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 1--
--part 3--

Q: Do you feel they have the, when they, when they're forced to do this, are they, uh, treating the, the child in their best interest or are they just (inaudible)?
A: Do I, you mean do I personally think that?
Q: Yes.
A: Absolutely not. How can that be if you're, if you're, if there's a set of circumstances, it's, I guess it's no different than any other situation. If you have cause to believe there's a problem in a family and your job is to provide services, you take the case and you do the best you can. That's what our standard is, so why wouldn't it be the standard for DSHS as well? Courts can't refuse to do that.
Q: Have you advised Miriam Madison or Mark Redal or Chiristy Gault of the situation, the problem you had?
A: Yes, actually we had a specific meeting with the supervisors and Christy Gault about resolving this lack of services and I'm, I'm, and I was real frank with them, saying I'm just sick and-tired of no, no, no. I mean, that's not what they're there for.
Q: What was their response?
A: Well, that's, that was frankly when we put this, uh, interagency agreement together to try and at least have the ability to force the issue a little bit by saying that you need to at least, instead of just "no," will you please sit down with us and talk about the case, and then, if we can't get you to file a petition, then we'll use our statutory right to file if we think that you've not been fair on the assessment of the case.
Q: But what was their, their direct response other than coming up with this, what was their, uh, response that the, the people, their, their people that reported to them were not doing their job?
A: Um, well, I guess, to the best of my knowledge, it would inaction. That's the best description.
Q: Otherwise, they didn't address the fact with their employees. They just came to an agreement with you.
A: Well, I, well, but I, you know, not knowing. what they said to their employees because I don't work there or don't live there, um, but inaction describes it best as near as I can figure, or that's my best, best (inaudible).
Q: Maybe complacency?
A: Well, that could be, that, well, inaction and complacency and I don't care will all fit on the same time line, as far as I'm concerned, as far, as far as description.
Q: Uh, a short while ago, you mentioned that, uh, you had some advocates that, uh, child advocates that, and, uh, one of your employees and a friend of theirs brought a dependency hearing, forced a dependency hearing on some children that were at risk.
A: - Uh huh (yes).
Q: What brought that about?
A: Urn, are we, now, are we specifically talking about the ---- case here?
Q: Yes.
A: Oh, okay.-Gosh, you know, I have reams of paper in here of the facts when it was all happening, but my recollection on that specifics is pretty vague at this point. So I don't know if I can give you that detail you're needing.
Q: Well, what I
A: You might, I think Laina Berry could probably answer that better than I can.
Q: What I'm asking. Do you feel that Laina Berry and her associate would have brought the dependency hearing if CPS was doing their job?
A: I, I believe we were the petitioners
Q: That's right.
A: On that matter. Oh, she was furious about it, because there was, these kids were obviously at risk and needed some, and these are little kids, these are not teenagers now, we're talking little kids, and, um, that was her way of forcing the issue.
Q: And she couldn't get any results out of Randy Hart, is that correct? That's why she forced theissue?
A: Well, it was, it was quite, quite a confrontation and quite a conflict between our department and their department, specifically Laina and Randy, over getting services for these kids, and then there's a whole other history that I really don't have, uh, good recollection on without reviewing the records that, that case was just horrendous and, and, and, and I guess created some bad blood between the two departments because of it, just because we were, we were going to force the issue.
Q: Did the court end up removing those children from that home?
A: Yes, and I believe there was even a termination process in there somewhere. I really feel like I can't give you the detail that you might be asking me.
Q: Well, I understand that, yeah.
A: Not because I don't want to. It's that I don't have it.
Q: Okay. For- example, Laina is a professional. Would her guidelines on what places a child at risk be any different than what DSHS guidelines are that place children at risk? Aren't they basically the same?
A: Yes, I Would say they're the same. We might even have a little bit higher standard, because we're probably a little more, um, probable-cause oriented here and have ....
Q: More focused maybe?
A: Well, um, I've been here for 25 years and, if there's any cause to believe that a child is at risk or needed protection, we've always taken action here.
Q: Okay.
A: And I'm not saying that's not a trigger finger here, I, you know, in terms of we just take anything. I'm talking about ....
Q: Specific cases.
A: And probable cause to believe the child's at risk, pretty easy to establish. I mean, there's some horrendous situations that come up.
Q: The state statute covers that.
A: Absolutely.
Q: All you have to do is think a child's at risk, and it should be -reported, you should take action so an investigation can be done, is that correct?
