The Olympia Washington Kiwanis members and their friends have cost the Washington State taxpayers over $50 million dollars (so far), because of their willful ignorance of long term, merciless and well known, child abuse that occurred at the Olympia Kiwanis Boys Ranch.

October 2006 note: This Olympia Kiwanis stuff is old news. I've left this information on the web, because I like the thought that someone will say to one of these Kiwanis friends or members: "Grandma, (Grandpa), are you still friends with those Olympia Kiwanians?"

Back to the 2011 or 2009 or 2007 or 2005 or 2003 or 2001 or 1999 or 1997 or 1995 or lbloom.net State of Washington Employees Salaries List

1994 Olympia Kiwanis Members List
2007 Thurston County employees list (pop 207,355)(1,332 employees)(includes gross & overtime wages, hire date)
2005 Thurston County employees list (pop 207,355)(1,257 employees)(includes hire date)
2002 Thurston County employees list (pop 207,355)(1,569 employees)
2002 Port Of Olympia employees list (pop 42,514)(40 employees)
2009 Oly Evergreen St Col employees list (938 employees)
Olympian Newspaper 2010 Thurston employees list
2006 Olympia School District employees list (Includes Benefits)
2002 City of Olympia employees list (pop 42,514)(685 employees)
Olympian Newspaper 2010 city of Lacy employees list
2002 City of Lacey employees list (pop 31,226)(226 employees)
2009 South Puget Sound Com Col employees list (1,001 employees)
Name search of Wash. State voters includes our addresses (and birthdays)
Name search of Wash State Court filings Traffic, Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile Offender, and Probate/Guardianship
Back to the beginning OKBR Home Page(http://lbloom.net/indexok.html)
Back to the beginning Jonell Blatt page
This confusing interview of Jonell Blatt, describes how the OKBR was able to avoid paying $72,000 of the $79,000, which Wash. State overpaid the OKBR in 1988.

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATION STATEMENT OF JONELL BLATT
This is a recorded statement of Jonell Blatt, Case Number S7940021. The time is now 2:05 p.m., the date is 1/12/95. I am Martin Dickson of the Office of Special Investigation. This statement is being recorded at 612 Woodland Square Loop, Building C, Fourth Floor, OSI Headquarters, Olympia, Washington.
Q: Jonell do you understand that this statement is being recorded?
A: I do.
Q: Is this with your approval?
A: Yes, it-is
. Q: Do you understand you have the right to refuse to have this statement recorded?
A: Yes.
Q: And would you give me your full name and spell it, please?
A: My full name is Jonell 0. Blatt, J-0-N-E-L-L, middle initial 0. Blatt, B-L-A-T-T.
Q: And would you give me your address, please? -
A: My home address or my work addr-, my home address is ---
Q: And would you give your home phone number, please?
A:------
Q: And would you give me your work phone number, please?
A: 753-1317.
Q: And would you give me your date of birth?
A: -----
Q: Okay. Jonell, what we need to do. is, is, ah, why don't you give me a little bit of your employment history, to the extent, ah, when you, ah, how long you've been employed with the state of Washington. Ah, when you, ah, became employed with Office of, ah, Financial Recovery and what your current position is now within the state of Washington.
A: Certainly, ah, I've been employed with the state of Washington since September of 1989. Ah,. six, as a Clerk 2, 1, six months later I became a Financial Recovery Enforcement Officer on a permanent basis. I am, now, ah, a Financial Recovery Enforcement Officer, ah, as the lead worker in the Vender Unit. I have had five years ex-, experience in the Vender Unit, ah, specifically, that's the only unit I've worked.
Q: It, at the time that, ah, you were, ah, employed with, ah, OFR, you came in contact with the file dealing with OK Boys Ranch, is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Were you probably the main person that did the work on that file?
A; Yes, uh-huh.
Q: Okay. So, back in 1987 and '88 the,.there was an audit, ah, dealing with OK Boys Ranch, is that correct?
