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)

--part 1----part 3----part 4--
Q I'll pass you what, I think, is Exhibit 2 for your deposition. I'll ask that you just take one and pass it on.(Deposition Exhibit No. 2 marked for identification)
Q (By Mr. Paul) Were you at a Boys Ranch board meeting on June 21, 1989?
A I don't have an independent recollection of that, but if the minutes say I was, then I probably was.
Q And that's why we keep minutes, is to try to create an institutional memory?
A Right.
Q Line item 6 indicates (-----) resigned his position. He had been warned eight to ten times about his rough handling of the boys.
A - That's what it says.
Q Are you aware of whether anyone at the Ranch was ever terminated or disciplined because of rough handling - of the charges there?
A Well, I think I answered your question. Now, you have shown me some minutes that indicate that the Board was advised of that, so, obviously, on that date we were advised that that had occurred, and it says "rough handling of the boys," yes.
Q Does this help refresh your recollection as to any other incidents where staff at the O.K. Boys Ranch were disciplined or terminated or resigned concerning roughof the boys?
A It does not refresh my recollection about specific instances. There may have been other similar things that occurred, but that was over the course of six years, and I haven't been on the Board for a while, so I would not have an independent recollection right now about specific instances.
Q Did you recall whether---- had any encouragement in coming to the decision to resign his position, or was this--
A I'm sorry. "Encouragement" what do you mean?
Q Did someone tell him to quit or be fired?
A I don't have any recollection of whether I knew or not at that time, whether he had any encouragement from anybody.
Q Did you ask Mr. VanWoerden, who was present at this meeting, anything about this resignation for rough handling of the boys?
A I don't remember.
Q Did you ever hear any inquiries concerning rough handling or excessive violence when handling the boys at the O.K. Boys Ranch?
A I don't remember that. Inquiries from other members of the Board?
Q I really don't mind if it was a neighbor or -
A I don't remember any specific instances that you're inquiring about.
MR. LAW: Excuse me. If everyone is cool enough now, what is going on, I think, is the freeway. It's 4:00. We're getting traffic noise. I think it might be of helpful if we shut the windows now.
MR. PAUL: Close the windows.
MR. LAW: -Yes. Before it was the fans. Now we're getting traffic noise. (Discussion off the record)
MR. PAUL: Back on the record.
Q (By Mr. Paul) Didn't it surprise you that someone had been warned eight or nine times for rough handling of boys at the Ranch, yet still be allowed to work there?
MR. LAW: Object to the form of the question, Counsel. She's testified that she doesn't recall the incident., How could she answer that question based on her prior testimony?
MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A I don't remember.
Q (By Mr. Paul) Sitting here today, does it seem that eight to nine warnings about rough handling of boys is a bit excessive tolerance for management at the Ranch?
A I don't remember what we discussed at the time.
Q Sitting here today, is it your impression that a person working at the Ranch should be allowed eight warnings before any disciplinary action was taken by management at the O.K. Boys Ranch concerning rough handling of the children?
MR LAW: Object to the form.
A I don't remember the context of what occurred at that time, so I'm not in a position to say whether I thought it was excessive or not. I simply don't remember what it involved.
Q (By Mr. Paul) Were there any other people who worked at the Ranch who were warned eight to ten times about rough handling of the boys, as far as you know?
A I do not remember.
Q Do you remember that the Department - we call it DSHS. Are you familiar with that?
A Oh, yes.
Q I'll use that abbreviation, then, with your permission. Are you aware that DSHS audited the O.K. Boys Ranch?
A Yes.
Q How many times were you aware that this occurred?
A How many times did they audit the Boys Ranch?
Q (Counsel nods head).
A I'm aware of one time for sure, and there may have been others, but I recall one.
Q Did the Board of Directors support Tom VanWoerden in the dispute with DSHS?
MR. LAW: Object to the form of the question.
A The Board of Directors, I believe we hired an attorney to deal with the - to deal with the dispute with DSHS.
Q (By Mr. Paul) What was your understanding of the dispute?
A I'm not --I don't remember everything about it, but it had to do with some alleged overpayments by the Department to the Boys Ranrch for some services, and I don't remember exactly what.
Q Was it not alleged that the Boys Ranch had charged 120,000-plus dollars for services that were never rendered?
A I can't '- I don't remember the specifics of it. I just remember the-general.
Q Wasn't there also a programmatic portion of the audit which found substantial reason to believe that there had been sexual experimentation amongst the boys or sexual abuse between and amongst the boys?
MR. LAW: Object to the form of the question. It misstates the evidence. It misstates the audit reports, Counsel.
-MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A I don't remember seeing anything about that.
Q (By Mr. Paul) What investigation did you conduct as concerns this DSHS audit?
A Myself personally or the Board?
Q We'll start with you personally, Judge.
A Did I conduct any investigation in reference to the audit myself individually? No, I did not.
Q Did you read the Corrective Action Plan?
A I'm sure I did. It was probably presented to the Board. Well, let me say it this way. If it was presented to the Board, I did read it. And as I recall, we hired Buzzard and Darkenwald to represent us; and I think it was Jerry Buzzard. And we discussed in the board meetings what was to be done. And if they prepared a Corrective Action Plan, we would have seen that. I know it was settled.
Q This audit occupied several months, if not a period of over one-year, did it not?
A I don't remember how long it took. It was more than a month, though. It was a while.
Q As a member of this board, didn't you find yourself curious as to what the State had found going on at the institution that you served?
A Sure.
MR.. LAW: Object to the form.
A (Continuing) Yes, of course. That's why we hired an attorney to deal with it.
Q (By Mr. Paul) And did anyone on the Board do any investigation? I've asked you as to whether you personally undertook any investigation. Did anyone on the Board conduct any investigation concerning what DSHS found or reported?
A I don't know what anybody else on the Board did outside of the board meetings. I'm not aware that there was any other investigation outside of the Board.
Q Was any group of people delegated the responsibility of finding out what happened in this audit or what was reported by the State in this audit?
A We hired an attorney to deal with it.
Q Was anyone delegated other than Jerry Buzzard to deal with this audit?
A Anyone on the board? I don't remember that anybody was. I don't remember one way or the other.
Q I'll-pass you what we will mark as Exhibit 3. (Deposition Exhibit No. 3 marked for identification)
Q (By Mr. Paul) Judge Dubuisson, you were present at the meeting of the Board of Directors on September 20, 1989, were you not?
A According to the minutes, I was, yes.
Q And there was a report - I believe it was the initial report of the DSHS audit; is that correct - according to the minutes?
A You're referring to NO. 9?
Q I am.
A Now, I don't know if that's the first report, but that does indicate there was a report at that time, yes.
Q And it said that "The Board supports Tom in this dispute." Have I read that right?
A That's what it says.
Q On what did the Board base its support for Tom?
A I don't remember.
Q At this point, had there been any investigation concluded?
A About what?
Q About the DSHS audit of the Ranch, the $120,000 in services never rendered, the reports of child abuse and neglect, and the concern that the Ranch was not being responsive to the needs of the State or the people at the Ranch.
MR. LAW: Insofar as that question attempts or purports to describe the evidence that is in this case and purports to describe the audit, Counsel, that is graphically inaccurate, and it's the same problem specifically regarding the nature of the comments in the_ audit with respect.to abuse. You and Mr. Kelley have repeatedly misstated what that audit said, and I object to the form of the question again. We had this same problem in Ms. Soliz' deposition, and it happened over and over again. If you want to describe the audit and that language, I suggest you read what the audit said and not misstate what's there.
MR. PAUL: Mr. Law
MR. KELLEY: Just a second. It's right here. Let's get it exactly on the record.
MR. LAW: That"s fine, if you'll do that, that's fine.
MR. PAUL: Don't worry. I think the fact that you don't agree with my characterization of the evidence is not necessarily the grounds for an objection. But notwithstanding that objection, in the interest of accuracy, I think we'll look at the audit documents now.
MR. COCHRAN: You should make Cantrall's deposition audit an exhibit.
MR. LAW: Well, it's just that - and while he, fishing through there, it's a simple matter that, you know, the audit made an observation, and repeatedly you folks have attempted to turn what was an observation of possibility into a statement that something was true in terms of what the audit said, and it didn't 'say that.
MR. KELLEY: It said what it said, Counsel.
MR. PAUL: That's okay.
MR. LAW: And Mr. VanWoerden invited them to investigate, and they never did. (By Mr. Paul) Let me read from audit findings.
MR. LAW: Could you just give us the document number?
MR. PAUL: I have a document number, Counsel, 11050625. This is the State's finding.
Q (By Mr. Paul) "Documents provided by the contractor"- that would be the O.K. Boys Ranch - "after the on-site review indicated that the agency" - that would be the O.K. Boys Ranch - "did not report all incidents to DCFS or to parents. The Department did not have copies of written incident reports including, but not limited to, episodes that may have involved youths physically and sexually abusing other residents, staff physically abusing youths, and youths damaging property." Have you become familiar with those charges in the document provided by the.State?
