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 2----part 3--
Q Judge Dubuisson, have you any information concerning whether the O.K. Boys Ranch failed to comply with requirements in its contract with DSHS?
MR. LAW: Object to the form of.the question.
MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A I don't have any personal information that they failed to comply with any terms of the contract, that I can think of off the top-of my head. Now, if you want to ask me a more specific question, I might be able to answer it better.
Q (By Mr. Paul) Why did Tom VanWoerden get fired?
A Tom VanWoerden
MR. LAW: Excuse me. Object to the form of the question.
A (Continuing) As I recall, Tom VanWoerden was allowed to resign. But you want to know why the Board took that action?
Q (By Mr. Paul) That's correct, Judge.
A All right. And I'll tell you as best as I -
MR. LAW: Excuse me. I'm sorry here.
MR. COCHRAN: Just note the objection.
MR. LAW: Yeah, well, I'll note the objection. But the form-of your questions, Counsel, that's the problem we're getting into, and they're real - that question you just asked could have been asked in a way that did not assume things that aren't here or anything else. You throw this stuff out.
MR. PAUL: Don Law, your question - your objection is noted. My question is noted.
MR. LAW: Thank you.
MR. PAUL: I have 15 minutes or so to finish this depo, and I don't want you rubbing me out in terms of my ability to prosecute this claim. Go ahead and answer the question.
A (Continuing) Sometime toward the end of the year in, I believe, 1992, the Board had a meeting with Jean Soliz who was the Director, and I think still is the Director, of DSHS, and some of the other people from DSHS were also present; and at that meeting she told the Board that we the Ranch could not continue to operate under its contract with the Department unless we terminated Tom VanWoerden or the Board - or the Ranch was under new -management. And that's how I recall it. The Board asked her if we could have some time to get more information about what the allegations were in reference to Tom VanWoerden's inability to be an effective manager of the Board and some complaints that had been brought up against the Boys Ranch. The Board did that. The Board investigated extensively the relationship between Mr. VanWoerden and the Ranch and different areas of the community. We each took on an aspect to investigate. We spoke with representatives from the juvenile court, from the school district, from the neighborhood, and from the police department, and possibly others, but I don' t remember right now. It was determined, based upon the responses that the Board obtained, that Mr. VanWoerden was not able to be an effective manager of the Boys Ranch any longer, and we requested that he resign.
Q (By Mr. Paul) So do you think your asking for his resignation had something to do with his resignation?
A Yes.
Q So this resignation came at the request of the Board, didn't it? A Yes.
Q And you had an ultimatum from the State that said, if you want this place to keep on functioning, fire VanWoerden; is that correct?
A I don't remember that it was put in those terms exactly, but they wanted us to pursue new management for the Board - for the Ranch.
Q And that didn't mean bringing in someone to hold or supervise Mr. VanWoerden? That meant get rid of Mr. VanWoerden?
A That's how we understood it.
Q Do you have any question that that was not accurate at this point, sitting here today?
A That what was not accurate?
Q That your impression of Jean Soliz, ultimatum was--
A That's my impression, and I'm assuming it was accurate. I could be mistaken. I should clarify, though, Mr. Paul. It was also my impression that Ms. Soliz gave the Board an opportunity to make a further pitch for Mr. VanWoerden's continued leadership. So at the time that we met with her, I understood that it was not a closed issue, but that the Board could come back and discuss it further with her. She wanted it to be done fairly quickly, though. And I remember there was a problem, because it was toward the holidays, and therean issue about board members not being available and that kind of thing, but that's the time frame.
Q Given what's happened in Mr. VanWoerden's final term of one year at the Ranch, didn't you personally have serious questions about his ability to run that facility?
A During his last year at the Ranch?
MR. LAW: Excuse me. Object to the form.
A (Continuing) I do not remember having any concerns to the extent that I would think he would not be able to run the Ranch.
Q (By Mr. Paul) What independent investigation did you conduct concerning Mr. VanWoerden's ability to run the Ranch?
A Are you talking about after our meeting with Jean Soliz?
Q I'm talking about before, after or during.
A Well, I can tell you what I did after.
Q If it helps to break it up, feel free.
A After we met with Ms. Soliz, the Board met and divided up the areas that we were going to investigate. My area of investigation was the juvenile court, because I know Judge Casey, and she was one of the people who had expressed concerns. And I spoke with her, and I also spoke with someone from the juvenile court office, one of the probation officers. I don' t remember who it was. It was a man. and that's what I did in reference to my part of the, if you want to call it, investigation.
Q And other board members talked to other members of the effect to community, i.e., neighbors, schools?
A Yes, right.
Q And the response was very negative about Mr. VanWoerden, wasn't it?
A It wasn't totally negative, but it was sufficiently negative the Board felt they had to act.
Q And all this information would have been readily available earlier had the Board chosen to investigate, correct?.
MR. LAW: Object to the form.
MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A That I don't know.
Q (By Mr. Paul) What investigation did you conduct that revealed something that wasn't available six months earlier?
