The Complete Kucinich – from Cleveland Magazine

A series of articles about Dennis Kucinich from Cleveland Magazine

The start page is here

 

No one knows Dennis Kucinich like the people of Cleveland. And Cleveland Magazine has been covering his career ever since our inaugural edition in April 1972, when Kucinich tipped his psychedelic Uncle Sam hat on the cover. 
Now that the man with many a moniker — Denny The Kid, The Boy Mayor, Dennis The Menace — has set his sights on the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Cleveland Magazine editors offer this seven-article, four-decade retrospective of Dennis Kucinich and his impact on the city, the region and national politics.
 

Denny the Kid
From Cleveland Magazine, April 1972
It’s a long way from the West Side to the White House, but then again, it’s a long way from St. John Cantius to Council. For the “little people” living under the shadow of the myth that the boy next door can grow up to be president, 26-year-old Councilman Dennis Kucinich is a real-life apparition that walks, talks, and plays the game of politics with the knack of knowing how to use a few basic tools: the middle classes, the media, and a frightening will to win.
Read it

The Prince and The Power
From Cleveland Magazine, April 1978

Few have escaped the wrath of the new mayor and his army of loyal, arrogant courtiers as they wage holy war from City Hall. But are palace skullduggery and management by media helping anyone but Dennis?
Read it

Kucinich on the Couch
From Cleveland Magazine, June 1978

A psychological portrait featuring, among other things, high school sports, comic book superheroes and an adopted family at City Hall.
Read it

Kucinich’s Final Days
From Cleveland Magazine, January 1980

Read it

Dennis Kucinich: The Story
From Cleveland Magazine, May 1996

As Dennis Kucinich rides the wave of his political comeback to challenge Martin Hoke for Congress, he looks back at his childhood and forward to his future, crediting his fall from politics for his new peace of mind. Looks like the boy mayor has finally grown up. 
Read it

from The 30 People Who Defined Cleveland
From Cleveland Magazine, December 2002

Friends and rivals recount their memories of Kucinich’s epic battles as mayor, his years in exile and his triumphant comeback.
Read it

The Missionary
From Cleveland Magazine, December 2007

Dennis Kucinich is running for president — again. Seriously. But the talk-show punch lines and complaints he can’t win only feed his enormous self-confidence. He says he is Cleveland’s message to America. But is Dennis the message we want to send?
Read it

“Libbie Braverman” Chapter written by Alan Bennett, The Women Who Reconstructed American Jewish Education, 1910-1965 edited by Carol K. Ingall

“Libbie Braverman” Chapter written by Alan Bennett, The Women Who Reconstructed American Jewish Education, 1910-1965 edited by Carol K. Ingall

The pdf is here

Libby Braverman was a Cleveland Jewish educator who greatly influenced Jewish education in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s.

Her Encyclopedia of Cleveland History bio is here

The full book is here

History of Child Care in Northeast Ohio (thru 1998) from Encyclopedia of Cleveland History written by Dr. Marion Morton

CHILD CARE – The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

the link is here

CHILD CARE. Since the mid-19th century, Cleveland has cared for children needing residential or day care or medical services. Although child care has been both a private and a public responsibility, the public sector has played an increasingly significant role since the 1930s. The first public institution to care for children was the City Infirmary, built in 1837 to house all dependents, including the ill, elderly, disabled, and insane. In 1858 the House of Correction, also called the House of Refuge, opened for vagrant or delinquent children under the age of 17, operating in conjunction with the city workhouse from 1871 until closing in 1891. From 1891-1901, delinquent children were kept in the Cuyahoga County Jail. Some public funding supported temporary shelter and training for dependent children in the City Industrial School (1856-71), founded by METHODISTS in 1853 as the “Ragged School.”