A: Yes, there was.
Q: And did your department, ah, receive notification of an audit?
A: Yes, we received notification of that audit on 6/20 of 1989.
Q: Okay. Now, time went on, ah, there was some communication between, ah, your office and Attorney Buzzard and, also, that your department received final, ah, notification dealing with the dispute hearing, is that correct?
A: Yes, the dispute was, ah, finalized and on 4/11/1990 the, ah, first part of beginning to, ah, work the file, to actually collect the monies. Be, up until that time we're stayed from collection during disputes.
Q: Okay, in that dispute hearing, ah, it shows that the total dollar amount, ah, the result of that dispute hearing which was sh-, approximately, ah, 79,000, ah, 900 and some dollars that was due the department, is that correct?
A: That's correct, that was the re-, revised performance audit. Urn, and, um, that was revised on, in 1990, ah, around September
Q: Yeah, the
A: ... 1990
Q: ... the dispute hearing here, I'll show you here, the results of the dispute hearing is, you have a copy in your file.
A: Okay.
Q: Ah, the total revised overpayment in dispute was $95,000, ah, this, bottom line is, throw, through the d-, Department of Health Services reduced the sum to $79,952 and 92 cents, in full satisfaction of.claims derivative to this dispute.
A: Mm-huh.
Q: And that was signed, ah, August 21 st, 1990 by Rosemary Carr.
A: Okay, good, yeah, remember.
Q: Okay. So,
A: Mm-huh.
Q: then your department would receive this information and then, ah, through your enforcement procedure, be able to collect this overdue debt.
A: That is correct, uh-huh.
Q: Okay. Now, you initiated, ah, as the person in charge of this, ah, initiated conversations, ah, ah, with OK Boys Ranch, ah, either through Tom VanWoenden and, ah, Jerry Buzzard the attorney for the Ranch, is that correct?
A: That's correct. . 1, ah, originally called the director, Tom VanWoenden, on September 5th, 1990.
Q: And?--
A: About the audit.
Q: Okay. And, in that conversation did he say that, ah, he had or did not have authority to do, talk to you?
A: That's correct, he gave me Jerry Buzzard, ah, Buzzard's telephone number, he was an attorney, that worked on behalf'of the, ah, of a, the contractor, OK Boys Ranch. And said that he himself had no authority whatsoever, Tom VanWoenden had no authority to negotiate on that audit, any kinna settlement on that audit.
Q: Okay.
A: So, he just told me he didn't wanna talk to me. (chuckle). all?...
Q: Did, ah, did it sound like he w-, he, was pushing you off to Mr. Buzzard? 'Do you recall?…
A: ... Oh, yes, absolutely.
Q: Okay. In a polite way I would imagine?
A: Oh, yes, mm-huh
Q: ... Okay. Urn, then an 10/9/1990, ah, phone call with Mark Redal, per Earlene, and that is Earlene Carlson?
A: -Eh-, she's my supervisor, she gave me, ah, she told me that I could call, um, ah, the Regional manager, I believe he was the Regional manager, at that ti-,...
Q: ... Eh-, Regional administrator
A: ... administrator, at that time, yes, uh-huh.
Q: Okay. And bottom line, that was to get a better feeling to what was going on with OK Boys Ranch?
A- Mm-huh, mm-huh.
Q: Okay. And then, ah, around 10/17/1990 you have your initial contact, ah, ah, where you're to, have a conversation with John Bringle. Now, is this a telephone call that he called you or you left a message for him to call you?
A: He called me, ah, on that day.
Q: Okay. - An, ah, he wanted, did. you have contact with him that day or did you have to call him back?
A: I had- to call him back, I've, ah, let me s-, is there a memorandum of conversation that follows that?
Q: It shows here that, ah, on 10119 you were able to have communication with John Bringle.
