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 Corinne Newman Page
--part 2--
--part 3--

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATION STATEMENT CORINNE NEWMAN

Newman. This is November 10th, 1994. The time is 10:23. I'm Charles Brigham, Office of Special Investigation. Also present is Trevor Seal, Office of Special Investigation.
Q: Corinne, are you aware this statement is being recorded?
A: I am.
Q: And is this with your permission?
A: Absolutely.
A: Corinne, can you give me your full name and spell your last name, please?
A: Okay. Um, probably my first name will be more problematic. Um, Corinne Ann Newman, and my first name is C-o-r-i-n-n-e and then Newman as in Paul, N-e-w-m-a-n.
Q: Okay and, uh, your address, please?
A: Home or-work?
Q: Home, please.
A: Okay. If you, um, if you won't give it to anyone.
Q: Okay.
A: Okay. -------
Q: And your home phone?
A: Also unlisted, ---------
Q: Okay, and all this is confidential.
A: Okay. This, well, I, I'm reluctant to say much about my personal, because I'm very cautious of my own security so....
Q: This is all....
A: You know, personal security is our own business here. So that's why.
Q: Corinne, can you tell your official position?
A: I am the uh court Juvenile court administrator for Thurston County.
Q: And how long have you been in this position?
A: Um, since September 1st, 1984.
Q: And, in the course of your work, do you have ongoing contact with Department of Social and Health Services, specifically Child Protective Services and Child Welfare Services?
A: I do. I've had contact with the department since October 1st, 1970. I've been here since then, so I have a long history of contact with the department.
Q: The reason we're taking this statement from you today is you expressed interested to my, uh, Chief, Mike Smith, that you would like to discuss the OK Boys Ranch and the ongoing problems you're having with CPS. Is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: What, uh, were the flagrant ongoing problems you first encountered with OK Boys Ranch? Can you tell, and the approximate time?
A: Okay. I, I believe, um, the, um, and maybe I can call it a red flag would be the best description, um, was when our detention population, uh, in 1983 is when I first noticed it, to tell you the truth, and then I started tracking it seriously in 1986, and I am going to offer you my, uh, detention services profile that documents, um, all the kids that were coming in, the kinds of crime that they were committing and how long they stayed. Um, and so that was probably my first real organized awareness that what's wrong with this picture, why are they here- more than they're at home in the Ranch, and what kind of supervision is happening, what kind of, of activities are going on between the residents and, and their criminal histories were building when they were coming to our community. And so I started tracking that. I also put, um, and I, actually I tracked both Brentwood Group Home, Deschutes Group Home and the OK Boys Ranch, and actually Haven House as well, and I was doing that for the purposes of trying to figure out, you know, what the county was doing to support community programs, but also what it was costing us in terms of care and custody, because we don't get reimbursed for that, and also it was a management thing, like, you know, to kind of really take a profile look at, um, troubled areas. I'd also had, um, over the years, long-standing, uh, working relationship with the Olympia Police Department related to OK Boys Ranch issues, and I became deputy administrator in 1975, and so, as the person in charge of operations during that time, my job was to kind of track those things. So actually I've been interested in the OK Boys Ranch activities, uh, and what was happening there since, um, since my duties to kind of track what's happening in our organization and how we're affected by the people. So it's pretty long-standing.
Q: Okay. In your tracking,. what was the, the glaring factor that jumped up?
A: Um...
Q: In comparison to the other group homes.
A: Wo, geemanies. Well, my data that I have gathered, if I can refer to that which you're welcome to have by the way, um, and this just covers the years, um, 1986 through 1992. So we've got actually two more years to add to this, um, shows that the percentage of, uh, usage of detention and, and, on this particular, uh, document I have the Deschutes Home, Brentwood Girls Group Home, and OK Boys Ranch and, um, on a percentage basis, Brentwood was here 14% of the time, Deschutes 15% of the time, and the OK Boys Ranch 71% of the time. So, um, that probably, when you start calculating data and taking a look at the length of stay that kids are here and how many days of service the county is providing, I was blown away by that. That's essentially, uh, one, one OK Boys Ranch kid a day for approximately five years or a little more than that. Something's wrong with that. And so, um, my interest was related to detention beds, lack of space and, as we got more crowded, we reached capacity in 1985 here. We're a 37-bed facility. And so that's another reason why I was tracking, because why should we have all these kids? There, there's been times when we've had the whole house here, the whole house and, and, you know ....