A: Right, that's correct, and we don't want to put ourself, we often are the reporting party. If it comes, happens to come to us in, in an office appointment, are we aware of it, we have a duty to report and we take that duty very seriously in this department. So I guess it's fair to say that that's, that's how we often get at odds with the department.
Q: Are you find, are, are you often finding that, when you do report something, it just dies and doesn't go any farther? If you report just to, just to DSHS?
A: Uh, yes, I would say that the really horrendous cases generally get some follow-through. If there's any kind of discretion at all, that's, that's the group we never see again. And then, uh, the other area that's been, uh, problematic to us in the last two to three years has been the domestic violence situation where, uh, there's a kid in custody here, there's been domestic violence, it's obviously either an abuse situation or it could be in a youth-at-risk problem or just an incorrigible kid who got into fist-a-cuff with with mom and dad. I mean, there's a million circumstances it could be but, when they can't go home and they need services, we need help and we get the "no."
Q: And you're not getting it.
A: I mean, that is pretty standard, "no", on this kind of case. It's a family problem. Well, yeah--isn't that our business.
Q: Okay. To go back to OK Boys Ranch, do you feel that, for population of a like-sized group home, that there were more problems at OK Boys Ranch than other group home facilities that you're aware of?
A: Well, um, if I, if I use, um, just the three group homes that we're operating in our own county, as an example; um, there's no question about that, in my mind.
Q: Do you feel it, do you feel it was, uh, the, staff, staffing at the Boys Ranch caused the problem7
A: Well, I think it was a systematic problem. My interpretation of what went on at the Ranch would be a systematic failure to approach the problems. Uh huh (yes). Q: You mentioned that you had a contact person and, uh, would that be Jim O'Neill?
A: That would be my current contact person, yes, and, and he was my designated contact person, he or Mark Redal after the, um, June 1992 incident came to light. We didn't see the reports. We actually received the report here. Gary Carlisle got it while I was gone on vacation on, uh, September 1st, 1992, but once we knew, uh, verbally what had happened in June of '92 and that was through law enforcement advising us of that information, then we basically set up a contact arrangement so that anything out of the ordinary or anything that was happening I could notify DSHS about that, and I have taken that responsibility very seriously and, um, and I'm, uh, giving you my administeative notes, um, and then I'll do another, uh ....
Q: (inaudible) Corinne Newman. It's 10:55 a.m. on November 10th, 1994. Corinne, we just covered, uh, in comparison the different group homes. You've covered that. Uh, prior to you repprting to, uh, Jim O'Neill all incidents after the July '92 incident at the Boys Ranch, who did you report your, your problems with, with the Boys Ranch? Did, -did you report that direct to Intake or Mark Redal or Miriam Madison? How, how was that handled?
A: Well, actually, um, over time it's been a variety of people, um, and I believe, um, Mark, I know that Mark and I talked quite a bit about it, Christy was aware of it, uh, Miriam was aware of it, I'm sure Shirley Ganzer was aware of it in terms of our frustration with the amount of times that the kids were here and what was happening. You know, we kept, we kept saying, what's happening there, why, why aren't you reviewing, uh, the conditions that they're living under, and why aren't, you know, what's, what's the state going to do about it, essentially. And, um, but I guess I, the, there was kind of a pivot point in here, um, that we haven't talked about yet and that is when we were, our CJS audit when Art Cantrall came in. Um, that was the time where I, well, we might have talked a little bit about it just a minute ago, but the, the random audit. Um, he and I had quite a discussion about my concerns and then I knew that he was going to do an audit, um, after he left here, so I guess in a way I feel like I also notified an Operations Review person, supervisor in person and that would have been, um, I want to say April or May of 1988 about my concerns, and then he'd had some subsequent phone calls to me telling me that he was following up. Now I have not seen any of the written documents, because I don't relally have access to that, but I am aware that he followed through and that, that he, um, actually substantiated some of my concerns.
Q: He did a very good job. He really did.
A: Um, would you like to, could I, uh, put on the record the chronology of events here...
Q: Please do, please do.
A: Um, that kind of, uh, bring the OK Boys Ranch to the documents of when I met with the board, the OK Boys Ranch board?
Q: Okay.