However, private charities, often with strong religious ties, sponsored most of the city’s 19th century child care. Protestants, Catholics (see CATHOLICS, ROMAN) and Jews (see JEWS & JUDAISM) established several institutions for children from the mid-19th to the 20th centuries (see ORPHANAGES). These institutions provided long-term residential care while child-placing agencies provided temporary shelter and placed children in foster or adoptive homes. The CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY was organized in 1858 as an outgrowth of the City Industrial School. The Cleveland Humane Society (like others around the country, at first the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) began to serve children in 1876, charged with enforcing a new state law that prohibited cruelty to children. The society investigated cases of neglect, abuse, or abandonment and was empowered to remove children from their parents and place them in orphanages or foster homes if necessary. In most cases, however, the Humane Society simply admonished parents or forced them to supply adequate financial support. It also administered Lida Baldwin’s Infants Rest for foundlings (1884-1915). In 1887 the Lutheran Children’s Aid Society was established for children of LUTHERANS.

Religious institutions also provided preventive or protective services for children judged to be neglected, delinquent, or predelinquent. In 1869 the SISTERS OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD opened their convent for young women, and in 1892 the WOMAN’S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION, NON-PARTISAN, OF CLEVELAND, opened its Training Home for Friendless Girls. These institutions purported to reform and reclaim young women through religious training in a familial and domestic setting. Private organizations sponsored daycare facilities, beginning with the CLEVELAND DAY NURSERY AND FREE KINDERGARTEN ASSN., INC. (1882).

Four medical facilities especially for, children were established around the turn of the century: Rainbow Cottage (1887) for convalescent children, which became Rainbow Hospital for Crippled & Convalescent Children (1913); the Children’s Fresh Air Camp (1889), later HEALTH HILL HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN; Babies’ Dispensary & Hospital, a free milk dispensary (1904) which later added a clinic (1907); and the Holy Cross House for crippled and invalid children (1903), administered by the EPISCOPALIANS (Diocese of Ohio). In 1925 the Babies’ Dispensary became part of UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CASE MEDICAL CENTER (UH), joined by Rainbow Hospital in 1971 to form Rainbow Babies & Childrens Hospital of UH.

In 1909 a White House Conference on Dependent Children signaled the interest of the Progressive Era in child welfare and helped establish 2 trends that would dominate child care through the century: the shift from institutional to noninstitutional care and the increase in public funding and management. The conference took the official position that “home life” (as opposed to institutional life) was best for children; in 1910 the Western Reserve Conference on the Care of Neglected & Dependent Children reiterated that preference. The establishment of CUYAHOGA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT in 1902 marked a new recognition of public responsibility. Created in reaction to deplorable conditions of the children’s facilities in the city jail, the court provided for dependent and neglected children. Delinquent children were placed on probation, in a public reformatory institution such as the Hudson Boys’ Farm (1903) or BLOSSOM HILL SCHOOL FOR GIRLS (1914), or in a private protective facility. The court also collected child support from negligent parents. In 1913 the State of Ohio passed a mothers’ pension law, providing funds for widowed or deserted mothers to continue to care for their children.

The growing preference for noninstitutional care gave child-placing agencies new importance. Because there were no county children’s homes, in 1909 Cuyahoga County provided funds to the Humane Society to place children in boarding homes. In 1913 the society also received city monies to establish systematic child-placement. In 1921 the Children’s Bureau was established to standardize the placement of Protestant and Catholic children in foster and adoptive homes. The Welfare Assn. of Jewish Children, (later the JEWISH CHILDREN’S BUREAU) handled the placement of Jewish children. Several nonresidential services also developed, such as the WOMEN’S PROTECTIVE ASSN. (1916), which became the Girls’ Bureau (1930), working closely with juvenile and municipal court probation officers, and the Jewish and Catholic Big Brother/Big Sister programs (est. 1919-24, see BIG BROTHER/BIG SISTER MOVEMENT).

Despite the noninstitutional preference, new facilities for adolescents were, established, partly in response to concerns about delinquency and CRIME. The Catholic Diocese opened St. Anthony’s Home for Boys (1906) and the CATHERINE HORSTMANN HOME for high school girls (1907). The work of the Convent of the Good Shepherd was divided between the Sacred Heart Training School, which admitted girls referred by juvenile court, and the Angel Guardian School, which sheltered dependent girls. The Humane Society opened Leonard Hall, formerly Holy Cross House, for high school boys.