A I don't know.
Q Can you name one piece of information you got that had only been developed in the last six months
MR. LAW: Object to the form.
Q (By Mr. Paul) -- prior to the time you conducted this investigation at the behest of Jean Soliz?
MR. LAW: Object to the form.
MR. PAUL: I'm granting Mr. Law, without waiver, a continuing objection to the form of the question.
MR. LAW: I'll still make my objections on the record, Counsel.
A I'm sorry, now I forgot what you just asked me.
Q (By Mr. Paul) That's the reason for my concern.
Can you name one piece of information you collected in talking to Judge Casey, or juvenile justice personnel which wouldn't have been available six months previously?
MR. LAW: Same objection.
A I couldn't remember exactly what Judge Casey, or the juvenile court person told me, to tell you the truth, so I can't really answer that question.
Q (By Mr. Paul) Do you still have any contact with the Board of Directors of the Ranch?
A I still see individual members of the Board, yes, but not in connection with their official duties as board members.
Q Is the Ranch being dismantled, as far as you know?
A I don't think it's being - well, it's not being dismantled, but it's going to be undergoing new ownership and new management.
Q February of 1991, the Ranch Board decided to have the financial books audited; is that correct?
A Well, again, your dates, I can't say for sure, but at some point we did have a financial audit.
Q And Mr. VanWoerden indicated his willingness to do that, didn't he?
A Yes.
Q Did anyone ever raise to Mr. VanWoerden the possibility of having a programmatic audit?
MR. LAW: Object to the form, of the question. I believe that's been asked and answered.
A I don't know.
MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A I don't know.. I don't remember.
Q (By Mr. Paul) I'm asking if anyone inquired---
A I don't remember.
Q There was a Stop Placement Order by Jean Soliz, was there not?
A Yes, there was.
Q Why?
I can only tell you what I remember, and I'm not really certain, and I don't remember where it was - when it was, but I think it was in response to the lawsuit being filed, but I can't tell you exactly why - I don't remember exactly why she issued it. My recollection is that it had something to do with filing the lawsuit.
Q Did it have something to do with my clients being raped up there?
A It had something to do with filing the lawsuit, and, quite honestly, I don't remember what the lawsuit specifically said, the first one that was filed. I haven' t seen the most -. I -think I may have seen the first pleading, but I haven't seen anything since then.
Q Jean Soliz convened a meeting of you and other members of the Boys Ranch board?
A Yes. I already said that she did, yes.
Q And there were also members of the Kiwanis Club of Olympia present?
A Well, all of the Board members of the Boys Ranch board were also members of the Olympia Kiwanis ., but -
Q My question, Judge, is, were members of the Kiwanis Club of Olympia Board of Directors there at that meeting?
A There may have been, and there may have been people on the Ranch Board that were also on the Kiwanis Board at the time. that's possible, yes; I know there were quite a few of us there.
Q And there was a consensus about the decision to terminate Mr. VanWoerden's services; is that correct?
MR. LAW: Object to the form.
A There was not a consensus by the Board. You mean at the time of the meeting?
Q (By Mr. Paul) Yes.
A No, there wasn't any discussion among the Board members prior to the meeting about terminating Tom VanWoerden, that I can remember.
Q Was there - where was this meeting held? A It was held in a DSHS office some place.
Q Was there a subsequent meeting at a church shortly before Mr. VanWoerden's resignation --
A Yes.
Q --Was solicited?
A We had a meeting at the church too.
Q And at that meeting, were there not also present members of the Board of Directors of Kiwanis Club of Olympia?
A Yes.
A I don't remember who it was. I think it may have been Don Ernst, but I know Don Ernst was also on the Board of the Boys Ranch at some point, and I don't remember if he was the representative from the Kiwanis Board at the time or not.
Q And Don Powell was at this meeting?
A Don Powell? I don't remember whether he was or not.
Q And Mr. Van Schoorl was at this meeting?
A Possibly.
Q And at this meeting there was a consensus on the decision to terminate Mr. VanWoerden?
A I think we may have actually had more than one meeting at the church, but we, at some point, had a meeting at the church where there was a consensus reached to terminate Mr. VanWoerden, to ask him if he would resign.
Q Had anyone ever advised you that documents received pursuant to our discovery request have indicated that boys were having sexual contact with dogs at the Ranch over the course of the last ten years?
A Sexual contact
MR. LAW: Object - excuse me. Object to the form of the question.
MR. PAUL: So noted.
A With dogs?
Q (By Mr Paul) A dog.
A You're asking me if I know anything about that?
Q (By Mr. Paul) I'm asking you if you were advised from the beginning of time until today.
A No, I don't ever remember hearing anything about that.
Q And do you remember hearing, in the context of this litigation, that my clients were anally penetrated by older boys under threat of coercion?
A I remember that was one of the allegations.
Q Do you have any indication - strike that. Do you have any information whatsoever that would tend to show those allegations were not true and correct?
MR. LAW: Object to the form.
MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A I don't have any information about it one way or the other.