Q: By whole house, you mean, all of OK . .
A: 12 kids. -
Q: All of OK Boys Ranch (inaudible)?
A: Yeah, right. We were wondering, well, gee, the only people at home were the staff, because they're all here in detention, and they would be here, and they'd have sentences to serve and, and I'm the local facility. I don't have a choice. They have to do detention time in my facility.
Q: What was the reaction of the OK Boys, uh, staff when you contacted them in regards to this problem?
A: Well, I, they thought I was, um, let's see, what's a nice word, um, they thought that I was just being, um, uncooperative and, uh, maybe even vindictive because I presumed to question the trends. Is that a fair way of dis, I mean, that's, I, that's a good way of putting it, I guess.
Q: And on that same train of thought, what was Olympia office of CPS, CWS's result and Region 6's results. I'm sure that you contacted them with this problem?
A: Um, over time?
Q: Yes. .
A: Actually, they were aware of the ongoing problem, and I don't really believe any action was taken until we had our performance audit, Operations Review audit in 1988 and, and Art Cantrall and a team of his auditors came in to do a. a consolidated juvenile services audit. We get state money for juvenile rehab. And at that time they did, um, they were here for four full days, and they did a random sample of files, and that's how the subject even came up, because an OK Boys Ranch kid was in the random sample. And so, when Art Cantrall asked about that, I told him, don't get me started. And so he obviously followed up by, what did I mean by that, because they were leaving, when they finished at juvenile court here, they were going to go to do the OK Boys Ranch audit. And so that's when I told him that I had been tracking what was happening and what my concerns were related to the effectiveness of that program. I also was well aware that OPD was frustrated with the numerous calls, and I knew that they were starting to track also, um, and we kind of, I had an informal agreement with Steve Nelson that we basically were going to be doing some of our own tracking so, when the time came, we could deal with it. We did have an informal discussion, uh, Steve, uh, Judge Dick Hicks was our court commissioner at the time, myself, uh, with Mark Redal about the OK Boys Ranch, and that would have, let's see, Dick Hicks has been on the bench since about '85, so, um, we had a discussion about something's got to change, and then Dick met with Tom Van Woerden to try and basically make this information known in an official capacity from a judge, saying, why are these kids having these behavior problems, and it's, what it did was, uh, you'll see on the tracking system here, it slowed, must have been in 1990, because the days slowed down a little bit and then the very next year, then, it went, jumped back up. So, um, I -don't know that I have written that down anywhere other than I recall those meetings, but that involved Steve Nelson, Mark Redal, myself and Dick Hicks.
Q: And Steve Nelson's an employee of Olympia Police Department, is that right?
A: Yes, he is. He's a commander there, I believe.
Q: Right. .
A: Yes.
Q: Uh, did you have personal contact with Laura Rambo, Collette Oueener and Tom Van Woerden? They were the people basically in charge at the Ranch.
A: Um, over time. Yeah, Laura was generally the person who came to court with the kids. I had occasional contact with Tom Van Woerden and, um, none until 1993 when Laura came to see me when she was the acting director over there.
Q: Collette?
A: I really didn't see her, I didn't, uh, because I, she's been in and out of the building. My staff see them probably more than I do as administrator.
Q: You mean Collette, not Laura.
A: Yes, Collette, would be here.
Q: Was the acting director?
A: Yes, and occasionally she would, did I say Laura? I meant Collette, sorry about that.
Q: Yes, you did.
A: Um, but she wasn't around as much as Laura would be. Laura would be here for, she's our, there was, the liaison with Dave Furman, who's our representative to handle the OK Boys Ranch caseload. And that's another thing. I have to have a designated person, because the caseload got to be almost everybody in the Ranch on probation. And so, you know, there's a lot of, uh, indicators that say that something wasn't right.
Q: And, when these indicators were popping up, were you advising Miriam Madison or George Hartwell, Randy Hart, the employees out at, uh, Capitol 5000 building of this problem?
