Register of deeds under fire

[billybob]

Big Bird wrote:

The bottom line is she does a goods job.

yeah right, have you been smokin crack?
she has a high position and abuses her authority and abuses the taxpayers paying her salary while she is out and about goofing off
you must be related to her

[Outside Looking In]

McStupid wrote:

When someone is getting paid to do a job you expect them to show up. Take our President for example. During a time where there is a bad economy, wars over seas looming higher taxes he's not on vacation getting golf lessons...

First of all ...dont kid yourself.....he is.

2nd. There is a HUGE difference in what you think is politically appropriate in comparison to actions crossing ethical and legal boundaries.

If you don't agree with something politically, then cast your vote accordingly.

But don't drag someone through the mud if they haven't violated any ethical or legal boundaries.

[billybob]

Fraud wrote:

So it is totally ethical to take a paycheck and rarely show up @ work. If she has no worries, she should let her staff be interviewed by either the newspaper or I team. what does Jack Mc Laughlin have to say?

her staff will be silent in fear of her retaliating against whomever speaks negative of her

[This Just In]

billybob wrote:

<quoted text>
yeah right, have you been smokin crack?
she has a high position and abuses her authority and abuses the taxpayers paying her salary while she is out and about goofing off
you must be related to her

Sounds to me like you know all about relatives.....between smoking crack and multiple abuse comments and a name like Billybob.....your wife just may be your cousin.

[McStupid]

Outside Looking In wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all ...dont kid yourself.....he is.
2nd. There is a HUGE difference in what you think is politically appropriate in comparison to actions crossing ethical and legal boundaries.
If you don't agree with something politically, then cast your vote accordingly.
But don't drag someone through the mud if they haven't violated any ethical or legal boundaries.

I'll tell you what. Hire me to plow your driveway and I might swing buy in July to check for snow but I want to get paid every month starting now.

[This Just In]

McStupid wrote:

<quoted text>I'll tell you what. Hire me to plow your driveway and I might swing buy in July to check for snow but I want to get paid every month starting now.

McStupid huh. Sounds about right. You comparison is so far off that's it's laughable.

I can't even try to engage in such ridiculousness.

Go back to the drawing board buddy!

[The True Story]

Outside Looking In wrote:

<quoted text>
Be very careful throwing around fraud accusations. There is unequivocally no evidence that even remotely suggests that the Ms Daigneault has crossed any ethical boundaries or violated any Mass General Laws.
In fact, making such a statement puts you more in line with violating MGLs protecting against slander and libel actions.
Let's bring this back to the real story.....Ms Buckley is crushed by her defeat and seemly will go to any lengths to obtain retribution via slanderous revenge tactics.

You're the one making slanderous attacks.

How can you justify working 3.1 hours a day at a full time job funded by our tax dollars?

Only Reynolds Daigneault and her wacky mother Rosemary would even attempt to justify such a record.

[McStupid]

This Just In wrote:

<quoted text>
McStupid huh. Sounds about right. You comparison is so far off that's it's laughable.
I can't even try to engage in such ridiculousness.
Go back to the drawing board buddy!

No "you comparison" is sad. I'll tell you what, I'll mow your lawn in the morning on Tuesday this week for $500. Pay up!

[Outside Looking In]

The True Story wrote:

<quoted text>
You're the one making slanderous attacks.
How can you justify working 3.1 hours a day at a full time job funded by our tax dollars?
Only Reynolds Daigneault and her wacky mother Rosemary would even attempt to justify such a record.

Classy....I see that you are turning to personal attacks on her family now.

I'm not interesting in discussing your opinions.

At least have the decency to talk about the issues and players at hand....and leave your personal shortcomings for another arena.

I will reiterate my position ....if you don't like the system....then don't like the system. However, as mentioned previously....what legal or ethical boundaries have been overstepped?

[McStupid]

Outside Looking In wrote:

<quoted text>
Classy....I see that you are turning to personal attacks on her family now.
I'm not interesting in discussing your opinions.
At least have the decency to talk about the issues and players at hand....and leave your personal shortcomings for another arena.
I will reiterate my position ....if you don't like the system....then don't like the system. However, as mentioned previously....what legal or ethical boundaries have been overstepped?

The fact that she doesn't show up for work at a position she was elected for is unethical. She cashes a big fat taxpayer funded check every week for doing very little. Although I admit it's not so much a job as a title but at very least try to make pretend you're working for the 90k. You seem to know the system so what exactly does she do? I bet there are people out there who would do the same job for 30k and do it better.

[Outside Looking In]

McStupid wrote:

<quoted text>The fact that she doesn't show up for work at a position she was elected for is unethical. She cashes a big fat taxpayer funded check every week for doing very little. Although I admit it's not so much a job as a title but at very least try to make pretend you're working for the 90k. You seem to know the system so what exactly does she do? I bet there are people out there who would do the same job for 30k and do it better.

I have no idea what the job entails on a day-to-day basis. Similarly, I have no idea what a mayor does everyday all day. This is not case like the Framingham building inspector. He had a boss and specific guidelines to follow. The SOD position does not. That is a systemic issue.

