Hey, there! Log in / Register
West Roxbury resident wants to make Steve Murphy's reign at the Registry of Deeds a short one
By adamg on Fri, 12/29/2017 - 9:56pm
Ed. note: Forde's neighborhood corrected.
Katie Forde today announced her campaign for Suffolk County Register of Deeds in the 2018 elections.
Forde would be running against Steve Murphy, who defeated her and several other candidates in the Democratic primary last year on his way to a general-election win to fill the unexpired two-year portion of Mickey Roache's term in the normally obscure job overseeing the office where people go to record deeds, liens, easements and the like in the four communities that make up Suffolk County.
She'll be running as a woman and a progressive:
For me, the worst part of 2017 was that there was so much to be enraged about; the best part was feeling that the Women’s March never really ended. We have been channeling the energy and activism created by that event into a surge of female candidates up and down the ballot because local government is incredibly important to residents’ every day quality of life. The work of the Register of Deeds affects every homeowner, and can transform and empower communities by helping to create more homeownership. It must be led by someone with a vision for using the office as more than a retirement plan for ousted city councilors.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Online Records/Data at Register of Deeds.
A lot more of the Records/Data at the Register of Deeds can be made available online!... and in more a convenient format
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/rod/rodidx.htm
Absolutely!
Absolutely!
What technology improvements can be made?
She's playing the gender card
She's playing the gender card awfully hard.
Does it really matter whether the Register of Deeds has a penis or a vagina?
"Does It Matter?"
Definitely written by someone with a penis, who doesn't need to consider how hard it has been historically for people with vaginas to get elected. She is simply pointing out there has been a surge in women winning elections lately. For good reason.
I would say that, yes, it really does matter for the Registry of Deeds, when the penis in power is merely interested in collecting a fat salary and pension while the vagina opponent has relevant experience and some sensible plans to reorganize the office and improve its services.
Sometimes the gender card needs to be played awfully hard. For example, when there's huge gender disparity in a group of, say, elected officials.
If we had had many more vaginas in the State House in recent years, we might be seeing fewer reports of sexual harassment, discrimination, and other dickhead behavior there. And I don't need to waste words on the dickheaded situation we have in Washington, including the DHOTUS.
Happy New Year.
So
Having a vagina should be a requirement for the job?
No, but it shouldn't disqualify either
50% of the population is female. What's wrong with campaigning in part by trying to lower the imbalance of elected officials. It's not as if she's saying the sole reason to vote for her is on account of her gender.
Well, if you ask me
Competence, not the presence or absence of genitalia of any kind, should be the main qualification.
I was not impressed with either her or the incumbent 2 years ago. Let’s hope either one, or someone else, can provide me with a reason to vote for them.
What you are deliberately not getting here
1. Perception of "competence" often excludes Vagina Bearing People a priori.
2. Penis Bearing People usually have far more access to developing skill-sets that constitute "competence" than VBPs do. Partly due to #1, partly due to gendered notions of childbearing and care rolls. VBPs are far more likely to be excluded from training programs, promotions, and management positions than PBPs.
3. Perceptions of what constitutes "competence" are often built around those things that PBPs are allowed to do that VBPs are excluded from doing - not actual skills or qualifications necessary to carry out an office.
4. Yes, this is STILL an issue. We do NOT live in a post-gender society. Don't even go there.
I don’t think you get it, either
I’m assuming you know who Danica Roem is, right? If not, I’ll remind you. She is the transgendered woman who was recently elected to the legislature in Virginia defeating an entrenched and very conservative Republican. What people don’t realize is that she didn’t run as a transgendered woman, though she did not hide the fact. She ran on a platform of fixing the transportation and school funding woes of the district. Issues of equity were far down the platform. In short, she had a message that transcended the identity politics that is poisoning politics and triumphed as she should have.
Ms. Forde is running on platitudes and quite honestly looks like she is running for the sake of getting an elected position, which I has been the MO of the incumbent going back over 20 years. And politician of any gender who thinks they deserve one’s vote based on gender deserves to lose.
I disagree with the basic premise. Vaginas=votes.
There was recently a Registrar of Probate in Suffolk County who never should have been elected. (you know the story). I was asked by my SO how this could be. To sum up: No one pays any attention to county elections, or even knows anything about it. (They should be appointed by the people we care enough to vote about). Those that do are the extreme exception. This being Eastern Mass people just go into the booth and vote for whoever is on the D ticket. The only exception to that is that a woman will instantly vote for another woman, because of, you know, that darn patriarchy. So basically that's half the population who will vote purely based on gender, but let's all pretend to Fight the Power, shall we?
I am qualified because I am qualified.