A I don't remember ever - I may have. It was years ago. If your question is do I remember reading it, I do not remember reading it, but I may have. I don't remember ever discussing at any of our meetings allegations of this nature in reference to the audit, but it may have - we may have discussed them at our meeting.
Q Assume for the purpose of this question, Judge Dubuisson, that a substantial issue of the audit involved fears of -
MR. LAW: Counsel, if you again could read what the audit says.
MR. PAUL: Shush.
Q (By Mr. Paul) -- "youths physically and sexually abusing other residents, staff physically abusing youths." Would that have piqued your curiosity about what was going on at the O.K. Boys Ranch?
MR. LAW: Object to the form of the question.
MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A I'm not sure "piqued my curiosity" would be the correct way to phrase it, but it certainly would have been a matter that the Board would have discussed.
Q (By Mr. Paul) Was it discussed by the Board?
A I don't remember.
Q The Board, in its minutes of September 20, 1989, indicated that they support Tom in this dispute. At that time, had the Board or any of its members made any attempt to review the specific documentation provided by the audit?
A I'm sorry, I don't recall what the Board had an opportunity to review.
Q How did the Board decide to support Tom in this dispute if it didn't review these documents?
A I don't remember -
MR. LAW: Object to the form.
A I don't remember if we did or not.
Q (By.Mr. Paul) What should the Board have done in response to this audit?
MR. LAW: Object to the form.
MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A I'm sorry, I can't tell you what the Board should have done in response to the audit, because I don't remember what we discussed in response to the audit.
Q (By Mr. Paul) Did the Board of Directors of the O.K. Boys Ranch ever conduct a programmatic audit of the operations at the O.K. Boys Ranch?
A The board? A program - now, we had audits, but they were financial-audits. I don't recall a programmatic audit being, not during my term. I don't recall that being done by, the Board.
Q You indicated there is a financial audit and then there's a programmatic audit; is that right?
A Well,.I'm just assuming that by programmatic audit you mean, the actual programs that were carried on at the Ranch as opposed to the financial issues about the money coming in and going out and how it was spent.
Q So I take it, then, that the Board was concerned enough about financial aspects to where the Board hired or consulted with someone to conduct financial audits; is that correct?
A Yes, we did. That's just part of doing business for an agency. Yes, we did that.
Q Is it not also a part of doing business for an agency, Judge Dubuisson, to conduct an occasional programmatic audit?
A You know, I can only tell you what this particular board did. I don't know what's occasional for other boards to do.
Q But you do know that it's part of doing business to account for the money?
A Yes.
Q But it's not necessarily part of doing business to investigate the programmatic audit of an agency charged with taking care of young boys?
MR. LAW: Object to the form of the question. Also, Counselor, you're getting argumentative.
MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A Well, I stand by my last response to that question.
Q (By.Mr. Paul) Was there anything that made it impossible for the O.K. Boys Ranch Board to conduct a programmatic audit?
A I'm not aware of anything that made it impossible.
Q Was there anything that precluded you from looking at records before your term in office to determine if an audit had been done?
A No.
Q Did you do so?
A No.
Q Why not?
A it didn't occur to me that it would be necessary.
Q You knew at this time that ( -----) well, strike
that. You knew as of June 1989 that ( ------) had been warned eight to ten times about his rough handling of the boys, did you not?
A That was discussed at the meeting.
Q And you were present, Judge Dubuisson, were you not?
A Yes, I was.
Q And if you had looked at audit documents, you could have learned that there was substantial dispute concerning the youths physically and sexually abusing other residents and staff physically abusing youths, did you not?
MR. LAW: Object to the form of the question. And, Counselor, I believe you've really gone into this area to the point where now you're repeating inquiries that you've already made.
MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A I don't understand what you're asking now. You want to know again if I read the audit?
MR. PAUL: Can you read back the question?
A (Continuing) No, I heard your question. I don't understand what you're asking me.
MR. LAW: And I'll also state for the record, she just said that she didn't understand the question, so, Counsel, to have the question reread does not respond to the witness's statement that she does not understand the question.
MR. PAUL: - Thank you, Mr. Law. Could you repeat the question? And I will attempt to phrase it in a way that this witness can understand.
-THE COURT REPORTER: Question: "And if you had looked at audit documents, you could have learned that there was substantial dispute concerning the youths physically and sexually abusing other residents and staff physically abusing youths, did you not?"
--part 1----part 3----part 4--

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

From: ~~~~~~~~@aol.com
To: Louis Bloom 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 ineptly charged by Wa. St. 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 child abusing Olympia Kiwanis Boys Ranch.