A: Uh, we got the verbal report about the OK Boys Ranch in June of '92, and that came from law enforcement, and we did not receive the police reports because it was such a huge package and lots of work by Nancy Gassett and crew at OPD. Um, we got those reports specifically on September 1st, 1992. Um, I'm on vacation, and I have my rule, which is, um, don't call me unless the place is burning down, and so Gary knew that this was important, so he broke the rule and, and this is humorous, this rule of course. I'm not really serious about that but, if it's serious he knew to call me. And he felt that, once he read the reports, it was serious enough to call me on vacation and say, you aren't going to, and he said, you are not going to believe what just arrived here, and he gave me kind of a verbal description of what he'd read, and I said, absolutely you copy a package of that and hand deliver it to Mark today, meaning Mark Redal at Region 6, which he did, and that was on September 1st, 1992. And then, when I got back from vacation, um, uh, we had a court administrators meeting and it was typical, um, of the regional administrators to meet with the juvenile courts statewide, so we did have a meeting, uh, the week of July, I mean, uh, September 14th and, on the 15th, we had a meeting, uh, with, uh, DCFS, regional administrators specifically. And, at that time, I asked Mark informally, Mark Redal, what's happening with the Ranch, you've had the reports for two weeks now, what are you going to do, are you going to take some action, what's happening. And, um, at that point, there was no response, and Mark didn't give me an indication that there was going to be anything major happening, to tell you the truth. So I gave him notice, verbal notice, that when I got back to the office, which would have been like the 17th of September or so, that I was going to run off a full set of police reports, and that I was going to, um, in terms of my chain of command, I'm, uh, directly report to the, uh, Thurston County superior court judges, and that I was going to take that report to my liaison, who happened to be Judge Paula Casey at that time, and, uh, report it up my chain of command, because I felt that we had an obligation, if inaction was going to be the mode here, that, that Thurston County Juvenile Court was not going to be a party to that, because I believed that kids were still not safe and sound over at the Ranch. Nothing had really changed other than there was a horrendous disclosure of a problem, but what was being done. So, um, essentially that's what I did. So I took, gave the reports to Paula Casey, she read them and, uh, we conferred, and I don't, I haven't written the specific dates down but I kind of know the round-abouts here, and then, so it would be like mid-October of 1992, she and I discussed, she was, she couldn't believe what she was reading for one.
Q: Okay now. Just stop a minute.
A: Okay.
Q: Paula Casey is a superior court judge, is that correct?
A: Yes, yes, and she's our juvenile liaison.
Q: Okay.
A: We have a judge assigned to us at all times for administrative purposes. And so, um, we discussed what we were going to do, uh, 'What was the best course of action. So the plan was first to call Sue Dubuisson, who was the local, she was on the OK Boys Ranch board and also a, a judge, and the intent was to give her the courtesy of a discussion by a superior court judge to a district court judge, if you will, about this situation and what needs to happen to protect the kids. That was our whole theme, always has been, always will be, and that is it's not a safe environment, what are we going to do about it. And so, um, I don't know, uh, the conversation lasted approximately 30 minutes, my information from Paula indicates, and I gathered it was not a satisfactory conversation in terms of coming up with some, uh, recognition that there was a problem, that there should be some immediate action. So the next course was to call Jean Soliz, and Paula had met Jean Soliz in days gone by, and so she called her directly to, um, talk to her about her concerns about the police report, and what were, what was the department going to do to keep these kids safe. That was our main question that we always asked.
Q:Did she know whether Jean had seen the police report at that time?
A: Um, at that point, she got the impression, this would be mid-October of '92 now, that Jean was going-to have to follow up on it, so Jean's response, according to Paula, was that she'd get back to her in about a week. Well, a week came and went, and Jean didn't call back. And so I kept, uh, when I'd see Paula informally, I'd touch bases with her and see if we'd received any response about what's to be done about the Ranch. In the meantime, the kids continue to be at risk there, as far as we're concerned. And we're over here ringing our hands saying, we don't want to be a party to any additional abuse, and nothing's happening. And so that's part of why I was following up with Paula, hoping and, that we could get some response here from the department. So essentially it was around Thanksgiving time, then Paula called a second time to Jean to say what's happening. And so, um, then things started to happen and then, uh, Mark Redal called me I want to say mid-December of '92 and asked me if I would please talk with the OK Boys Ranch board. He was giving them a list of about 15 names of people in the community to talk about the Ranch and, of course, I absolutely said, please do. So that happened on, uh, uh, December 30th of '92, I actually met with a board member. Um, the other thing I want to note here is that, when the Daily Olympian's article came out, it was probably, it would have been, uh, the first part of February of 1993 when it was published. I did not disclose to my peer group, meaning other juvenile courts in the state, um, about the OK Boys Ranch because I felt like I had a confidentiality requirement here, while there was investigation pending and the department was doing whatever they were doing. Uh, but once it came out in the paper, then I felt like I was free to, um, discuss with my peer group, juvenile court administrators. So I, I, uh, uh, actually announced and asked for, um, entries to be put in the minutes, um, on, um, February 9th of '93, I gave notice to juvenile court administrators in attendance there that there was a problem. I didn't go into a lot of detail, because I didn't feel that was appropriate enough, so they knew that it was a serious problem and it was sexual abuse and a num, a number of other things, and that if they had kids there they need to examine that, the health and safety of those kids and, um, I felt like then I had basically closed the loop in terms of my notifying people that needed to be notifed. And so, um, they had the opportunity then to call me for more information, that's what the minutes said--if you need any information, please call--and my intent was to give full disclosure to any court administrator who called me. Now Pier, uh, Pacific County called a couple months later and the Probation Officer Jim Noreen and Carol Sandy, the caseworker, came up, they read the reports in my office here first, spent a few hours here, and then they went over. That kid was removed from the Ranch when the judge saw the reports. So, uh, but other courts actually haven't made contact with me.