A: Yeah, that, that's usually, lots of times I'll call and leave a message. If they're busy they don't get back to me and I can't hook up with or, you know, I can't speak with them. So, that, I looks like, ah, he called me first and I called him back, maybe, several times and then he had called me back.
Q: Okay. And the purpose of, ah, calling, ah, John Bringle at that time, do you recall what that was about? Was that about setting up a, a, a 'in kind' payment dealing with OK Boys Ranch?...
A: ... Yes, tha-, that's right, um, apparently, it looks to me like when I talked to Mark, I asked him about that,
Q: Okay.
A: and then maybe there was some, I don't know, obviously, then I got a call from John and then I called him back. And he said that they were willing to do an 'in kind' service. That it sounded, ah, you know, for two, they wouldn't do a short term, but they'd do for an entire year for two boys. And it would amount to about $48,000.
Q: Okay. Who initiated the actually concept of, ah, 'in kind' service, or 'in kind' payment?
A: Well, actually, I am the one who, ah, contacted the Region, with that concept, um,
Q: The Region, being Mark Redal?
A: Yes. Mark Redal. I contacted him, saying that this might be a way that we could protect the integrity of that, ah, performance audit, um, you know, and have two free, ah, you know, um, $48,000 worth of service done at no charge. And, it would, also, maybe, satisfy Jerry Buzzard. That because of their financial situation they, and I don't think they had any intentions of paying.
Q: You get the im-, you get the impression that, when your communications with Jerry Buzzard they had no intention of paying for anything at all?
A: We did get him to pay for some actual, um, a, items identified in the audit, that were actual cash items.
Q: One was the $6900?
A: Yeah, yes, that's correct. But,
Q: ... That was something that they freely admitted to?
A: Yes, and he agreed to that, but the rest of it, a-, they, he said that he was going to take us to court.
Q: Okay. So, the rest of it would be around, take the $6900 off of the 79,000, you're looking around $7,200 or so.
A: Mm-huh, 70,
Q: I mean, 72,000.
A: uh-huh, mm-huh.
Q: Okay.
A: That's right.
Q: So, we're actually, we're looking at then this initial proposal for a possibility of doing an 'in kind' payment structure
A:. Mm-huh
Q: ... as being passed by
A: ... Mm-huh
Q: ... Mark Redal, first. And then, ah, as a way to keep the thing going and make some resolution to the depth that is owed, is that correct?
A: That is correct, because we're in a very difficult situation, with the Office of Financial Recovery, these people are providing services and we have to be, um, we (chuckle) really have to do a lot of in 'gotiating (negotiating) small repayment agreements, because they, a, a lot of that's just fee for service. And they don't make a lot of money, so, that's why we, that's why we accommodated this compromise.
Q: Okay. Now, when you first, ah, approached the idea of dealing with 'in kind' payment, we have a memorandum here, to the file on 10/23/90 and, ah, telephone calls at, to (n) from, that you called him and then...
A... Right,...
Q: ... he returned the
A: . mm-huh,
Q: ... call
A: ... that's correct.
Q: to John Bringle?
A: Correct.
Q: And.it says, ah, "it is a go ahead with 48,000 in 'in kind' service. And I will get conformation, by mail." And then, ah, you have writing here of $31,952 and 98 cents cash. And then a $48,000 in 'in kind' payment.
A: That's correct. I'm not quite sure if that's my writing,
Q: Okay.
A: on there. (chuckle) Doesn't took, ah, like my writing, but that's about what it
Q: ... Is the 48,000 your writing?
A: No, I don't believe that either, ah, either, either of those figures are in my handwriting.
Q: (quietly) Huh.
A: But, I couldn't swear to it.
Q: Okay. Urn, why don't you take the time there and
A: ... Okay
Q: ... look at your file, ah, just for the record that we but (both) have, I have a copy of you file and you currently have the original...
A: ... Yes
Q: ... file-
A: Thank you. That was on 10/22/90.