The community responded to the needs of young children as well. The Cleveland Day Nursery & Free Kindergarten Assn. was founded in 1983. Since kindergartens had become a public responsibility in 1897 (see EDUCATION), nursery schools and daycare centers gradually replaced the association’s kindergartens. In 1922 the Sisters of the Holy Humility of Mary opened Rosemary Home for crippled children (later ROSE-MARY CENTER). Orphanages merged, moved to the SUBURBS, expanded, and broadened services to include “troubled” children.

The Depression accelerated the trends toward public responsibility and noninstitutional care. As private funds dwindled, the number of children admitted into the city’s child-care institutions dropped significantly: from 2,139 in 1928 to 1,346 in 1930. Public funding, particularly federal, became more important, and public agencies, particularly the county, assumed new responsibilities. In 1930, for example, the Cuyahoga County Child Welfare Board took over the placement of more than 1,000 children from the Humane Society and the Welfare Assn. for Jewish Children. The county also maintained a detention home, offering children temporary shelter. In 1935 the Social Security Act provided federal funds, to be supplemented with local dollars, for Aid to Families of Dependent Children (AFDC). Since the 1930s, both county and federal governments have expanded these roles. AFDC has borne chief responsibility for care of dependent children, usually within the family. From 1979-80, 90,300 Cleveland residents received AFDC funds. The Cuyahoga County Department of Human Services provided child placement in foster and adoptive homes and private facilities as well as daycare and protective services. The county also maintained the Metzenbaum Children’s Center, a temporary shelter and diagnostic facility; a juvenile detention home; and the Youth Development Center in Hudson, formed by the merger of Cleveland Boys School and Blossom Hill. The Ohio Department of Youth Services administered Cuyahoga Hills Boys School for juvenile offenders.

Since the 1940s, private child-care agencies have merged and diversified, most specializing in counseling in residential or nonresidential settings. When AFDC and other public-relief programs diminished the need for institutional care for dependent children, orphanages and, child-placing agencies shifted their focus to children with emotional or behavioral problems. Residential protective facilities included Marycrest School, formerly the Sacred Heart Training School, the CRITTENTON HOME (which served unwed mothers prior to 1971), BOYSTOWNS, and group homes run by the Augustine Society and the West Side Ecumenical Ministry. The Catherine Horstmann Home began to serve retarded young women.

Family service agencies provide a wide range of programs. In 1945 the Humane Society and the Children’s Bureau combined to form Children’s Services, which in 1966 absorbed a former orphanage, the Jones Home (see JONES HOME OF CHILDREN”S SERVICES, INC.). Children’s Services has offered foster care, unmarried-parent counseling, daycare, and, in the Jones Home, care for emotionally disturbed children. The Lutheran Children’s Aid Society has provided family counseling and foster-home placement. Catholic Social Services and the Jewish Children’s Bureau offered child placement and daycare while Catholic Social Services and the JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE ASSN.have counseled families and individuals.

The increase in daycare facilities reflects the growing numbers of mothers in the paid workforce since World War II. In 1949 only the Day Nursery Assn., the JEWISH DAY NURSERY, and the WEST SIDE COMMUNITY HOUSE sponsored daycare. In 1962 9 agencies provided daycare to about 1,000 children. By 1982, in addition to Catholic and Jewish organizations, the CENTER FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, the GREATER CLEVELAND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ASSN., the SALVATION ARMYKARAMU HOUSE, and federal, state, and local funds supported a wide range of daycare options. The total 1982 capacity of these nonprofit centers was 6,140 children.

Public funds have enabled these private child-care institutions and agencies to expand and diversify: public agencies have often bought specialized professional services from them, like daycare, psychiatric and medical care, and counseling. The availability of public monies, however, depends upon the state of the economy and the spending policies of elected officials.

Marian Morton

John Carroll Univ.

