SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Rotary " 24 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Hallowine haunts Mercato with wines food and live fun
The Rotary Club of Naples and The Naples-Pelican Bay Rotary Club host Hallowine, bringing the community together for an unforgettable evening of wine tasting, culinary pairings, live entertainment, and spirited
Lahaina Means Business networking event set for Nov. 4 at Maui Kuʻia Estate Chocolate
Lahaina business owners, entrepreneurs and professionals are invited to a free community networking event, Lahaina Means Business from 5 to 7 p.m. Nov. 4 at Maui Kuʻia Estate Chocolate in Lahaina. The Rotary Club of Lahaina Sunset and the Maui County Office of Economic Development are sponsoring the event, which aims to build connections, encourage […]
Michelle Murphy Named Business Person of the Year by Palisades Rotary Club - Palisadian-Post
The Pacific Palisades Rotary Club is proud to recognize Michelle Murphy as its 2026 Business Person of the Year, honoring her entrepreneurial spirit, community leadership and extraordinary commitment to helping Pacific Palisades recover and rebuild following the Palisades Fire. Traditionally, the Business Person of the Year award recognizes entrepreneurship, leadership and professional success. But in… Keep reading
HOW I GOT STARTED: Jim Brooker
Owner of Starlight MFG Solutions in Fulton was vice president at Otis Technology in Phoenix — until the company closed locally. He then decided to open his own shop. “We are pretty much doubling in size each year so far,” he says By Stefan Yablonski Q: When did you start this business” A: I started Starlight MFG Solutions LLC while I was working at another government contractor. I was vice president of engineering at Otis Technology at their Phoenix location until they closed that facility due to a shift in business at the end of 2023. While at Otis, I was also working on Starlight on a part-time basis. I gained a lot of exposure to a lot of different equipment. That is the kind of service we provided to Otis when we were a part of them. Now we have spun that whole concept off here. Q: How would you describe it? A: It’s a manufacturing engineering firm specializing in custom automation to serve as an outsourced engineering support for companies that need additional resources. I want to make it a sustainable business that can partner with local manufacturers to help them. Q: What is your background; did you go to college with this in mind? A: I am a graduate of Rochester Institute of Technology with both a bachelor’s and master’s degree. My B.S. from RIT was in manufacturing engineering technology and my MS from RIT was in manufacturing and mechanical systems integration with a minor in business. Q: Why this type of business? A: I identified a large gap in the market for companies that needed small to medium help with manufacturing projects. Q: What services do you offer? A: We are focusing more on manufacturing. We do a lot of robotics, we do laser marking, we do filling — pretty much anything that the customer needs. Q: Have you seen any growth since you started? A: Yes. We have been growing ever since the company started. Our specialties include robotics, vision inspection and guidance, rotary-indexing workcells, dispense systems, laser marking, machine tending and more. We provide support to companies that need additional resources. We moved to a facility in Fulton about a year and a half ago. We are leasing our space in Fulton — the former NET & Die facility. We bought our own equipment, we are leasing the space. We have been operating here since early 2024. Q: You’re ready to take on bigger jobs? A: We want to stay in the small to medium size market where the large players don’t want to play. That is kind of where we found our niche. We are expanding regionally to take on more of those projects. My customers are relatively small business. They don’t have in-house automation; engineering and development teams are not feasible. Q: Business has been doing well? A: I am pretty satisfied about where we are at. We are definitely growing year to year. We are pretty much doubling in size each year so far. We are self-sustaining. Q: How busy are you on any given day? A: How busy? That’s kind of relative. We average between three and five projects going on in the shop at any time. We have a backlog that is manageable. We have seen a great demand for laser marking. The work is very relationship-driven. Much of it is based on referrals from other customers. Q: So, you must have a pretty big staff? A: No. I have just one other full-time person, a colleague from Otis. I bring in other people as the projects dictate. I handle sales and the overall operation of the manufacturing processes. We use outside sources for some work. We aren’t afraid to take on the other jobs — but we are filling our niche pretty well. Q: Do you get tired? A: I don’t get tired, no not really. Before this I ran a facility in Phoenix for 12 years. I enjoy solving problems and that part of the job is still my favorite. I have a supportive family life at home that definitely helps a lot. I just love the challenge of it. Q: Do you still live in the area? A: Yes. I live in Phoenix, town of Lysander. Q: What is the biggest job you’ve done? A: We have done some that were pretty good size. I don’t want to get into dollar amounts, don’t want to share gross revenue. We try to use locally sourced components. It is just amazing the components you can find that are locally produced.
