatedly told the people one story and now told a judge a completely different story, regarding Policy FAA and Clarksburg redistricting.

They now say that there is "no evidence" that FAA prioritizes diversity, yet multiple board members talked over and over again on camera that the change was to give diversity more weight over other factors.

They now say that the Rocky Hill/Neelsville swap was to "minimize split articulations“, yet the Superintendent wrote repeatedly in his recommendations that this was to reduce FARMS disparities.

In the past, all these legal papers are hidden from the public. Now they are posted on the internet for all to see.

When people start looking, they see one thing: dishonesty.

[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.

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.

Plus it's not like a budget is a budget is a budget. The MCPS budget reflects MCPS operations. To understand the MCPS budget, it helps to know something about MCPS operations.

[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.

This is the problem with some MoCo politics. They value diversity in many areas, but not in viewpoints. If you don't agree with them, then your viewpoint is not valid and you should be shunned.

Look at this Austin thing with a bunch of councilmembers ganging up on him and signing a letter against him. Now I fully understand that many people may not agree with his views, but why target him? The information on all candidates standings is readily available online -- the voters can make their own decisions without councilmembers bullying people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Plus it's not like a budget is a budget is a budget. The MCPS budget reflects MCPS operations. To understand the MCPS budget, it helps to know something about MCPS operations.

Like BOE member Docca? She doesn't even use email. Is she qualified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

? I have never heard of that option, and why does he oppose that idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I urge you to read the latest response from BOE in the Clarksburg case.

BOE and the Superintendent repeatedly told the people one story and now told a judge a completely different story, regarding Policy FAA and Clarksburg redistricting.

They now say that there is "no evidence" that FAA prioritizes diversity, yet multiple board members talked over and over again on camera that the change was to give diversity more weight over other factors.

They now say that the Rocky Hill/Neelsville swap was to "minimize split articulations“, yet the Superintendent wrote repeatedly in his recommendations that this was to reduce FARMS disparities.

In the past, all these legal papers are hidden from the public. Now they are posted on the internet for all to see.

When people start looking, they see one thing: dishonesty.

Obviously the Rocky Hill/Neelsville reassignments reduce split articulation. That was obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention.

Also, it's true that there's no evidence that the revised policy prioritizes diversity. Maybe some board members intended for the revision to prioritize diversity, but the fact is that it doesn't. All you have to do to figure this out is read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Plus it's not like a budget is a budget is a budget. The MCPS budget reflects MCPS operations. To understand the MCPS budget, it helps to know something about MCPS operations.

Like BOE member Docca? She doesn't even use email. Is she qualified?

Not using email does not mean she doesn't understand about budgets.

Trump doesn't use email, either, from what I understand. Does that mean he is not qualified to lead our economy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

? I have never heard of that option, and why does he oppose that idea?

"MCPS is accountable for those students and that is one horrible incident away from being another scandal."

https://twitter.com/Stephen_Austin_/status/1265117716479959041

There are plenty of places in the US, not to mention outside the US, where high school students get to school via regular public transportation instead of a special school bus system. Not to mention that right now, right here in MCPS, plenty of high school students get to or from school on public transportation. Maybe he doesn't know about that because his kids are still too young.

[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.

This is the problem with some MoCo politics. They value diversity in many areas, but not in viewpoints. If you don't agree with them, then your viewpoint is not valid and you should be shunned.

Look at this Austin thing with a bunch of councilmembers ganging up on him and signing a letter against him. Now I fully understand that many people may not agree with his views, but why target him? The information on all candidates standings is readily available online -- the voters can make their own decisions without councilmembers bullying people.

There are other folks who are running who don't necessarily agree with the BOE, but they have not targeted them. Austin is divisive, with zero background or experience in education. It's a terrible combo for a BOE member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

? I have never heard of that option, and why does he oppose that idea?

"MCPS is accountable for those students and that is one horrible incident away from being another scandal."

https://twitter.com/Stephen_Austin_/status/1265117716479959041

There are plenty of places in the US, not to mention outside the US, where high school students get to school via regular public transportation instead of a special school bus system. Not to mention that right now, right here in MCPS, plenty of high school students get to or from school on public transportation. Maybe he doesn't know about that because his kids are still too young.

I let my 14 yr old ride the metro by himself this past summer. I guess I was an irresponsible parent.

MCPS is not responsible for students outside of school grounds. So I guess he is saying that he wants them to babysit HS kids enroute to the school.

I actually think rideon metro is a good idea in some cases, like if there is a metro bus stop in a central place in the neighborhood, and the bus at that time is not crowded, and the bus drops the kids off very near the HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is the problem with some MoCo politics. They value diversity in many areas, but not in viewpoints. If you don't agree with them, then your viewpoint is not valid and you should be shunned.