A: If we had, we, we have all, and our policy is what the state requirement is, and that is, if there's anything out of the ordinary, we report it. And so, um, over time, don't have times and dates because I haven't recorded that but, uh, I've talked with both Miriam Madison, Christy Gault and, uh, Jim O'Neill, Mark Redal about various and sundry situations that have come up at the Ranch. Uh, when this investigation all broke then, um, I made a formal, oh, communication, if you will, with, uh, Mark Redal that we were going to be, who should I report to directly, because we would continue to report, and he suggested either himself or Jim O'Neill. So they have been actually my, uh, communication, uh, links since this, uh, police report happened in June of '92, and I haven't had much contact with Miriam about that, but she would hear me carrying on about what was happening over time, uh, or I'd be talking to her about the Ranch, and things would come up.
Q: What would her response be?
A: Well, um, I don't even, um, I guess there was a lot, I, I believe there was a lot of inaction that happened, and it, and it, a concern wasn't necessarily followed through, and I think that's kind of a situation that's been going on for a long time. We've had problems over time getting services from DSHS for kids that need, needed services, and we don't have time, we don't have space, we don't have staff. Um, it's, it's so routine. Refusal of services is so routine that we just expect that we're going to have to fight for everything we get in terms of services.
Q: Uh, the service
A: And that's real unfortunate that I even have to say that.
Q: The services that they're refusing, aren't they required by statute to provide those?
A: Oh, absolutely.
Q: Have you also found that the school districts are having problems with service from CPS and CWS?
A: Yes, yes. Over, that, that's another thing. Over time, um, the schools have called us, because we have good working relationship with all the schools in the county and, when a pattern is developing that the schools realize that their CPS reports are going nowhere, they get frustrated and then they, they turn to us as people in the system and say, what can we do? So, frankly, when those calls come in, I, I always advise, those, because it's been administrators who have, I've had contact with over time, numerous over year, I mean, you know, in 25 years there's a lot of people you talk to, but I've always advised them to notify, do their lawful duty of reporting to CPS but also report to the law enforcement agent, agency in their area so that it's on the record and that the police will pick up the ball and run with it, because our experience has been that those cases seem to disappear.
Q: They never get followed up on?
A: Well, we, they don't show up in, uh, as, uh, filings through the, the system that we're working.
Q: What, uh, type of referrals are you talking about that they refused to take? Like CPS, CWS.
A: Well, gee, we have two this week that I think you might be talking with somebody about, but it's, we're essentially asking for placements for kids that are released from detention who are, uh, in a position of going home, uh, to an abusive situation but they (inaudible) refuse services because they're offenders and they should go home and work it out. Uh, youth-at-risk arrangements, we, we, you know, that was a kicking-and-screaming arrangement where we basically had to finally make an arrangement to, uh, confront the situation that we had all these kids that needed services and they wouldn't provide them. And so we, uh, met with our judges, superior court judges and said, what about this youth-at-risk, we can't get services from, uh, DSHS, and they said, if it's in a statute we're going to do it. So then we filed those petitions, and then DSHS had to get on board and actually respond to that. Um, the ARP petitions are done by them and they bring them over, so we don't really know who all might be going there that they're getting refusal of service. We only know when people come over here frustrated.
Q: Okay. What's in ARP petition?
A: Uh, Alternative Residential Placement petition. These are kids needing placement that are in conflict with their families, and that's, um, under the Families in Conflict statute. And then on the dependency side, uh, we have, I, it's fair to say we have had, since the law changed, we used to do all the filing and then, when the law changed in 1978, DSHS took over that role. Uh, we have battle after battle as, and that's, and that word, I'm using that word because that's the best description of trying to get services for the kids that we need and, when it surfaces that they're on our caseloads or in our detention center, we need services and we get refused, we don't take that very well.
Q: Who refuses the services?
A: Well, uh, it-would be a DSHS either intake worker or supervisor who says we're not going to handle that case.
Q: And the supervisor would be Miriam Madison?
A: Or Shirley Ganzer, uh, depending on, uh, if it's a Child Welfare case or a CPS case.
Q: Shirley Ganzer's the supervisor in Child Welfare, is that correct?
A: I believe that's her role, yes.
Q: Right.
