Yes, she was definitely just an underpaid signer, and her authorizations to sign were of the same type as is typical-- her titles, if they indeed were authorized, were in name only.  But the entities for which she signed aren't going to object and say she was not authorized, they're going to say she was authorized to sign as whatever title.  Perhaps more importantly, the signers likely believed she was authorized to sign as those titles. 

Unless it is a crime for a person to assume these sham titles for signing puposes, or unless it is a crime to sign someone else's name when they consent to it or authorize it, explain to me why it should be a crime when both circumstances exist.  For example, drinking is legal and driving is legal but drinking and driving is illegal, but there is a law specifically on the books for drunk driving.  If there was no such law, it would not be illegal.  How is this different?