YWCA salutes outstanding women in region
Nine more outstanding women will join an already elite group of honorees for YWCA Greater Johns-town's Tribute to Women.
Since 1987, 298 women in our region have met the criteria for the recognition.
With the new honorees, that brings the total to 307 so far, and there are many more who deserve to be acknowledged for their accomplishments.
Tribute to Women was conceived and established to honor women who have demonstrated excellence and leadership in promoting the growth of other women in professional fields in our communities.
These women have achieved successes as doctors, lawyers, teachers, business owners, mentors, innovators and creators, and they are committed to serving others.
They also exemplify the mission of the YWCA to empower women; eliminate racism; and promote peace, justice, freedom and dignity for all.
The categories for honor are Arts & Letters, contributes to the visual, literary or performing arts; Business, provides leadership in the field of commerce, manufacturing or a profit- oriented service industry; Community Service Volunteer, gives time and talents to help others in a non-paid, non-salaried position; Education, imparting knowledge and developing the powers of reasoning and judgment in the field of education; Non-Profit Services, working in a nonprofit environment enhancing the quality of life for others; Professions, working in a field or industry while promoting/enhancing the development of others through education/leadership training; Lady Liberty, serving or past service in the U.S. military, supporting and defending the Constitution, promoting freedom and liberty for all people; and S.T.E.M., working in the science, technology, engineering or math fields while promoting/enhancing the professional development of others through education/leadership training.
The Yellow Rose Award is chosen by the YWCA Greater Johnstown board and recognizes someone who represents the philosophy of the YWCA.
This year's honorees are Debbie Baxter, of Portage, Arts & Letters; Becky DeYulis, of Ebensburg, Business: Stacey Lewis, of South Fork, Community Service Volunteer; Angela Seidel, of Johnstown, Education; Ashley Flynn, of Loretto, Non-Profit Services; Louann Hoffman, of Cresson, Professions; Jessie Mullen, of Johnstown, Lady Liberty; Jacqueline Hockenberry, of Johnstown, S.T.E.M.; and Andi Palmar, of Johnstown, Yellow Rose.
The women were nominated by their peers, who submitted biographies about their professional leadership and individual accomplishments, volunteer and community involvement, and extraordinary personal attributes that made them role models for others. A committee reviewed the biographies with the names removed and made selections based on the merits of the information provided.
The very first awardees were Judith A. Mucha, Education; Ethel Otrosina, Business; M. Josephine Paul, Arts; Trudy Myers, Community Service; and Linda M. Weaver, Professions.
The new honorees will be feted during an awards ceremony May 22 at Ace's in the Cambria City section of Johnstown.
We congratulate all of the honorees, both past and present.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Harvard Business Review
16 hours ago
- Harvard Business Review
How to Phrase Your Questions When You Need Honest Answers
Oftentimes at work, we encounter situations that require us to uncover the truth. Your manager may not want to tell you that you don't have a chance at a promotion this year because they fear they'd upset you or trigger a conflict. Or your team member may tell a self-serving lie to avoid getting blamed for a delay on a project. In a serious instance of employee misconduct or when things go terribly awry on a project, you may need to gather truthful information and compile evidence to make a decision or find a way forward. Simply asking, 'How did you miss that critical piece of information?' or 'Why didn't I get promoted?' aren't enough. Consider the story of Marshall, who is a composite of a few different real-life scenarios we have seen play out through our work and research. Marshall is a business analyst at a strategy consulting firm and has been eyeing an opportunity to join a high-visibility digital transformation project led by Chloe, an engagement manager. Marshall knows that landing the opportunity would set him on the fast track for a promotion. He emailed Chloe about the opportunity after hearing about it from one of his peers. But he hasn't heard back from her yet, and other peers are already getting staffed on the project. He's not sure what's causing the hold up since his background and experience match well with the client's industry. What Marshall doesn't know is that Chloe has lingering concerns about his performance on a pharmaceutical project he worked on with another engagement manager last quarter. The manager had told Chloe that Marshall lacked assertiveness when questioned by the client, and Chloe is concerned that Marshall would struggle in a client-facing role. Marshall knows that he needs to figure out what the problem is so that he can make necessary adjustments before the project is completely staffed. Specifically, Marshall must determine how to approach Chloe and pose questions that would elicit honest information about Chloe's impressions of him. What should he do? How to Uncover the Truth Based on scenarios like this and our research on the effect of question phrasing on deception, here is evidence-based advice on how you can get people to tell the truth. 