Q: Yeah, 10/23/90.
A: 10/23/90. (pause - going through papers) No, that is not my writing.
Q: Okay, but it is on the original document in your
A: ... Yeah-!
Q: . ...file?...
A: ... mm-huh, mm-huh, yeah.
Q: Okay. So, is, somebody may have been looking through the file, they may have said, "okay, 48,000, now, we've got 31,900 that we have to deal with."
A: That's correct, that could've been a supervisor that was trying to figure out, you know, the, exactly where we stood on this.
Q: Okay. Urn, so, would this be your understanding then, if
A: ... Absolutely, I agree with that, yes,
Q: ... Okay
A: ... but, I just (chuckle) wanted to let you know I don't think it was my writing.
Q: Okay. No problem. I just wanted to know if it was your understanding then, ah, through this process there would be 48,000 in 'in kind'...
A: ... Mm-huh
Q: ... services and that there was a debt still owed of around 31,900 plus dollars?
A: ... That's correct. That,we still had to deal with.
Q: You still had to deal with. And, on 10/23/90, in a memorandum,
A: Right.
Q: a conversation in the file,
A: Mm-huh.
Q: um, a conversation with Jerry Buzzard, is that correct?
A: That's correct, I told him that, ah, that, ah, the offer. That, that we could do the 'in kind.' He said that he'd get a hold of Tom, I assuming the
Q: Tom VanWoenden.
A: Correct. And he'd get back to me, he thought it sounded good, but he might have a counteroffer.
Q: Okay. Now, the 'in kind' service, when he was saying, may have a counteroffer, A: (cough)
Q: do you think that you conveyed or did you know whether or not you conveyed the 48,000 plus the additional $ 31,900 in cash?
A: Yes, mm-huh.
Q: You did convey that?
A: Yes, mm-huh, I'm sure of that, because, ah, that's why he said a counteroffer. Quite frankly I knew Jerry would never go for the, I, 1 felt Jerry would never go f or 31, you know, that much cash, but, ah, I mean, it was a start. (huh)
Q: Okay. So, you were in the process of, of having some legitimate negotiations here?
A: ... Right, exactly, instead of refusal to even negotiate with us.
Q: Okay. Now, and on October 25th, 1990, you received a letter from, ah, John Bringle, chief of, ah, Children and Youth and Family Service Cou-, Support Services, is that correct?
A: Yes, uh-huh.
Q: And that's addressed to you and w-, this is the, formal notification that, ah, they had passed this by the assistant secretary and, ah, of OSHS or actually of, ah, DCFS, there, and that the, the 'in kind' structure for two beds, whether it would be a two additional beds or for, two beds, um, was conveyed to you, your, and your department, saying that, okay,
A: That's correct.
Q: two children for 'in kind' payment.
A: Yes, mm-huh.
Q: And, but for the record, it doesn't clearly state whether it would be two additional children or it, does it, it doesn't state that, does it?
A: No, it does not. It says two
Q: ... Okay, does it, it just says, two children.
A: Mm-huh
Q: ... But, does it say, two additional children either?
A: No.
Q: Okay, so, it doesn't say 13 to 14 children, or two children up front?
A: No, it does not It was just two children.
Q: Okay. And, did you receive any verbal communication from John Bringle or, ah, other information from John Bringle (Bringle) saying that, or through the secretary's office dealing with this 'in kind' payment that the payment was to be collected ut-, up front, for the first two children?
A: No.
Q: Okay. Did they tell you that there would have to be a, separate contract of any kind? Did that come down from Mr. Bringle's office?
A: I don't believe so.
Q: Okay.
A: That, if there, ah, in a quick glance through my documentation in the file, I don't see where we discussed a sep-, a, a contract with them.
Q: Okay. Now, we have a memorandum to the file, also, on November 1st, 1990. And that is from Earlene, which is actually Earlene Carlson...
A: ... Earlene Carlson, who is, ah, was at the time, ah, the program, the program administrator.