[Outside Looking In]

McStupid wrote:

<quoted text>The fact that she doesn't show up for work at a position she was elected for is unethical. She cashes a big fat taxpayer funded check every week for doing very little. Although I admit it's not so much a job as a title but at very least try to make pretend you're working for the 90k. You seem to know the system so what exactly does she do? I bet there are people out there who would do the same job for 30k and do it better.

I agree. I'm sure there are people who would do the job for much less. But then again...anyone can run for the position.

I also get that having limited in-office hours "looks bad" to the general public. However, that does not mean she is operating outside of the boundaries she is held to. In fact, I don't think those boundaries exist.

[McStupid]

To put it simply. Is it right for 'no show' Govt. workers to get paid 90k while in the private sector it's impossible to give employees a raise? You already admit you have "no idea" what she does to earn 90k. That's not chump change.

[The True Story]

Outside Looking In wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. I'm sure there are people who would do the job for much less. But then again...anyone can run for the position.
I also get that having limited in-office hours "looks bad" to the general public. However, that does not mean she is operating outside of the boundaries she is held to. In fact, I don't think those boundaries exist.

Fine, Kathleen. Just keep in mind that you're convoluted logic isn't going to convince anyone here.

[McStupid]

Outside Looking In wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. I'm sure there are people who would do the job for much less. But then again...anyone can run for the position.
I also get that having limited in-office hours "looks bad" to the general public. However, that does not mean she is operating outside of the boundaries she is held to. In fact, I don't think those boundaries exist.

No problem and I think it's great that she gets paid 90k to only work 3 hours a day. Ah nope. 23k would still be over paying.

[Outside Looking In]

The True Story wrote:

<quoted text>
Fine, Kathleen. Just keep in mind that you're convoluted logic isn't going to convince anyone here.

Sorry...but ....I am not Ms Daigneault

Perhaps a period of reflection will provide some sense for all of us.

Now, if you will please excuse me from this conversation, I have to go to work.

[McStupid]

Outside Looking In wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry...but ....I am not Ms Daigneault
Perhaps a period of reflection will provide some sense for all of us.
Now, if you will please excuse me from this conversation, I have to go to work.

Well we know who won't be going to work this morning...she never does.

[The True Story]

Outside Looking In wrote:

<quoted text>
Classy....I see that you are turning to personal attacks on her family now.
I'm not interesting in discussing your opinions.
At least have the decency to talk about the issues and players at hand....and leave your personal shortcomings for another arena.
I will reiterate my position ....if you don't like the system....then don't like the system. However, as mentioned previously....what legal or ethical boundaries have been overstepped?

Both Kathleen Reynolds Daigneault and Rosemary Reynolds are elected officials and are subject to public scrutiny.

I do not like the idea of a public official who works at working as few hours as possible while collecting a full-time check.

Regarding the city councilor, I spoken with her face-to-face and I've listened to her speak in city council meetings. I stand by my use of the word "wacky".

[Outside Looking In]

The True Story wrote:

<quoted text>
Both Kathleen Reynolds Daigneault and Rosemary Reynolds are elected officials and are subject to public scrutiny.
I do not like the idea of a public official who works at working as few hours as possible while collecting a full-time check.
Regarding the city councilor, I spoken with her face-to-face and I've listened to her speak in city council meetings. I stand by my use of the word "wacky".

Of course public officials are subject to scrutiny Is this political...or is it personal for you. Because it sure seems personal.

So, you don't like your elected officials. Vote a different way or run for office. Are you someone who is action based or do you just like to throw grenades from the comfort of your computer?

There is a process in place. Both to be elected and while elected. Know and follow the process as needed. However, you can't except others to supliment your lack of education and understanding.

Everybody has complaints. Join the club!

So, I guess the real question is, do you expose yourself to potential public scrutiny or are you just an arm-chair warrior who likes to complain about small-town politics?

[The True Story]

Outside Looking In wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course public officials are subject to scrutiny Is this political...or is it personal for you. Because it sure seems personal.
So, you don't like your elected officials. Vote a different way or run for office. Are you someone who is action based or do you just like to throw grenades from the comfort of your computer?
There is a process in place. Both to be elected and while elected. Know and follow the process as needed. However, you can't except others to supliment your lack of education and understanding.
Everybody has complaints. Join the club!
So, I guess the real question is, do you expose yourself to potential public scrutiny or are you just an arm-chair warrior who likes to complain about small-town politics?

You know what's interesting? I can't find any postings from you prior to this story breaking. And now, you're the self-appointed Topix cop, telling me what I can and can't post.

And, nice ad-hominem attack. You don't know my educational background. But, one thing is for sure: I don't intentionally mislead people. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, take a look at the first bullet at http://www.kathyd.com/ . If one did not know better, one might think that Kathy D graduated from the Providence College law school, rather than the New England School of Law. If Providence College had a law school (which it doesn't), the P.C. name would add a lot of credibility and prestige. One more example at an attempt to deceive the public?

"Outside Looking In" - nice attempt to distance yourself from Ms. Daigneault. If you are not she, you're certainly very closely connected.