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.

Q: Okay. Did you ever receive, ah, the $20 figure?
A: That, well, now you're, I haven't, huh, (chuckle) looked at the, I, I didn't really, I looked at the activity logs and it's really hard for me, ah, to recall that, um, (huh)
Q: Well, we go
A: .. um
Q: ... through the document here, ah, that we were going through earlier, and what do we have here on August I5th, 1991 ?
A: That's right, it,-you're correct it doe-, it did seem to me like there was a lot, ah, much smaller amount that we ended up receiving. Um,. and this says, "your settlement offer of March 26th, 1991, $6,903 and 94 cents, a lump sum settlement together with providing one year of services at the facility for two boys. Was accepted, ah, by Jonell Blatt, who spoke with you on April 12th, 1991." I believe the reason why we brought it down to that 6,000 was, I think, there was an AG involved that said that might not be a bad idea. And, but, that's real foggy to me because I, I, okay, okay, OK Boys, oh, Chris Jennings, uh-huh.
Q: Now, is that, ah,
A: This, I, you know, Helen, t-, Helen Hannigan, who at the time was our claims officer and Al Lloyd,- there, this, this a memorandum is to Al Lloyd, who was our program manager, spoke with Chris Jennings,
Q: Okay. Now,
A: ... on this
Q: ... was Helen Hannigan, she above you, then, in, in authority
A: ... No, Helen,
Q: ... per se?
A: ... n-, no, Helen isn't, was, ah, kinda stand alone, a claims officer is someone who has a, ah, has a, a law degree. And they do a lot of this for us, when we get to a certain point in the negotiation, if there's any, um, ah, stipulated agreements or stuff, they, they do get involved. And, ah, at that time, I was only a Financial Recovery Officer 1, which would be very appropriate, at a certain level they take over.
Q: Okay. So, this seems appropriate
A: ... Oh, yes,
Q: ... to you then?
A: mm-huh, yes
Q: ... Okay
A: ... yeah, for Helen to, to help us out on it and, and check with the AG.
Q: Okay. And, in, -this memorandum indicates that that's what they did and with Chris Jennings, the AAG involved?
A: That's correct, uh-huh.
Q: Now, did you know, do you know Chris Jennings?
A: I recognize the name, but, and I, I know I probably had a meeting or so, back then, but I hardly, I, that's about it. (huh)
Q: Okay.
A: Um,
Q: And is it your understanding that the memo says that, um, they, he thinks it would be a good offer to go ahead and do the,
A: The payment
Q: ... this
A: ... uh-huh.
Q: $6900?
A:' That's right. I think he felt that the, ah.' it says here, "we need to explain -to, ah, Jerome Buzzard, their attorney, that we cannot change the audit findings." It was more important for the office -to pr-, protect the integrity of, of those audit findings, the natural money. Because that, he wanted those audit findings to be, just like, erased. And, so, the money, all of a sudden became of secondary importance. Because you need to protect the integrity of those findings. Q: But your office didn't have the authority to do anything about the findings, anyway.
A: Absolutely not, and I don't, I can't believe anybody could.
Q: Okay. So, does it sound like they got pe-, does he sound like you got people off track then? If, if the department. had no authority, your department had no authority to deal with any aspects of the audit findings, then it s-, sounds like he got you off track on protecting the integrity of the findings versus collecting the money.
A: I don't know, 'cuz I didn't deal with him, Helen did in this area, so, I don't know, ah, what, what their conversations were.
Q: But, in any case, that, your last understanding was, originally, back in, ah, January of that year, that he was willing, in that memorandum, that we previously discussed, that he was willing to do the 20,000, which included the $6900, that was...
A: ... Mm-huh
Q: ... your understanding
A: ... That's correct.
Q: And then, ah, bottom line there's some other communication going on where he just saying, "I'm not gonna pay anything." And now we're down to the 6900 where the AG says, "okay, sounds' like a good deal." And that was conveyed to Jerry Buzzard, was it not? On, ah, you have- a memorandum here (pause) dated, ah, 4/12/9 1, telephone call to Jerry Buzzard where you state that we accept his counteroffer, is that correct?