I have been reading these comments and would like people to know that my website will be live next week when I actually launch my campaign. I believe in the power of choices which is why primaries are critical. Voters need choices and are right to question the qualifications of people who choose to run. I am not running because I am a woman. I am running because I am the best candidate for the position. I am running because I have a clear vision for the position and what it can and should be. When I ran in 2016 as a first time candidate with zero name recognition in a crowded field of 7, I was honored to receive the endorsements of the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. I hope my vision forward and other ideas are covered throughout the campaign and I look forward to earning the support of Democrats across Suffolk County. Happy New Year!
My free advice to you is this
Look, I've been not voting for Stephen Murphy for longer than you've know that he existed, so it's most likely I will at least not vote for him. That said, votes are earned.
Two years ago you ran for an office and kind of against a hack politician, but now the hack politician has become the incumbent, just like how former City Councillor Felix Arroyo is the incumbent Register of Probate, former City Councillor Maura Hennigan is Clerk of Courts for Criminal Matters, and Michael Joseph Donovan, who oddly enough was never on the Boston City Council, is Clerk of Courts for Civil Matters. This changes things. Basically, you have to go after his work for the past 2 years rather than going after the 23 years of politicking that proceeded it. Has he screwed things up? Are there tangible things that can be done to make the office function better that he resists doing? If you cannot do that, the inertia of incumbency will work against you.
Also, what the heck does
even mean? The office processes paperwork. The office cannot even keep foreclosures from happening, as that is a function of the Land Court. You won't be giving grants to help with down payments, and you cannot increase the supply of housing available. I suppose I cannot fault a line like that, since all sorts of politicians, like your opponent, would throw something like that out there and hope it resonates. But still.
Anyway, good luck with everything. Who know? Maybe you'll convince me.
Campaign to improve Office of Register of Deeds!
Thank you Katie Forde!... a Campaign that can draw attention to what will improve the Office of Register of Deeds for the Suffolk District.
● Neighboring Offices of Register of Deeds...
Southern Essex
http://salemdeeds.com
Middlesex South
http://www.middlesexsouthregistry.com/
Norfolk
http://www.norfolkresearch.org
Plymouth
http://www.plymouthdeeds.org/
___________________________
● Massachusetts Land Records
http://www.masslandrecords.com/
_________________________________
● Statewide Offices Election Schedule
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elesched/schedidx.htm
So, if this woman wins, will
So, if this woman wins, will she take the salary and pension?
What experience does she have? Just googled her and she says she is a paralegal. No other information about registry of deeds related work?
She touts her gender and the fact the Globe and the Herald endorsed her last time. What did that get her?
Also, where has she been since she ran what was it almost a year ago? I'm active and attend lots of community events around the city- I have never seen her anywhere?
Sounds like she is running for the salary and the pension quite honestly.
What a load of
>>The work of the Register of Deeds affects every homeowner, and can transform and empower communities by helping to create more homeownership. It must be led by someone with a vision for using the office as more than a retirement plan for ousted city councilors.
I guess I can subscribe to the last bit but, holy Christ, what a load of horse shit. If this person either thinks this way or thinks it's a good idea to pretend to think this way, she ain't getting my vote (for a position that shouldn't be elective in the first place). The Registry stamps and records documents that are presented to it, and people look at the documents to figure out who owns what. Otherwise, the Registry doesn't "affect every homeowner," nor does it "transform," "empower," or "create" anything, and it doesn't require any more "vision" than to do its job in a more efficient and user-friendly fashion.
--gpm
But But
She wouldn't be getting your vote no matter what she said, would she? Because she's a she?
Transform and empower by public paycheck and pension.
At least Steve I'll run for anything Murphy won't argue that point.
Where do you live
Do you even live in Suffolk County?
If not, you can't vote.
If you do, why don't you run if you're such an astute observer?
Huh? What? Can't hear you.
Oh, yeah. Why don’t YOU run?
I mean, I voted for you before and would again.
Please run again
And I'll keep voting for you.
If you're talking to me
Then, yes, I've lived (and voted and paid taxes) in Suffolk County for nearly forty years. And I know what the Register of Deeds does. I called out a candidate for spouting nonsense about doing things that have nothing to do with the office she's running for. Would you care to defend the claims she made?
I had thought in the past that you said and stood for some interesting and maybe valuable things. Now I think you're just a jerk who's unlikely ever to get my (Suffolk-County) vote in the future.
--gpm
Clearly, you've never had a
Clearly, you've never had a deed or other document bungled by the Registry. Or tried to do a search for something you know exists but you can't find (or then print). The Registry does affect every homeowner, not often, but at critical times. I'd like someone with some vision in that position.