Q: Okay. And that was addressed to Al?
A: Lloyd, who was the program manager.
Q: Okay. And this, this document, ah, pretty much describes the chain of-events, ah,
A: Mm-huh.
Q: dealing with the dispute hearing
A: . Mm-huh
Q: ... and then some conversation with Mr. Buzzard. And it is her understanding, ah, that she's writing down here in the bottom, also, that we have an 'in kind' payment structure for 48 thousand dollars and then a balance of the overpayment of 31,900 plus dollars would be paid on, ah, repayment schedule, which was yet to be worked out?
A: That's correct.
Q: Okay, so, it's her understanding, also, that there's gonna need to be a repayment structure on this 31,000 plus dollars?
A: That's correct.
Q: Okay (pause) Now, on 12/11/1990, memorandum of conversation into the file, it's another telephone call on a conversation with John Bringle, is that correct?
A: Yes, I called him. And, is it, am I correct that you were checking on, ah, the amount of, ah, two, and you say extra boys?
A: Um, (pause) that's right I said, I, I asked him about it and says he will check into this, about the two extra boys. Um, and that he backed me up with the dollar amount that, that sounded right, the 48,000. Um, I then phoned Tom.
Q: Being Tom VanWoenden?
A: Yes, that's correct. And he said, sou-, says, sounds great, but he cannot negotiate with me, (giggle) but appreciate, um, the state, in...
Q: ... Okay
A: ... calling him. (giggle) Just for the record, what he actually said is, "appreciated my intelligence for a state worker." (giggle)
Q: Okay. That's what he said about you. Urn, then on December 24th, 1990, that there had been another letter written to J-, Jerry Buzzard, ah, dealing with the subject of 48,000 'in kind' service payment and the balance of $31,952 and some cents. And that, ah, he countered, ah, with the 48,000 'in kind' service with no cash repayment, is that correct?
A: Well, -in my, w-, ah, yeah, this must have been default, but this was to follow a tel-, af-, followed a telephone conversation,
Q: Okay
A: ... ah, that we had. And he rejected our of-, um, the offer, of a re-,
Q: ... Of the 48
A: 48 plus the rest of the 'amount on a b-, reasonable repayment schedule plus the interest.
Q: And that was the 31,900 plus dollars?
A: That's correct.
Q: Okay.
A: In my letter then, I kinda go over that and then I say, you countered with 48,000 in 'in kind' service with on cash repayment. Unfortunately, this is not within our guidelines as representatives for Washington State taxpayers. There was expl-, explicitly $20,683 and 92 cents in cash overpayments within the audit findings. These monies were excessive payments and cannot be negotiated to satisfy audit findings."
A: Then I go on to ask him to reconsider.
Q: Okay. And when you say that these, ah, dollar amounts ca-, ah, excessive payments cannot be negotiated to satisfy audit findings, what do mean that you can't negotiate those actual cash overs-, overpayments to them?
A: Um, it was our, i-, it was our decision, in the Office of, in, in our office, ah, there arf-, there are audit findings that will say someone does not have a credential', correct credentials, and things like that, that don't, that, ah, don't maybe, do not have a dollar amount, but these were actually overpayments that were paid to OK Boys Ranch for days that they didn't have the people there and that sort of thing and we felt that, that money should be returned for, to the state. It wasn't, ah, and that was just, that was just a call on our,
Q: Okay
A: ... that-was just an in-house decision at that time. We wanted to get the 20.