A: Yes, and I include, "I will contact John Bringle explaining that the 'in kind' is a go. He, Buzzard, will write up the settlement and forward it. Explain that we could not alter or address any audit findings. That settlement of, that settlement of this audit, makes audit findings a mute point, okay?"
Q: Okay. So, basically, that's pretty much what your understandings about.
A: Mm-huh.
Q: And then, ah, in August 12th, ah, all these documents start showing up, ah, what they called, ah, Stipulated Settlement Agreement, where Buzzard had sent a Stipulated Agreement and then signed by Mr. Tom VanWoenden on 10/3/91.
A: That's correct. And that particular, ah, one that originated from, um, Jerry Buzzard, included, um, (side 1 ended)
Q: That was the end of side 1, ah, the time now is, ah, 2:35. And, Jonell, before we were interrupted by the end of the tape we were talking about the Section 4 of the Stipulated Agreement, ah, that Mr. Buzzard, ah, ah, had sent to your department, is that correct?
A: That is correct, and in that, that was the first draft, or his draft, to the, and that included an Item number 4, which reads, "this settlement is made with the full understanding that neither party admits the truth or falsity of the audit allegations other than those allegations which form the basis of the overpayment of $6,903 and 94 cents referenced herein.' That was signed by Tom VanW-, ah, Warden.
Q: And that was on 10/3/91, is that correct?
A: ... That's correct, uh-huh.
Q: Now, is it your understanding that, ah, your department would not accept that Stipulated Agreement?
A: That is correct.
Q: And that, ah, Helen Hannigan, ah, claims officer, then on October 18th of 1991, um, had sent a Stipulated Agreement to Mr. Buzzard?
A: That is correct, and it excluded Item Number 4. It o-, it, it was exactly the same thing, but it did not include that last, ah, paragraph 4.
Q: Okay, and she mentioned that, ah, she had made some, some changes in, ah, Section 1 and Section 2, Section 3 was changed because DCFS is writing a separate contract, is that correct?
A: That's what it says, yes, uh-huh.
Q: Okay. So, basically, what you understanding is now here, that is going on in your people's facility that there was going to be a separate contract dealing-with OK Boys Ranch with DCFS in accordance to what the Stipulated Agreement, ah, says. Ah, and it was, states real clear, ah, is-, Item 3 in the new agreement that was written up by
A: By
Q: OFR,
A: Yes.
Q: to be sent out to Mr. Buzzard, ah, "a separate contract between DSHS and OK Boys Ranch will be written to cover the period of the 'in kind' service specified in Section 2, ah, to provide a license for two additional beds for the handling of said additional placements."
A: That's correct.
Q: Okay. Now, this was sent out and you had looked in your file today and you noticed that you had a copy of this, signed by Mark Redal and, ah, g-, ah, with Miss. Golden (of the state).
A: Shirley Golden, who was, ah, who, ah, was a program administrator at the time.
Q: Okay. That was sent out. And then you have one copy, also, of one signed by Mr. VanWoenden, ah, but you don't have, that copy does not show that it was signed by anybody from DSHS, is that correct?
A: That's correct, we have two s-, um, we have one copy of this Stipulated, Revised Stipulated Agreement, that was signed 11/23191 by OK Boys Ranch, Tom
Q: VanWoenden?
A: ... VanWoenden. And then you have another one, by separate Cover, that was signed by, ah, Shirley Golden on 10/24/91 with the Office of Financial Recovery and then Mark Redal on 10/21 of 1991.
Q: Okay. Now, the documents that you have here, do we have any documents with all three signatures on it?
A: It doesn't, I do not have that in my file.
Q: Okay. Now, was it your understanding, ah, in the very beginning that there would be a monitorization of this 'in kind' payment, is that correct?