Nevada City Rotary's Pumpkins Palooza Family Celebration returns Oct. 15
Halloween spirit is officially back in the air as Nevada City Rotary announces the return of the Pumpkins Palooza Family Celebration, a live family celebration, scrumptious raffle drawings, and auctions
Braver Angels, Rochester rotary clubs collaborating to facilitate civil political discussions
Three workshops will take place in Rochester promoting civil political discussion.
Braver Angels joins Rochester Rotary Clubs to facilitate political discussions
Rochester’s Rotary Clubs are collaborating with the organization, Braver Angels, for three workshops surrounding civil political discussion and understanding disagreements.
Rotary club hosts oktoberfest fun for families and friends
The Rotary Club of Bonita Naples is hosting Oktoberfest 2026: Prost with a Purpose on October 10 at Riptide Brewing Company in Bonita Springs, combining authentic German festivities with community fundraising to support local initiatives.
Rotary Health Fair brings on-site blood testing back to Homer
More than 50 exhibitors will offer health screenings and wellness resources
Peter Krause and Rachel Keller ignore trends, embrace network TV
MINNESOTA — Network TV may eventually go the way of the telegram and rotary phone. But don’t expect its extinction anytime soon. Yes, streaming services and cable TV usually offer
Community: A coffee club reunion, club luncheons, Rotary officers and a party for Orion queen
Here's what local organizations are doing...
Harrisburg LaunchBox, Rotary Veterans Initiative partner for business bootcamp
The Harrisburg LaunchBox, housed under the Lambert Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Penn State Harrisburg, has partnered with the Rotary Veterans Initiative to host a six-week, veteran-focused business bootcamp, beginning in October.
Mental Health Collaborative announces free screening of 'Screenagers: Next Chapter'
WAUSAU - The Marathon County Mental Health Collaborative, in partnership with the Wausau Early Birds Rotary Club, will host a free community screening of
Director of Philanthropy for Maui Health Foundation to speak at Rotary Club of Lahaina Sunset
The Rotary Club of Lahaina Sunset welcomes Leana Taylor, Director of Philanthropy for Maui Health Foundation on Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2026. The topic of her presentation will be “Food Is Medicine: Locally Grown, Physician Prescribed.”
Gov. Bill Lee
It was an honor to join business & community leaders with the Rotary Club of Nashville today to highlight our city & state’s bright future.
April Coffee is a business coach and an advocate for unification around scholarships
By Andy Furman NKyTribune staff writer April Coffee says she was quiet, real quiet – almost shy – when she attended Scott High School. Really? If so, she fooled the Covington Rotary Club, as she had them mesmerized on every word during her noontime presentation recently at the Radisson Hotel. “I’m a Business Coach,” she...
LPD officials push for changes to local mental health crisis response
Laredo Police Department officials addressed gaps in local mental health response, lack of funding and the strain on officers during a Rotary Club meeting.
UVA alumna combines science and culture to improve women’s health
A Rotary Scholarship will help this recent graduate pursue research, focusing on women’s well-being and maternal care.
UVA alumna combines science and culture to improve women’s health
A Rotary Scholarship will help this recent graduate pursue research, focusing on women’s well-being and maternal care.
This Week in Jacksonville: Business Edition - City leaders push for practical money skills in schools
Florida now requires a stand-alone personal financial literacy course for high school graduation - but guests on This Week in Jacksonville: Business Edition say the real question is whether it changes behavior. Host Kent Justice talks with Dr. Ronetta Wards of the Jacksonville Public Education Fund (JPEF) and Howard Dale of the Rotary Club of Jacksonville about what “financial literacy” should actually mean for 17- and 18-year-olds: credit, debt, taxes, budgeting, savings, investing, and even emerging currency like crypto.
UWF Lewis Bear Jr. College of Business and Combined Rotary Clubs of Pensacola name 2026 Ethics in Business Award Recipients - University of West Florida Newsroom
The University of West Florida Lewis Bear Jr. College of Business and the Combined Rotary Clubs of Pensacola named Sam Young and Tom Vaughn as the 2026 recipients of the annual Ethics in Business Award during the 24th Combined Rotary Luncheon at the Pensacola Yacht Club. The Ethics in Business Award recognizes individuals who exemplify […]
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Rotary Lights expanded entertainment schedule may become permanent
For the first time, Rotary Lights is offering live entertainment throughout the weekend inside their Ice Castle.