08-24-2012, 07:30 PM
There has been a temptation to deride the clerk's actions as incompetent. If you commit a series of reckless acts knowing that the probable consequence is ruin, the law will imply an intent that takes the action out of mere negligence. I am not prepared to call that, yet as I think we need more information. The state has already called her incompetent. But I am not so sure. The pattern is so distinct, and so clearly ruinous of the office that it almost appears intentional. To what end? To whose end?
Well, no matter. Her certified incompetence, and we can only hope that that is what it is (by that I mean that negligence is a best case scenario) is enough to get her ejected. A resolution asking that she get help is wholly inadequate. My resolution would be that she get help at the unemployment office and that the two LIVING fired workers be brought back immediately (with their trespasses to be dealt with through progressive discipline).
And yes, nonfeasance would count. In this case, I think you have someone tampering with the brakes, and then watching while the car goes over the cliff and engaging in nonfeasance while it does.
She must go. I need everyone to contact their representatives. Code flaming blue.
Well, no matter. Her certified incompetence, and we can only hope that that is what it is (by that I mean that negligence is a best case scenario) is enough to get her ejected. A resolution asking that she get help is wholly inadequate. My resolution would be that she get help at the unemployment office and that the two LIVING fired workers be brought back immediately (with their trespasses to be dealt with through progressive discipline).
And yes, nonfeasance would count. In this case, I think you have someone tampering with the brakes, and then watching while the car goes over the cliff and engaging in nonfeasance while it does.
She must go. I need everyone to contact their representatives. Code flaming blue.