Q: Okay.- -
A: But,
Q: So, it, its not something that, ah, the law says that you can't negotiate on,
A: No
Q: it was something that, it was in-house to say, "hey, this was a direct cash overpayment and you need to pay this?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay. Now, as time went on, ah, there was several letters written to you by Mr. Buzzard, ah, dealing with the 'in kind' payment and also his lack of willingness to negotiate on the remainder, ah, of the balance of the debt owed, which was the 31,900 and some dollars. Ah, but they freely admitted that they were willing to pay the. $6900, is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And that you wanted pretty good, ah, pretty good lengths to try to get him to, ah, ah, comply with your request and that on January 1 6th, 1991, ah, negotiated payment, ah, proposal, ah, that the, it states here, "there is further negotiation to be done for the cash balance left owing on the audit in the amount of 31,952. Ah, so, in January 16th, 1991, ah, it's pretty well been explained that you need to pay this, and that...
A: ... Well, this,
Q: ... he had a counter offer that, ah, really wasn't a counteroffer, in the terms of Office of Financial Recovery, is that correct?
A: That is a correct, this January 16th is a memo that was filed to update anyone who would, you know, take a look at the file. And, um, um, he telephoned me the, the last time here was January the 15th. And he said that, "perhaps OK Boys could pay the 20,000 plus figure, do the 48,000 'in kind' and we could call it even."
Q: Okay, so, that was Mr. Buzzard's proposal, then?
A: Right, mm-huh.
Q: So, basically, if I understand, then, your impression is, based on that conversation, that you have an agreement pending?
A: That's correct. E-, a, they were going to do an 'in kind' service of $48,000 and give us this kinna money for cash.
Q: Okay, the 20,000?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Now, you know whether or not that included, in addition to the 6900 or was that 6900 included in the…
A: That was included.
Q: Okay, so, the 6900 was included in the 20,000?
A: Mm-huh.
Q: Okay. Did you ever receive, ah, the $20,000 figure?
To Blatt OSI 1/12/95 Statement Part 2

Below is an e-mail I received from a former Olympia, Washington resident.

From: ~~~~~~~~@aol.com
To: manaco@whidbey.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 11:34 AM
Subject: OKBR
Just came across your pages and felt the urge to respond... In the early 80's (81-83) I was at the OKBR frequently as a young kid walking to/from school, I became friends with some of the boys. At one point a small boy confided to me that he was being raped by another boy in the home. The abusing boy talked about it openly!
Days later I walked the victim to OPD where we both gave statements. Later that evening I began to receive these incredibly threatening phone calls from a woman employee of the ranch who's name I believe was Paulette at my home. She kept calling over and over screaming at me calling me names. It was horrible. I thought I was helping someone. Nothing came of it. Then all these years later, it all comes out ... one of the boys that I had known there left as a young adult and still couldn't get it together, he eventually killed himself. As an adult now I don't often think back to those times but it still saddens me. All those boys that needed a safe nurturing place to be, and how many of them were better off for having been taken there? It's not about money. It cost these boys their lives, their souls, their trust. Those people who knew, who didn't care, they should feel such shame. Just my opinion.

From: louis a bloom manaco@whidbey.net
To: ~~~~~~~@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: OKBR
thanks for your e-mail. from what i've read, dshs, the olympia police department, and other "authorities" didn't consider child on child rape to be against the law. it was considered "normal experimentation". The "paulette" you mention, may have been Collette Queener who was an assistant director at the OKBR. Collette, OKBR Director Tom Van Woerdan, and OKBR counselor Laura Rambo Russell were half-heartedly charged, with "criminal mistreatment for failing to stop abuse". The charges were dismissed by Thurston County Judge Daniel Berschauer on technicalities. The lawyer who represented Collette Queener said, (Nov. 14, 1996 Olympian), that it was a "witch hunt", and that " a more innocent person (than Queener) you could not have for a client. She's an ex-nun ..... I don't see how you could view her in an evil or negative light."
I congratulate you for doing the right thing, when all those adults looked the other way. I repeat on most pages that the " OKBR has cost the Washington State taxpayers over $35 million dollars (so far)", because I think most people don't care about the kids involved, but they may care that it has cost them (taxpayers) money.
louis bloom

There were many obvious and long-term warnings about the 1970-94 OKBR.