A: (cough) Yes, but, the, my g-, my understanding of this was that the, ah, Children and Family Services would just take care of that. And then as soon as the $48,000 of 'in kind' service was paid, they would notify the Office of Financial Recovery and we would make an adjustment to the account. Urn, as of this date that adjustment never, huh, never took place.
Q: Other than the 6900 and some dollars that was…
A: ... That is correct
Q: ... sent to you from Mr. Buzzard. Ah
A: ... That is correct.
Q: and the, so called negotiated s-, s-, settlement,
A: That correct, uh-huh
Q: ... um and it was your understanding -that they would be providing an 'in kind' payment, the $48,000 per...
A: ... Within one year.
Q: Within one year? And, you don't know whether or not, ah, there was ever a contract written from DCFS, along with OK Boys Ranch, there's, you don't know, ah, well, let's put it this way, there's no indication that there's a copy of that in the file, in yours or in-ours, is there?
A: No.
Q Okay. But, the Stipulated Agreement did state that there would be a contract written, and matter of fact the letter dated, ah, by Miss. Hannigan on, what was the date of that, ah, previous mentioned letter, that, right, that was October 18th, 1991, ah, that she had written Mr. Buzzard in regards to the Stipulated Agreement and the Sections, and that the, ah, DCFS would be entering into a separate contract with OK Boys Ranch dealing with the 'in kind' service payment.
A: That's what I read in the file. I wasn't re-, I wasn't really, ah, aware of a separate contract or anything, that wasn't my, I didn't function in that area, but, obviously, that was part of the Stipulated Agreement.
Q: Okay, and an 'as time went on, um, and, go, we get into '93 and then there's some conversation with Jim O'Neal from Region 6, ah, wanting to know, ah, what is going on in regards to monitoring of the payments, is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And ybu don't, ah, show anything in the file that, ah, in your, service episode record there, that, ah, there was any indication of any monies coming into the department or notification of any money coming into the department other than the receipt of that check for 6900 originally, is that correct?
A: That's correct, ah, we telephone call, ah, to, gave a telephone call to Jim O'Neal on 3/22 of '93 and, um, to follow up on it. Another one on 5/17 and he said he was going to send a letter. Urn, on 6/21/93 the letter received confirming current status of facility, "anticipates adding--two boys in July of '93 and that the 'in kind' process to start, due to the many variables, wait to follow up." Then on 1/26 we had a memo to Jim O'Neal requesting the status update on the 'in kind.'
Q: That
A: ... Urn
Q: ... was 1/26/94?
A: '94. 2/10 of '94 telephone call, ah, he's sending a response and then the 'in kind' wasn't started yet. Urn,
Q: So, basically, all the way up into '94, ah, after your department was under the assumption that there would be some kinna payment coming down the road,
A: Mm-huh
Q: ... we don't show any indication of any payment other than the original $6900?
A: That's correct.
Q: Now, is this debt still owed?
A: Yes, it is and, ah, ah, in fact, one of our financial recovery officers would ta-, was taking a look at it and going, ah, because of the publicity of, of, the, ah, OK Boys Ranch no longer operating, um, I doubt if there is anyway that we can now collect that money.
Q: Okay, has your department made any provisions in any which way, ah, to, ah, write off this debt at this time?
A: Ah, Gloria Turner, who was a Financial Recovery Enforcement Officer 2, ah, wrote on her, on 12/16/19, "just a little, slash, write-off." That hasn't been done. All write-offs are referred to, anything a thousand dollars and below was referred, ah, me, anything a thousand dollars and above is referred to, um, the supervisor, and then I think, at a different level of dollars, I'm not quite sure, it goes up to the program manager. So, there, at this point there has been no decision, ah, to write this off, um, there was a couple of directives I, I believe given to us to see what we could do about this, see if there was any money, ah, owed to OK, ah, to OK Boys Ranch, possibly, you know, last payment or something, we were suppose to look into that first.
Q: Now if, is it your understanding then that, ah, an, dollar amount at this magnitude, ah, if it was going to be written off would need to be with the approval of DCFS? Or note, some notification that, ah, ah, there would have to be some form of communication with, ah, upper management in the department, that would say, "we need to take a look at this and maybe write this off, or is, are you aware of some other way we may be able to collect this debt." Would that take place, do you know?