Q: Local CPS and CWS workers that, uh, in the local area, were you aware of them going to the Ranch?
A: Was I personally aware?
Q: Yeah.
A: Um, actually I was not.
Q: Okay.
A: I only aware of that in terms of how the record has kind of developed here.
Q: Okay. Did you have a conversation with Miriam Madison in regards to one of her employees, an Eric Bailey, doing an investigation at, uh, OK Boys Ranch?
A: It wasn't on this particular situation. It was on another incident that had come up and, um, and I can't even give you the specific case at that point, what it was, but I do remember having a conversation about, um, Eric investigating a complaint that, it was, uh, filed by our department on something that was disclosed to us here, uh, a kid in detention is my best recollection, and I told Miriam that I objected to that because he had been a former employee there. How could he be in fact a, a neutral investigator on a complaint when he was friends with the people at the Ranch. So, yes, she and I had this discussion.
Q: What did she say to that to the best of your recollection?
A: Oh, gee, well...
0: Did she show any concern?
A: Oh, I think she felt that Eric was capable of doing that, and so I would say that, that my concerns-were noted but ....
Q: Ignored.
A: No action taken.
Q: No action taken.
A: Is that a best description? Um, the, the other thing I, um, think that I should mention for the record here is that, when this, this is something that I did, nobody asked me to do it, but I did it because I felt that it was important. Uh, once the, uh, police report arrived here, I took the police report and I looked at who was there at the Ranch at the time, and I also had all my records of who'd been detained and why, and I decided that it was worth the time and effort to research all the kids that had been detained from '86 forward and to take a look at where they were from, because at this point we were not wanting our kids at OK Boys Ranch. We did, the Thurston County people did not want our kids at the Ranch, because we weren't confident what was happening there. And that's before we even knew this other situation obviously. This is just all the ....
Q: Did you advise the local CWS and CPS people that you didn't want your kids there?
A: Yes. They were verbally aware, but we didn't put a, we didn't ma, we didn't, I did not do a written memo. They were well aware, though, and the supervisors knew that we didn't want our kids there, because we didn't think things were running very well there by, -based on what we were seeing coming in the back door as far as bookings. But I did do a research document of which I'm happy to give you a copy of, and I know I've already given it to, we gave this to Mark Redal, as well as criminal histories on the, on this kid. So the research that I did, I, the only person I'd really given it to is DSHS, meaning Mark Redal. We turned this report over to him as a, and I, what I did was, I went through and put the county of residence of each kid, what their prior criminal history was before they came to Thurston County and then what they had accumulated since they had arrived at OK Boys Ranch, and I was blown away by the results of my own research. And I thought, no wonder I had a bad feeling. I'm, I'm an intuitive person, and I, when I have a bad feeling, I'm usually right, and I didn't like the fact that I really was able to document my concern and ....
Q: What did it show?
A: It basically showed juvenile after juvenile coming to the Ranch with little or no history and leaving with a extensive history. And then there's other cases where they took kids in where, that had extensive history and that I guess would question whether they were appropriate to be the Ranch at all, but those documents, um, are so telling it's amazing, absolutely amazing.
So, uh, and . . . .
Q: And when did you make Mark Redal aware of this?
A: Well, the report is dated December 23rd. 1992, and so once the documents were, uh, finished and I believe another one that was the 29th, so it would have been right at, right around Christmas time. In fact, I would think that, that since I met with the board on the 30th of December, I believe I was ready with this Information and, and I made my appointment to make sure I had my research done before the board member got here on the 30th of December.
Q: And you'd advised the OK Boys Ranch board about this?