Look at this Austin thing with a bunch of councilmembers ganging up on him and signing a letter against him. Now I fully understand that many people may not agree with his views, but why target him? The information on all candidates standings is readily available online -- the voters can make their own decisions without councilmembers bullying people.

I think that some of the people on this board don't understand the democratic political process.

Elected officials get involved in elections, just like anyone else. They make endorsements, they hold meet-and-greets, they contribute to campaigns, etc., just like anyone else. That's not "ganging up" or "bullying" or shutting down "viewpoint diversity". It's how the democratic political process works.

Also, there's no such thing as affirmative action in elective office for people with minority viewpoints. If the Board of Education is lacking in "viewpoint diversity," it's because the voters elected multiple candidates who have the same point of view.

Steve Austin should have spent less time supporting the people who boo and jeer at public meetings and bemoaning his victimization, and more time persuading the voters that he has something positive to offer and will be able to work with people to achieve his policy goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
MCPS is not responsible for students outside of school grounds. So I guess he is saying that he wants them to babysit HS kids enroute to the school.

Sure they are. If a kid gets hurt while riding an MCPS school bus, it can be MCPS' responsibility.

[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.

No, I’m not saying that at all. I absolutely want more oversight of MCPS. The BOE is completely outgunned by MCPS staff. The BOE rely far too much on what the MCPS staff tell them is so. As I said in the post, I welcome an audit and/or an independent IG. I just don’t trust a guy who talks about transparency, but is then not at all transparent about his own work history as a “finance guy.”

As for the issue of property values and kids attending local schools, Mr. Austin can’t have it both ways. He says he wants all kids to get a fair shot at a good education, but then doesn’t want to change the boundaries to make that more of a possibility. Let’s be honest here. The quality of the facilities and opportunities in MCPS is closely tied to zip codes and boundary lines. I think it is fair to say, given his own statements on the issue, that Mr. Austin bought his home expecting that his kids would go to certain schools. I think that expectation is shared by many in MoCo simply BECAUSE it has been about 40 years since the last systemwide boundary study was done. But, as with any house purchase, there are no guarantees on what could happen to increase or decrease value. According to public records, Mr. Austin’s house has appreciated nicely since he bought it. I think that’s great. But if it it dips a bit because of a boundary change, since he has been in the house for just a few years, I am quite certain it will rebound nicely over the remaining years of his note, assuming he went with a 15 or 30- year fixed. Perhaps he didn’t. Maybe he went with an ARM with a balloon payment. That’s riskier, of course, but he was a “hedge fund guy” so he is clearly not averse to risky investing.

[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.

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.

No, I’m not saying that at all. I absolutely want more oversight of MCPS. The BOE is completely outgunned by MCPS staff. The BOE rely far too much on what the MCPS staff tell them is so. As I said in the post, I welcome an audit and/or an independent IG. I just don’t trust a guy who talks about transparency, but is then not at all transparent about his own work history as a “finance guy.”

As for the issue of property values and kids attending local schools, Mr. Austin can’t have it both ways.

Yes he can.

He says he wants all kids to get a fair shot at a good education, but then doesn’t want to change the boundaries to make that more of a possibility.

Boundary changes don't guaranty a fair shot at education.

Let’s be honest here.

As if we weren't being honest before? Usually when someone says this, they're about to tell something that isn't quite the truth...

The quality of the facilities and opportunities in MCPS is closely tied to zip codes and boundary lines.

Nope. The biggest factor in educational quality is not the facilities, or even the teachers for that matter. It's parental involvement in a child's education. Kids can learn in an outdoor tent if they're given instruction and pushed/inspired to put in the work. Based on your logic, none of the kids from poorer neighborhoods can be sent to any school that receives less money (i.e. facilities upgrades, lower number of teachers, etc...)

I think it is fair to say, given his own statements on the issue, that Mr. Austin bought his home expecting that his kids would go to certain schools.

Hence his position, "neighborhood schools" - not economic diversity.

I think that expectation is shared by many in MoCo simply BECAUSE it has been about 40 years since the last systemwide boundary study was done. But, as with any house purchase, there are no guarantees on what could happen to increase or decrease value. According to public records, Mr. Austin’s house has appreciated nicely since he bought it. I think that’s great. But if it it dips a bit because of a boundary change, since he has been in the house for just a few years, I am quite certain it will rebound nicely over the remaining years of his note, assuming he went with a 15 or 30- year fixed. Perhaps he didn’t. Maybe he went with an ARM with a balloon payment. That’s riskier, of course, but he was a “hedge fund guy” so he is clearly not averse to risky investing.

He's not all about property values, never has been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
MCPS is not responsible for students outside of school grounds. So I guess he is saying that he wants them to babysit HS kids enroute to the school.

Sure they are. If a kid gets hurt while riding an MCPS school bus, it can be MCPS' responsibility.

yes... Because the MCPS school bus is the property of MCPS where as the metro bus is not. He wants MCPS to be responsible for a HS kid en route to the school.