Fine, but how does that have
Fine, but how does that have anything to do with what I objected to about her pretentious statement? I agree that it would be good to have a Register who would not bungle documents or somehow make them impossible to find (or, in my words, operate in "a more efficient and user-friendly fashion"), but that isn't what she was selling. What exactly is it that she would or could do as Register that would "transform and empower communities by helping to create more homeownership"?
--gpm
Go Katie!
Way past time for Stephen Murphy to go. Nice to think we'll have someone in office who will work.
Let's abolish these elected offices
Registrar of Deeds. of Probate, Clerk of Courts, Sheriff
Any others I've missed?
These are administrative job not poitical ones. Lets merge them into the Secretary of State, Department of Corrections, etc.
City Council
I mean they f_ck all anyways, right? Lots of token political gestures without any real impact.
Or
We could have a city government with more balance between city council and the mayor soothe council would actually do something and the mayor isn't all powerful.
Register of Deeds
"Registrar of Deeds. of Probate, Clerk of Courts, Sheriff......."
"Let's abolish these elected offices." ..........I wholeheartedly agree. How do we go about it? What would be the first step in proposing this and who do we make that request to?
I've listened to some of the comments here and agree that many voters turn their ballots over (or not) and just put their mark next to the most familiar name. I have no interest in supporting someone's fat paycheck and pension "just because". Let the most qualified individual be HIRED not ELECTED.
File a bill in the General Court
And citizen can write a bill and ask their rep or senator to sponsor it. Then it goes to committee, who will hopefully report back favorably. It passes the General Court, the Governor signs it- BOOM, Registers, Clerks, and Sheriffs are now appointed offices. Conversely, you could do an initiative petition and get your bill on the ballot, for the voters to approve or disapprove.
Dear Ms. Ford,
Dear Ms. Ford,
You have my vote.
Mine too
I don't care if you're a man or a woman. And the political correctness of the Progressives offends me.
But you're "not Murph".
Offensive cliches
The term politically correct is a cliche that offends me.
Talk about getting your underwear in a twist
Given the mess that the male politicians have made out of city, state and federal government, it seems to me that we ought to pay attention to female candidates who exhibit insight and passion in their vision of governing. They certainly can't do worst and by all indications are at least talking about things that matter.
All one needs to do is look at Massachusetts State House and all of the bizarre and corrupt behavior to know we need change. The Federal government is in complete meltdown and will take years to repair. Moreover, males have not driven the dialog to combat and resist the wave of nationalism and bigotry that has saturated politics.
Women are organizing and activating their political will. We saw it in Georgia, Kansas, Virginia and Alabama. Apt to see it in Massachusetts, too. This is going to be hard on those white males that wallow in their bitterness and resentment but the train has left the station and you ain't on board.
Much ado about nothing
"Playing the female card." Oh my god; someone is politicking! Pass me my pearls; I need to do some clutching!
The last election I can think of, off the top of my head, where playing a "card," of any kind, in this nation was in 1797. Since that election cards of one sort or another have been thrown onto the poker table of elections in almost every contested election.
Politics is often a game of what feels good. In Murphy's case what felt good was familiarity: name recognition, having been in the public eye, white skin, male and nominally of Irish heritage. Overtly or not he will play those cards again if he runs again. So why should an opponent not overtly play the cards that are in her hands? Politics is a game. If you don't play with the pieces at hand then there is no sense in playing.
Katie is I'm sure making a calculated decision that emphasizing her gender is a positive part of her campaign. Hopefully the 2018 election will reveal a period of political ascendance where politically and socially progressive women are elected across the nation.
But a statement such as "She is playing the gender card awfully hard" is an expression of anxiety and possibly even fear. It's not a statement that identifies anything of significance as to whether she would make a good or bad Register of Deeds.
A candidate articulating the obvious can still make people shake in their boots. Not unlike dysfunctional family members freaking out when a young family member points out "the elephant in the middle of the living room." Some folks get mighty hinky when what they don't want to acknowledge is hard to ignore.
Did you visit the link to her
Did you visit the link to her statement? It was almost completely about gender, and not about her qualifications as they relate to the functions of the job.
The two things I'd like to see a Register of Deeds do:
1) present examples for how a homeowner can write their own deed when they sell their house, instead of paying a lawyer $200 to do it.
2) stop charging for PDFs of documents. just make it free and absorb the costs.
More Candidates for State Secretary please!
More Candidates for Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can be more advocates for improving Registry of Deeds Division http://www.sec.state.ma.us/rod/rodidx.htm
The current Massachusetts State Secretary's practices are out of date.
Only 3 Candidates for Massachusetts Secretary of State so far
http://www.joshzakim.com/
https://www.bfelderformasssecretary.com/
http://www.billgalvin.org/