A: And so what we do then is, we've chosen, even though'we have an interagency agreement, we've chosen to file those petitions ourselves to force the issue, and then of course then we get into another dialogue about, um, we don't have a right to do that, and in fact the statute says we do, and so it's our way of expressing our frustration about getting the job done. Is that a fair way to describe why we do that?
Q: I would say, uh, by statute, they're, they're required to provide these services and they're not, Have you brought this to Mark Redal's attention?
A: Um, now this is not an uncommon problem statewide and, and I believe that, um, uh, many times, in terms of, from administrator to administrator, um, he's had to listen to me whine about how bad and how frustrated my staff are and how, and, and we're tired of getting "no" and, and, and it's an unfortunate statement that "no, you're not going to get services" is the rule rather than the exception.
Q: And even though, did you advise him this is by statute that he had to provide them?
A:. He knows that.
Q: You'd think he would anyway.
A: Well, I know he knows that.
Q: Okay.
A: You know, but, but I, and, but it's usually the discussion about, well, we only have so many staff and, and we're short on resources and that seem, seems to be the, if you will, the universal discussion about, well, we don't have enough caseworkers or resources or treatment resources for families for counselling to keep them out of the system, and so frankly, one of the, one of the, um, and I guess I'll use the word motive, but one of the factors behind our establishing a child advocate program for the dependency caseload in particular was because we were so frustrated about not getting services and having cases not followed through and having court orders not enforced, for pete's sake, we finally said enough is enough, and so that's when Laina Berry went to work at recruiting volunteers and the child advocates are trained by us; and their job is to be an independent eye, if you will, on the handling of the case, and their specific job, as they're trained, is to see that kids get the services that the court orders, and that's why we have child advocates in Thurston County. We also, um, have the family assessment team, and so it's not like we're only pointing fingers, because we're also taking ownership for our kids, too, and, and one of the methods we chose to use on the family assessment team is to establish a community team of people that, on the first referral, the community, if you will, who owns this kid, meaning owns the responsibility for this kid's welfare, to sit down with the social worker, with the lawyers involved and the parents involved and try to come up with a plan to, that this is a one-time only thing, to try and divert this family from the system again. They're going to go through the system, because this family assessment team happens after adjudication, by the way. It's not a, there's already been a finding by the court that there's a dependency, and so then they take over after the disposition has been rendered and the intent is, how do we carry out this disposition, how do we make sure that this family turns around their problems so that they don't come back, or that the, if there's sexual abuse in the family that we have a perpetrator up the road who ends up in detention on a criminal offense.
Q: What is the results you're getting from those Child Welfare workers and the social workers in DSHS on this program? Are they responding to the findings?
A: At, uh, at first, there was great resistance, and then, uh, one by one, uh, people have gotten less-defensive and there's a, Laina tells me there's a core-group of people who are great to work with at this point, and there's still people who, uh, it's my understanding are even avoiding filing petitions. because they don't want anything to do with the family assessment team or the child advocates, it's none of their business and therefore. So I cannot tell you the numbers of cases who have not come here because of that, but I do know that's, um, there are some people who prevail on that attitude.
Q: Have you seen a direct pattern in, uh, the Olympia CPS office compared CPS offices around the state as far as dependency hearings being, uh, filed and, uh, petitions filed?
A: Well, um, I, I'm going to do further research, um, on this to actually give you firm data, uh, and I'll do that by comparing the dependency workload in like-size counties with us. Um, I have a bad feeling, uh, and this is experiential, this is having been in the system 25 years, a county this size should not be filing this few dependencies. Something's wrong. Something's not right. And so, um, frankly, I'm going to, I'll, uh, set about looking at my data, my statewide data to see if I can help you, help you understand what my concern is by giving you some actual data comparisons and, uh, you know, 59 or 60 or 70 dependencies in one year for a county this- size, something, that's, that's...
Q: That's five, that's five to eight a month.
A: Yeah, it's not any bigger than that. And this year, when I, when I did our first round of data, because I've tracked very carefully what's happening in the system, that's how I know how to predict my workload and my court workload. It's very important to know where we stand.
Q: For your budget, yes.
A: Well, and, and just workload allocation.
Q: Right.