A: Yeah, absolutely. They were well aware of it. They saw the reports here. They did not, uh, Bill Stikker was the representative. He did not ask me for a copy at that time. He was aware I had done it. I had the original document, which I have right now here, for his review if he wanted to, which he did look through. Of course, he wouldn't know the names or anything, but he understood what I would, what I was doing. I also had run forms 5 and 6, those are juvenile information system, the statewide system, um, and form 5 is a person's complete history and form 6 is their criminal history and, on all the kids on this list, I also did a, um, history for Mark, and those were turned over at the same time as criminal history summary was, and those document, um, DSHS was really the only person that I felt was in need of those documents and, if there were to be other litigation...
Q: Do you know if they took any action results the documents you gave them?
A: Meaning, close the place down or discipline?
Q: Right, or change or anything?
A: Well, let's, let's put it
Q: Were you aware of any?
A: Let's put it this way. I was surprised by the lack of action, because this is so compelling, such compelling information I couldn't believe that the, the Ranch would still be open or at least some major change happen and that what, what happened is that Tom Van Woerden was allowed to resign, this is my understanding anyway, and that Collette Queener, who had been his assistant, was appointed as the acting director. And so our position was that nothing had changed, that the place was still not safe, and so essentially my staff and I discussed it and, uh, Dave Furman was handling those cases, so he essentially entered that on the, every time the question would come up when a kid was detained and there were several, as the records that I'm giving you will show, and the judge said, what's your recommendation, he would say he couldn't be, he couldn't guarantee the safety of that person at OK Boys Ranch and he put that on the record on purpose and it was because we did not want to be party to recommending the kids be returning there when we are questioning the health and safety of the kids there anyway. So that's been our position for two years.
Q: What, what, what was the response to the C, uh, CWS or CPS, uh, employees that were in the court at the time when this was stated? Were they in the dependency hearings when that was stated?
A: Um, those might have been offender hearings and they are not likely to have been here, but the, Laura Rambo, their, uh, Ranch representative was, would be here in court, and she heard everything we said, obviously, and I'm sure that was reported back. But, you know, there was basically no action taken.
Q: Okay. On that, on that same, uh, vein about court, uh, were you ever aware of any social worker providing false testimony in court?
A: Personally aware?
Q: Through your, through your staff. You're the administrator here. I'm sure they advise you of this.
A: Um, if, if that happened, which I'm sure it did, it's been such a long time I can't really, I couldn't nail that down for you ....
Q: Okay.
A: So, um, I, I think Laina was, is probably a better source for that.
Q: Okay, but you
A: I want to make sure that I can true and correctly tell you things that I remember and, at this point, that's gone.
Q: Yeah, right, but, but you think you, think you've heard that discussion?
A: Yes, I know I have, but the details, for purposes of this statement, I'm reluctant to offer without real good ....
Q: That's fine, that's fine. I wasn't sure whether you were directly aware or not on that.
A: No, I would say I was, uh, administratively aware, but I don't have enough detail.
Back to the beginning OKBR Home Page(http://lbloom.net)
Back to the beginning Corinne Newman Page

--part 1--
--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.

  • DSHS knew since at least 1977.
  • The OKBR staff certainly knew.
  • The abused kids told staff, schools, counselors, police, caseworkers, therapists, ect.., about their abuse at the OKBR, but nobody investigated.
  • Olympia Police Chief Wurner came to an Olympia Kiwanis meeting in 1986 and told the Kiwanis about the troubles at the OKBR. Chief Wurner was ignored. Maybe he should have done more, but he probably wanted to keep his job.
  • It was well know by the Thurston County courts. These kids were constantly in and out of the Thurston County legal system.
  • The OKBR was written about in the Kiwanis Komments newsletters, and the Kiwanis Board Ranch minutes.
  • All the OKBR Board Members had a legal oversight of the OKBR.
  • Were all Olympia Kiwanis Attorneys & Judges and/or Politicians uninformed?
  • It's amazing how blissfully ignorant some people were about the OKBR. You can read about their guiltlessness in some of their Washington State Patrol and Office of Special Investigation statements.
  • Here's Wa St Patrol Olympia Kiwanis member lists of 1987, 1990, 1994
  • Here is a 49 page index of 5,223 pages of documents that the WSP collected about the OKBR. Anybody can order any of those public documents by following the instructions on that page.
  • The OKBR sent kids for weekend visits to child abusers who donated land to the Kiwanis. The Kiwanians sold the land in 1993 for $125,000.
  • Can the Olympian Newspaper claim ignorance?
    manaco@whidbey.net