A: Ah, we communicate with the initiating programs, who contract with the vendors. Um, the Office of Financial Recovery, I believe, has the authority, ah, to write off compromised debt. Urn, I not sure i-, ah, the, 1, I'm sure that at a certain level, of course, the programs are, also, a-, a-, have the authority to request that, but they can't actually write off an accounts receivable, that is not in their office. So, I don't know, um, this file was being reviewed and we'd have to do some asset investigation. We had to definitely find out about the status of the 'in kind' service, was, the 'in kind' service, ah, not performed because of the state of Washington not wanting to place anyone, or was the 'in kind' service not performed because OK Boys Ranch wouldn't take any, ah, ah, 'in kind,' I mean, wouldn't, wouldn't take, any extras. So, I don't know, but, you know, we'll have to took into this...
Q: ... W-, or could it be that maybe the agreement that was, ah, agreed upon between all factions, that there was no incentive for OK Boys Ranch to even. put in a 14th or 1 5th child?
A: I have,.1 have no idea, that's something we'd have to find out. But, quite frankly at this point our ability to collect-this money is, is, I would say that this is a marginally collectable debt. They do have assets, they have property.
Q: And if they have that property, then that would be an avenue that your department could go, follow
A: ... Mm-huh
Q: ... to collect that debt, is that correct?
A: Mm-huh. Urn, however, I'm sure that we'd ha-, first we need to get a judgement, if they refuse to pay, we'd, we would need to get a judgement against them. And that, of course, would be a court case, it-would be Superior Court.
Q: And then we're da-, ah,
A: ... And, and the decisions whether to go with that or not are, ah, ah, it's an AG's decision, he's the one who has to spend the time, the energy, and do the case.
Q: Okay. So, basically, what we have is a, ah, dispute hearing finding and resolution of a debt of $79,952 and some cents, that has never been paid since 1990, except for the 6900 and some dollars. And interest has been accruing on that debt from that time-frame, is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: So, at-a, is it one percent or one point five percent? I think it's one percent.
A: Well, now, um, (pause) there, in the original agreement there was no, not going to be any interest. (banging) Um, because it was $48,000 worth of 'in kind' service, a cash payment. So, you know, I really don't know what the status, I am not qualified t-, to tell you what the status of this account would be, as collecting it.
Q: Okay
A: ... That s what we were, (chuckle) trying to find out, because there was an agreement. Now, $48,000 was 'in kind' service, we'll have to go and see if we can try to collect that $48,000, now, since the service wasn't provided. And I don't know about adding the interest to it, you know, I, I'm not sure that's something that's a call that is beyond me.
Q: Okay. So, it, just for record, ah, of February 27th, 1991 letter, we were dealing with, ah, an interest per month of one percent, is that correct?
A: That's right, on the original one I offered him a repayment agreement.
Q: Okay
A: ... But, as the actual settlement, what actually was settled for that particular performance audit was that Stipulated Agreement.
Q: Okay
A: ... That represents what was to be done with that account. And I don't think the interest could really be charged quite frankly.
Q: Okay.
A: But, then, I don't know.
Q: Okay.
A: That's not my (chuckle) call.
Q: Urn, but if, what would, what is the normal process that your department-would go through if someone enters into an agreement and you asume-, assume that, they entered into it in good faith, you don't know...
A: ... It's null and void.
Q: It would be null and void?
A: That's, that's correct and that's s-, that's something, in this situation, I'd have to take a look at. There is only one of these, I believe, we have maybe 3000 accounts, and this is the only one that has an 'in kind' (chuckle) on it. So, add a Stipulated Agreement that goes with it, add, ah, an 'in kind' service that was contractually never took place. So, it's something that, that definitely we would refer to our claims officer to take a look at and give us some advise.
Q: Okay, after our discussion today are you going to recommend, ah, that your department take a good hard lo6k at this, ah, case file dealing with OK Boys Ranch before they make some, ah, decision to write off the debt?