1. Do your homework before starting a conversation. Homework is particularly important before you begin a conversation, especially for those that have the potential to become confrontational. You are more likely to succeed in extracting the truth when you are well prepared. In a research study that we conducted on how experts detect insurance fraud, we interviewed special investigators at a large auto insurance company and learned that one of the key reasons for success was the careful, detailed work that investigators undertook to prepare for interviews with those who had committed the fraud. These special investigators canvased neighborhoods, spoke with witnesses, conducted database searches, and gathered evidence. When they spoke with claimants, the investigators had all their facts right. So, for example, let's say you want to find out from your manager why you weren't promoted. You need to develop a strong fact base. You should record a timeline of your work achievements and privately discuss with trusted peers whether and how your contributions have been valued by others. Get a sense of how long it has taken your peers to get promoted, what skills they had and how your skills match theirs, and what the current state of the business unit is. Being well prepared with facts makes you more persuasive and helps steer the conversation towards the truth. 2. Lay the foundation for honest communication. Start the conversation by laying the groundwork to build honesty and trust. Detective Joseph Rovnan, a crisis negotiator in Philadelphia, routinely asks his counterparts the following question: 'Do you want me to be honest with you?' Invariably, people say 'yes,' and he builds a foundation for honest communication from there. Establishing this norm early on is one of the most important steps you can take in eliciting honesty from others. Of course, there are always some details that the other party would rather not disclose—such as a leader not being in a position to divulge sensitive company information. And that's okay. They may set boundaries by explaining what is confidential, what they would need to consult with another party on, or what they do not have the authority to disclose. But in that, they're being honest in what they can and cannot tell you. In such instances, you should acknowledge boundaries and still reinforce the norm for honesty and credibility. 3. Build rapport. Rapport is the mutual expression of positivity and interest that breeds familiarity and liking, which can help establish trust between individuals. Open the conversation with a lighter tone and start by seeking common interests. Ask your counterpart to clarify and explain things to show that you're attentive and are invested in the conversation. Be respectful. When they speak, acknowledge your counterpart's point of view, and don't interrupt them as that can make them feel inferior. Express empathy as it helps validate other people's feelings and builds trust in return. 4. Frame your questions thoughtfully. After telegraphing a commitment to honesty and building rapport, the next important step, according to our research, is to ask a direct question. We define a direct question as a straightforward inquiry that seeks a specific response without much room for interpretation or avoidance. But the trick lies in asking the right kind of direct question, which influences the information you receive. Most of us typically ask questions that fall into one of three categories: general questions, direct questions that presume a problem, or direct questions that presume normalcy. In our research, we found that direct questions that presume a problem are far more likely to elicit an honest response than general questions or direct questions that presume that there is no problem. Furthermore, we found that individuals who ask direct questions that presume a problem are more likely to be perceived as knowledgeable and assertive. Let's consider another example. Say you're a hiring manager and you're meeting with a job candidate. You want to extend an offer, but you want to uncover whether the job candidate has a viable, competing job offer that they might accept. If you ask a general question ('Where are you in your job search process?') or one that presumes the candidate has no other options ('Are you looking forward to this job opportunity at our company?') you may not get the response you need. But if you presume a problem ('Is there anything holding you back from our job opportunity, such as a competing offer?'). The job candidate becomes more likely to disclose that they have another job offer without feeling cornered. 5. Make deception hard(er). Deception—the act of keeping the truth hidden from someone for one's own advantage—is difficult to detect and there are often short-term benefits that make deception tempting. But it's possible to make it hard for someone to deceive you. First plan to have the conversation by meeting in person. To lie, people need to control their verbal and emotional expressions, so lying to someone's face is more difficult than lying at a distance, such as on the phone or over email. Second, try and boost the cognitive load on your counterpart. Lying requires us to think harder to keep track of the truth and the lie, and that increases the cognitive load on the person. Let's go back to the hiring manager example. A common challenge for hiring managers is verifying the qualifications and achievements of a candidate. Some candidates may exaggerate their skills, experience, or certifications to make themselves more appealing. To counteract this, a hiring manager could further boost a candidate's cognitive load by asking about something that happened out of chronological order or asking for minute details. This makes people more likely to make mistakes in their responses, enabling you to discern the truth. Here's how the advice above plays out with Marshall and Chloe. Marshall gathered information before approaching Chloe. He looked at his past projects and spoke to former managers and