Joe Hallett: Neither party can be trusted to enact redistricting reform (Columbus Dispatch 9/16/12)

Joe Hallett: Neither party can be trusted to enact redistricting reform (Columbus Dispatch 9/16/12)

Neither party can be trusted to enact redistricting reform

On a large envelope over coffee last month, Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted sketched out a remarkably simple and logical plan to change Ohio’s process for drawing congressional and state legislative boundaries.It was an improved version of a redistricting bill that, as a state senator in 2010, Husted got the GOP-controlled Senate to pass — only to watch it die in the then-Democratic dominated House.That year was the perfect opportunity for reform, because neither party was sure who would win the statewide elections and control of the Ohio’s map-drawing board. And while Republicans appeared willing to negotiate, state Democratic Party leaders backed away and rolled the dice. They were confident that Democratic former Gov. Ted Strickland would win re-election and that Republican Auditor Dave Yost would not win, and they would gain control of the map-making.

So now we have State Issue 2, a Nov. 6 ballot proposal to reform redistricting by amending the state constitution. Husted has made no secret of his opposition to it. If not for his demonstrated commitment to ending partisan gerrymandering, Husted might now be facing legitimate accusations that the ballot language his office drafted for Issue 2 was rigged to make it fail.

That is precisely what his fellow Ohio Republican officeholders at the Statehouse and in Congress want to happen. After winning control of the redistricting process in the 2010 election, they are eager to preserve a map laden with districts contorted in their favor.

The GOP-controlled State Ballot Board’s approval of the inadequate ballot language was just another step in the Republican Party’s campaign against Issue 2 to ensure that it rules Ohio for the rest of this decade, even though the state’s partisan index is roughly 50-50.

But someone forgot to clue-in the Ohio Supreme Court, ruled 6-1 by Republicans. In a decision that restores hope for an independent judiciary, the court found that the ballot language contained “material omissions and factual inaccuracies” that would be “fatal” to its chances for approval. It ordered a rewrite, which the board did on Thursday, rendering a still confusing description of the amendment.

The guts of the Issue 2 amendment were written by two Ohio State University professors for a bunch of nonpartisan good-government groups such as the League of Women Voters, Citizen Action and the Ohio Council of Churches. The amendment set forth a complicated process to ensure that lines for legislative and congressional districts would be drawn by an independent citizens’ commission, not politicians.

The Ohio Democratic Party and labor unions — past obstructionists to redistricting reform — endorsed the amendment because it gives them a chance to get out of political Siberia before the next round of mapmaking in 2021. Democrats and the unions are now driving the campaign in favor of Issue 2.

The GOP, meanwhile, has launched a war against Issue 2, which sources say is being funded in part by Republican lawmakers motivated to save themselves.

One-party rule through gerrymandering is one reason our government doesn’t work as well as it should, because it thwarts competitive elections and empowers narrow-minded and uncompromising ideologues from the party in control. No one on Capitol Square has opposed gerrymandering more credibly than Mike Curtin, retired associate publisher of The Dispatch and arguably Ohio’s foremost political historian.

Last month, Curtin, a Democratic candidate for the Ohio House, went before the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and urged it to endorse Issue 2. He harkened back to leaders such as John Adams, who 230 years ago “recognized gerrymandering for the evil it is.” He cited U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s lament “that when it comes to apportionment, we are in the business of rigging elections.”

Referring to Issue 2, Curtin said, “It is not perfect. The perfect plan does not exist and will never exist. I would ask you to use your common sense, and to acknowledge the time-honored maxim to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

“This is a good plan. It is 100 times better than what we have, which is in the running for being the worst in the nation.”

Republican leaders have promised that they will work with Democrats to enact redistricting reform if voters defeat Issue 2. Both have been making that same promise for four decades.

“In each subsequent decade, the gerrymandering of Ohio’s congressional and state legislative districts has become more blatant and more corrupt,” Curtin said.

Joe Hallett is senior editor at The Dispatch.

Dennis Kucinich aggregation

1 Dennis Kucinich: The Boy Mayor (Video)
2 Dennis Kucinich from Wikipedia
3 The Complete Kucinich – from Cleveland Magazine
4 CBS Evening News on Cleveland’s Default – Dec., 1978
5 Muni Light 15 Years Later
6 “The King of Spin” From The Scene
7 Kucinich’s Final Days – from Cleveland Magazine
8 NBC’s Tom Snyder interviews Dennis Kucinich at Tony’s in 1978
9 Cleveland mayoral recall election, 1978
Teaching Cleveland Digital