Q (By Mr. Paul) Why is that?
A How would I?
Q You haven't looked at a police report, have you?
A No.
Q And you haven't looked at the DSHS audit recently, have you?
A You mean the audit we were talking about before?
Q That's what I mean.
A Well, by "recently" - no, I don't remember looking at the audit at all, but definiteiy not recently,
Q And you haven't looked at the witness statements
A No.
Q --given by the boys to the police?
A No, I did not.
Q And I assume that the Board of Directors of O.K. Boys Ranch has conducted absolutely no independent investigation into what happened at the O.K. Boys Ranch to my clients in June and July of 1992.
MR. LAW: Object to the form of the question.
MR. PAUL: So noted.
A I know that other members of the Board reviewed the police reports., I personally did not.
Q (By Mr. Paul) Why not?
A I didn't think it was necessary.
Q Why not?
A Other members of the Board reviewed the police reports.
Q And what did they do to act upon it, Judge?
A I can't remember specifically what individual members did. I can tell you what our consensus was and that type of thing, but I don't remember what individual people did in reference to whatever they read.
Q Your consensus was to solicit Mr. VanWoerden's--
A Yes.
Q --termination?
A However, I have to clarify that that request-was not made solely because of any police reports, but rather because of the results of our investigation in reference to his ability to manage the Board. That's as I recall it.
Q He was managing the Board?
A I mean the Ranch. Sorry.
Q How did Mr. VanWoerden - how would you characterize his management style during the time you served on the Board of O.K. Boys Ranch?
A. Can you give me some options?
Q No.
A I mean, his style?
Q You served for six years. How often did you have contact With Mr. VanWoerden?
A Once a month, usually.
Q How would you describe his management style during the time you served on the Board of O.K. Boys Ranch?
A Well, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. He - his management style - how he managed the boys at the Ranch as opposed to his style on the Board?
Q You can do both.
A I would characterize him as a person who cared very deeply about the individuals at the Ranch and always tried to do the right thing for the kids.
Q Judge Dubuisson, didn't Tom VanWorerden inform members of the Board of Directors not to, independently contact outside agencies like schools, juvenile court, DSHS, but to make sure all contacts went through him?
MR. LAW: Object to the form.
A I don't remember him telling us that.
Q (By Mr. Paul) During the time you were on the Board, did you have opportunity to contact neighbors about how the Ranch was doing?
A Personally did I contact any neighbors? No, I did not.
 Q Judge Dubuisson, shortly after this lawsuit was filed, didn't you call Richard Kelley's office personally from the bench?
A I called Richard Kelley - not from the bench, no.
Q Well from chambers or from --
A I don't remember where I called him from. And I don't remember if the lawsuit had been filed. I think it was because he wanted to talk to one of the kids at the Ranch.
Q And didn't you tell him he was not to have contact with his clients?
A Absolutely not. I didn't talk to Mr. Kelley, and I remember this happening, though. I called Mr. Kelley and he called - I don't remember if he called me back or not, but I remember a message about his car phone or something. After I called Mr. Kelley, I realized that that was inappropriate, and I don't believe - I could be mistaken, but I don't believe we ever talked at all. And I most certainly would not have told him he couldn't talk to any of his kids - any of his clients.
Q You talked to a woman at that office, didn't you?
A I know I talked at least to an answering system. I don't remember if I talked to a live person or not.
Q And you indicated on the record that that was inappropriate, but not - but you did.not agree that-you told him that he was not to contact his clients. What was inappropriate?
MR. LAW: Object to the form, Counsel.
MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
A I didn't talk to Mr. Kelley. After - after I called him, I realized that I should not discuss anything with him about the case, because I didn't really know what was going on. That's what I mean.
Q (By Mr. Paul) What was the purpose of calling Richard Kelley?
A You know, I don't remember exactly, but it had something to do with the fact that, and I think it was Colette or one of the staff members had told the Board that Mr. Kelley had become extremely what they considered really obnoxious about trying to contact the kids and was demanding that they make the children available. I think it was only one kid, actually, at a time that was extremely disruptive to the activities of the Board, of the Ranch. And I think I had in mind just asking Mr. Kelley if we could set up. a different way of having him talk to the kid rather than having him just say when he wanted to see him and just come in at any time. But I certainly never said he couldn't talk to his client. I would . . .
MR. LAW: It's like two minutes to five.
MR. PAUL: We'll continue. Thank you, Judge.
MR. LAW: Are you not done with the deposition?
MR. PAUL: I'm not done with the deposition. Also, while we're on the record, the reason, Counsel, that I had inquired concerning the late production of these plaintiffs' treatment files is because having asked you twice before as to why these records weren't produced, earlier, although giving you this opportunity, I heard nothing in response. And since I'm about to docket this motion, I can only report that I've heard nothing in response. Is that still your answer?
MR. LAW: Counsel, what you've just said is a false statement, and I'm not going to respond to it now.
(Adjourned at 4:59 p.m.) (Signature reserved)
--part 1----part 2----part 3--

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.