colleagues. He looked at the feedback he received and focused on how it might translate into this new project. He then asked to meet with Chloe in person, rather than relying on an email exchange or a virtual meeting. He started the conversation by building trust and honesty: 'Chloe, I believe in being honest, and I appreciate the same in return.' And Chloe responded, 'Marshall, honesty and openness are essential to how I work too, so I'm glad we're on the same page. If there's something on your mind, I'm here to discuss and work through it together.' To build rapport, Marshall avoided making an accusation like, 'You never acknowledged my interest in joining the team.' Instead, Marshall was respectful and expressed empathy by saying, 'I can see that you have been busy staffing the best project team possible, and I would like to discuss how I can make a contribution.' Marshall then asked follow-up questions to request specific, detailed information. Instead of asking a generic question like, 'How's the team coming together? Are you still recruiting for it?' Marshall asked a question that presumes a problem: 'What concerns do you have about me becoming a member of your project team?' In return, Chloe responded, 'I heard that you are a good team player, but I am not sure whether you are the right fit for the project based on your previous engagement.' Marshall dug deeper by asking, 'I believe that I could make a valuable contribution to your team, can you please share what specifically concerns you based on the previous engagement?' Chloe shared that Marshall appeared to lack assertiveness during the previous client presentation, and that the upcoming client has a reputation for being skeptical and asking tough questions. Ultimately, Marshall received constructive feedback and gained a clear understanding about why he was not chosen. Armed with this new knowledge, Marshall sought mentoring and training, and, six months later, he worked with Chloe on a new consulting project. . . . While getting someone to tell the truth is a difficult task, fortunately, there are things that you can do to improve your chances of getting an honest answer and to curtail your risk of being deceived. Following these steps will not guarantee that everyone will tell you the truth at all times, but they will make it more likely. Sometimes, the truth can hurt, but truthful information is essential for learning, growth, and professional development.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Maine Republicans, gun rights groups try to force hearing on 'red flag' proposal
Jun. 5—AUGUSTA — Republicans and gun rights groups are ramping up pressure on Democrats to hold a public hearing on a so-called red flag proposal that's headed for a statewide vote in November. Republican lawmakers are accusing the majority of violating state law by refusing to hold the hearing because it will undermine their campaign to pass the law. If approved by voters, the citizens initiative would make it easier for family members to have firearms temporarily taken away from people who are in crisis and may pose a danger to themselves or others. Sen. Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, said at a press conference Thursday that if Democrats don't reverse course and hold a hearing, Republicans will try to force the issue through a series of floor votes. And the National Rifle Association said Thursday that it will join a planned lawsuit over legislative Democrats' refusal to hold a public hearing. Stewart said Senate Republicans plan to offer a flurry of proposals to put Democrats on the record as opposing a chance for the public to weigh in. "It doesn't matter how you break this one down," Stewart said. "There needs to be a hearing. It's abundantly clear they're in violation of Maine law. Once again, (we're) giving them an opportunity to do the right things here. But if by today that is not the case (and) that has not yet happened, you're going to see a flurry of orders put forward by Republicans in the Senate." Democrats, who control both chambers and control committees that conduct public hearings, say they don't need to hold a hearing because the question will be decided by voters. Gun safety groups collected signatures to force a fall referendum on the red flag law, which would allow family members to directly petition a court to temporarily confiscate firearms. Maine currently has what is known as a yellow flag law, which was negotiated by Gov. Janet Mills, gun rights groups and gun safety groups. It can only be initiated by police and requires a mental health evaluation before a court petition can be filed to confiscate a person's firearms. A state law requires that a public hearing be held on statewide referendum questions, unless that hearing is waived by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. And hearings have been routinely held for other referendum questions, including a recent hearing on a referendum to enact a voter ID requirement and additional restrictions on absentee voting. Lawmakers have three options when receiving a qualified citizens initiative: Enact it without changes, send it to voters, or send it to voters with a competing measure. Democrats have made clear this initiative will be sent to voters without an effort to pass it in the Legislature. Sen. Anne Carney, D-Cape Elizabeth, who co-chairs the Judiciary Committee, said she believes a state law requiring a hearing conflicts with the state Constitution, which doesn't mention the need for a public hearing. And since lawmakers have signaled they don't plan to enact the proposal, a hearing isn't necessary. Carney also noted last week that a hearing on a similar red flag proposal was held last session. But opponents of the referendum are clamoring for a