A: Urn, they are taking a good look at it, it, it's real, we need to get information from the Region, we need to know, ah, how to go forward with this. We found out that there was no money, or that they were holding back or anything like that. So, ah, right now, um, our normal procedure would t-, probably, I'd give Scott Lockwood a call, have him take a look at the Stipulated Agreement, ah, refer it to him, because there are a, different, it's not just like a normal repayment agreement (chuckle) that we had with an agreement that was merely between the Office of Financial Recovery and a Vendor, this was an agreement that was between the program, Office of Financial Recovery, and the Vendor. So, and if there was a contract, I don't know, between the Region. If there was a contract between the Region and between Children and Family Services on the 'in kind' service, what was the contractual language, was there a default term in there, you know, I have no idea.
Q: Okay. Urn, for your own information, we have reviewed the entire contract file dealing with OK Boys Ranch and the DSF, ah, DCFS.
A: Mm-huh.
Q: Ah, we have interviewed the, ah, Chief of Office of Vendor Services here. There is no contract in that contract file, that was ever entered into dealing with this Stipulated Agreement. So, for your own information...
A: ... Mm-huh
Q: ... there is, that contract does not exist.
A: Okay…
Q: ... If it does, no one knows about it, that we've been able to speak with. Ah, so, if thu-, do have communication with your people, then that is information you would want to know, and I give that to you...
A: ... Certainly thank you. (huh-huh-huh)
Q: ... freely so they
A: ... Okay
Q: ... don't have to go about trying to
A: To find it
Q: ... find it when I already know and our department knows that it does not exist
A: ... Oay, mm"huh
Q: ... and if it does no one else that we, t-, spoken with,
A- ... Mm-huh
Q:' ... ah, has heard it, so
A: ... Okay. What we will do is, ah, a-, we, we have a work sheet that's called collectibility work sheet, ah, for referrals to the AG's office, we go through and put everything down, any special circumstances. Obviously, um, he, he'll have to take a look at this and see, 'cuz I don't know what we'd do as far as the 'in kind' services...
Q: ... Um, do you know whether or not, ah, they had just looked at, ah, the, ah, OK Boys Ranch land itself as a, as the asset or did they look at additional properties, ah, that they may have had...
A: ... If I re-,
Q: ... in other locations?
A: If I recall, if I recall when I placed that lien originally on OK Boys Ranch, that was at the actual place of business where they did, where they did business as OK Boys Ranch. I am aware that the people who owned it are Kiwanis, um, so, I, I'm quite sure that they have other assets.
Q: Okay, so,
A: Oth-, other places, but, you know, that's something, there has been no investigation, ah, asset investigation.
Q: Okay, so, if it's Kiwanis run facility, a non-profit, ah, corporated facility, um, then are you, is your department in a position to took at the assets of that corporation, ah, or Kiwanis that they may hold in'lieu of, ah, or in part of, ah, recapturing the debt?
A: Ah, it depends, it looks to me, I, I'm just reviewing the quick claim deed and it looks to me like it's Olympia Kiwanis Homes for Youth of Washington Corporation, ah, you in, when you do an assess investigation, you may find that this is a separate corporation from other Kiwanis in other areas. That the only assets that are held that we could actually look for, are the ones held by (pause) the contract name, the corporate business name of OK Boys Ranch. Any subsidiaries or anything like that we could not go, ah, after in our asset investigation. But that's, this is all just, I have no idea, it has not been done yet.
Q: Okay.
A: So, (huh).
Q: Ah, do you have anything else you like to add to your statement today?
A: No.
Q: Ah, have any threats or promises been made to you since we started this interview?
A: No.
Q: At any time during this statement have you asked that the tape be stopped?
A: No.
Q: And at any time during this statement have you, ah, requested an attorney?
A: No.
Q: Okay. Tape recording is, ah, ended at, ah, 2:55 p.m.

To Blatt OSI 1/12/95 Statement Part 1

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.