A: Um, there was a handful of dependencies filed the first six months of this year It was like, I'm, I'm talking like 11 or some crazy number. I couldn't believe it. I said, whoa, you know, what's going on here? So I, the '94 data in particular I want to look at to see where we stand. We've got a, you know, essentially ten months into the year and see if we caught up with the filings of last year. I have years and year, uh, actually I have, uh, data all the way back to when the law changed. Um....
Q: In 1977-78, right.
A: Absolutely, it's in my little file, and I haven't discarded any of that.- And so I could do a pretty good comparison to show, uh.. what the trends have been if you were so interested.
Q: Very interested, I'm very interested.
A: Okay, okay.
Q: Do you have a couple CPS workers that are, uh, noticeable by their absence in filing dependencies and resisting change and . .. . ?
A: Well, my, my information is, uh, based on information I've heard from Laina Berry. So I don't know if that's hearsay to you, but essentially I'm aware that the two people that we don't see much of here is Randy Hart and George Hartwell. Those would be the two caseworkers, um, that, that are conspicuously absent on a regular basis. I mean, that, we're talking, if this workload's working right, they should be here all the time. We have, um, uh, two, uh, essentially a full day of, uh, just dependen, DSHS work, and the AG's office here now. The one thing, I must tell you this.. It's been so helpful. Um, it's probably saved our bacon in terms of some things here and, and the conflicts has been, the AG's office has been very responsive to us, and so, uh, Ann Shaw is the, the supervisor of our unit for Thurston County, and so I essentially, uh, she's my communication conduit now, and I really appreciate having eomebody that I can go and say, services are not happening--this can't happen. And, um, they've intervened several times on caseworkers, uh, cases that have been refused, and so, um, and they're, they're here, you know, twice a week, so we've got a good working relationship with them and, frankly,. that's one of the ways we've chosen to try and get our work done is by, by talking to their attorney to force the issue.
Q: Do you find this ongoing problem of, uh, CPS refusing service, uh
A: A DS, DS, well, it could be Child Welfare or CPS.
Q: Right.
A: Yeah.
Q: But either one of them receiving, refusing service when it's by statute required. What procedure do you go to then? If they have a child at risk, and they refuse, refuse service, then how do you address that?
A: Well, it depends, um, if, uh, let me give you some examples if that's okay. Um, we get a kid that's in here for an offender situation and the judge has a detention hearing and says they are to be released, because maybe the charges are gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor and, because we're so overcrowded, we have to prioritize our beds for the most serious keeping the beds and the others moving on. We need services, kid can't go home for a variety of reasons, whether it's abuse at home or nobody at home, no supervision, no, they're a street kid, they could be a street kid and, um, the answer's "no." So we call the police. We've gotten to the point where we call law enforcement and, um, say we're coming down. We take them over to law enforcement. We have the kid turn himself in to the police, and then that's our way to try and access Haven House, because we get the "no, there's only eight beds there, and we're not going to take that kid." And so that's one of the ways. We also, um, file petitions, even though it's, um, not directly related to our agreement. We're supposed to staff those cases first but, if we've got a kid in custody and the court tells us we have to release him and there's no place to go, we do not release him to anybody but a responsible person. They don't get, we don't turn them loose out the back door. We can't do that. It's liability for the county.
Q: But, but if you went by the, by what CWS and CPS and Olympia office is telling you, they'd say, go ahead and turn him loose. Is that correct?
A: They're, they're not willing to take, um, the case, and they're refusing us services. So we force the issue, and we do that by filing petitions if that need be and then, um, that establishes at least temporarily some jurisdiction and, and then the, the judge can order them. Now that's the other thing that happens. It's not uncommon for us to go to the judge, um, and ask for an order, uh, requiring them to do placement even though they've refused services, and, and you can talk with, uh, Court Commissioner Neilson about that. Actually, Judge Dick Hicks also. For years, we've been doing that, asking the judge for an order, and that does not make for good working relationships, let me tell you. But, um, uh, a department's got to do what a department's got to do.
Q: What, what's the response when you force a, get a court order and force somebody to respond?
A: It's, it's always an argument, always, because, because we're strong-arming them to doing their statutory duty.
Back to the beginning OKBR Home Page(http://lbloom.net)
Back to the beginning Corinne Newman Page
--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 half-heartedly charged twice, with failing to report a crime. Both times the charges were dismissed by the judges 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.