hearing. The Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine issued an action alert this week, arguing that Democrats don't want to hold a hearing because it will highlight opposition, including from Gov. Janet Mills and other Democratic lawmakers. Mills came out against a red flag bill proposed last session, but the bill was never brought forward for a floor vote after an hours-long public hearing that drew a divided crowd. "Under Maine law, all ballot initiatives MUST receive a public hearing before going to the Maine voters," SAM's alert states. "But Judiciary Chairs and Maine Gun Safety Coalition allies are blocking that hearing. Why? "Because Michael Bloomberg and the progressive gun-control lobby know it could END their campaign. This is because a massive bipartisan coalition of Mainers, including Governor Janet Mills, law enforcement, and lawmakers, will discuss the dangerous and potentially deadly realities of this extreme law." Aids more Mills did not respond to a question about whether Mills would personally testify before the committee, which would be a rare and dramatic moment, or if her administration would testify on her behalf, which usually occurs. This story will be updated. Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Is it time to talk impeachment? Given Trump's actions, it may be overdue.
In the few months since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, he has issued so many executive orders and pronouncements on domestic and foreign policy that he may have overwhelmed our intellectual and emotional energy to fully appreciate their impact. Whether or not you approve of the direction he wants to take the country, he took office after being duly elected. Many of his initiatives are within his authority. Generally speaking, Trump has the right to indulge his ideological obsessions and advance policies that benefit the economic class that 'brung him to the dance.' But, what of those executive orders that exceed the limited authority proscribed for the presidency — powers meant to be shared with other branches of government, or those that defy Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution? Say goodbye to democracy — and our freedoms — if we ignore James Madison's warning in the Federalist Papers No. 47 that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump took the Presidential Oath of Office to 'faithfully execute the Office of President' and 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet just three months later, when asked if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that every person in the United States is entitled to due process, Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker that he's not so sure. 'I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.' The Constitution states that 'no person' shall be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' It says 'person,' not 'citizen.' Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has held that everyone in this country have certain basic rights. When Welker reminded the president of this constitutionally guaranteed right, Trump complained that this only slows him down: 'I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it.' This helps explain why democracy requires an independent judiciary — to check the actions of the executive (from local police to presidents) to ensure that government allegations of wrongdoing are accurate and mistakes are not made. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the recent high-profile example, is Salvadoran, married to an American citizen with three American-born children who has lived in U.S. since 2011. He was granted protected status by an immigration judge in 2019. Nevertheless he was detained by ICE in March and deported to El Salvador without a hearing. The Trump administration originally acknowledged that he was mistakenly deported, and a federal judge ordered that he be returned to the U.S. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this directive. As of this writing the Trump administration has done nothing to facilitate his return. The President even quipped that he could do so, but he will not. The government now asserts that Abrego Garcia's deportation wasn't a mistake, claiming he is a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, but declines to provide evidence supporting the claim. As if to emphasize contempt for constitutional rights, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller recently said that the Trump administration was considering suspending Habeas Corpus to block an immigrant's right to challenge their detention before being deported. There are other examples of presidential defiance of the law, such as the illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized appropriations and constitutional freedoms. So, it is time to insert the 'I' word (impeachment) into civic conversations. I am not naïve: impeachment is neither imminent nor likely — for now. The disgrace of this period, as future historians will note, is that whether the President has intimidated Congress into silence or they applaud his overly expansive use of power, the legislative branch has abandoned its oversight responsibility. For now, Congress is content to look the other way. Nevertheless, we must begin to insert 'impeachable offenses' into civic conversations. If we don't, we will be complicit in accepting that the aberrant behavior of this President is the new normal for the evaluation of future presidents. Howard L. Simon served as executive director of the ACLU of Florida from 1997-2018. He resides in Gainesville and is president of Clean Okeechobee Waters Foundation, Inc. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Talk of impeachment hasn't come up. How long can that last? | Opinion
