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 2--

Q: Yeah, that's what I mean, yes. Okay. Were you ever aware, what, number one, were you, do you feel that Collette Queener was competent or qualified to act, be acting director at OK Boys Ranch after Tom left? Professionally, professional opinion.
A: Well, yeah, none of this is personal about anybody frankly. These are only professional issues as far as I'm concerned. Um, I guess I thought that the lack of action to make major change at the Ranch allowed the problem to continue, and so whether it be Tom Van Woerden, Collette Queener, Laura Rambo or any staff person who was there, there was, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, it was inappropriate. So, and I basically told her that when she was here to visit with me, and she came to see me at her board's request, um, on April 13th, 1993, and, um, I didn't mince any words with her about my concerns about the kids not being safe there. I was quite up-front with her about what we were doing on the court records. She knew that, but I wanted to make sure that she understood that I didn't think it was a safe environment for kids and that, that the juvenile court was going to have no part of hiding anything or any, any facts at all about what we found out. Where things got reported to us, we were going to report them to the region, and she understood that, because she'd been having contact with the Ranch. But, um, she was concerned, um, and, and I would say defensive and accusatory saying that she thought that I was talking to lawyers and all this kind of, what I'll call paranoid stuff, and I said I'll, if lawyers call me and they have a right to know the information, they're getting it from me, And so, at that point, the only people who had the documents was DSHS, because I had already given those to Mark Redal. So, and it so happens that none of the lawyers ever asked me for documents but, um, Collette knew that I was not supporting the fact that she was administering there, let's put it that way.
Q: Were you aware of the lack of having, uh, a social, a professional social worker or counsellor on staff at OK Boys Ranch?
A: No, actually, um, I am not aware of the specifics on, um, the group home requirements, because it's much different than ours. We're a certified facility by DSHS, and we have different, uh, requirements as a detention center. So I really haven't tracked that.
Q: Were you ever aware on, back to Collette, of her, uh, striking or kicking a juvenile that was in custody at your facility here?
A: Yes. Um, now those documents I don't have with me but, um, my recollection is that one of my staff members witnessed her, um, striking or assaulting, whatever word you want to use, uh, one of the kids here that she was up here talking with, one of the kids was in custody, and so my staff, uh, filed an incident report and I beiieve we reported that to the department.
Q: Do you know if anything was ever done on that?
A: Um, it's been quite awhile ago, and I, I don't have any direct information I can offer right now without researching it. I don't have that in front of me.
Q: Was it ever reported to the police, do you know? Or was it just reported to CPS?
A: Um, you know I can't answer that, because we typically report both, to both agencies because we want to make sure that we've got the bases covered.
Q: But you don't know if at that time it was . . . .
A: I'd have to look at our old incident reports and dig them out.
Q: Would that be too big a chore?
A: Um, we could do that. Do, um, if I, it would be faster if I, if I was aware of the kid, because we could just look in his file.
Q: I've, I've, I've seen that intake referral...
A: The name? Oh, okay.
Q: But I'm not sure just where it is, but I think I can find the, the date for you. But my concern is whether it was reported to the police department or not.
A: Um, our incident report should show if we notified just CPS or, there should be some documentation showing that we reported it.
Q: And you don't know how bad the assault was?
A: I know it was inappropriate. I mean, you don't, you don't hit kids, when they're in your care and custody.
Q: Right.
A: So, um...
Q: Isn't there a statute that covers custodial assault?
A: You mean, that we, that we shouldn't do it?
Q: No, if, but if you, if, if there's an assault while the child is in custody, isn't that a specific statute of custodial assault?
A: Oh. Yes. I guess I would think it would, uh, would a also apply to the, there's a WAC on no corporal punishment, uh, that DSHS has in their own rules and because the kid was in their care and custody, meaning that he was assigned to OK Boys Ranch, one assumes, no corporal punishment means just that. So, if you want to call it, however you want to call what he, what was happened, we don't allow that kind of activity in our facility, and we reported it. And, um, I would think there's a good possibility that law enforcement was also notified. That would be typical of us, of our practices around here.
Q: Even though it's been quite awhile ago...
A: So I'll have to, oh, yes.
Q: Before, before your relationship- with DSHS deteriorated totally, huh?
A: Yes, yes. Our relationship is, is, uh, not like it should be just because we can't get what we need.
Q: Uh, historically, do your counterparts around the state have the same problem with DSHS or the CPS, uh, CWS units in their region?
A: Yes, um, I, what I'm, what I've talked about today is pretty typical statewide. Some, uh, counties had better response than others but, um, inaction is an unfortunate situation that exists in the system, the, back to the systemic problems here of not getting cases, cases are seen as not a high priority and we only have so much resources and so many spaces, and so these kids don't get services, and we can't do that. We have to take in everybody that's referred to us, and so there's a different standard here, for courts and for DSHS.
Q: They're covered by-the same statutes as you are.
A: Yes, they are, but our standards are different.
Q: But whether they're covered by statute or not, they're not doing their job.
A: They're not, well, I don't believe that they're, they're serving the people that, like when they get referrals, it's not like they're frivolous referrals but, when they're getting referrals from agencies, whether it be law enforcement or the courts or who, um, there needs to be follow-up on that.
Q: And there's not being real follow-up at the present time?
A: There is not consistent, reliable follow-up on cases. We get some, better responses than others depending on who's assigned to the case, to tell you the truth.
Q: And when you, when you find that there's no response you think there should be and, if you call, what's the response you get on the telephone?
A: You mean, if we're, generally, uh, lots of time, uh, I've been having my probation officer's supervisors have direct communication with, um, Shirley and Miriam of late. Um, and then I only get into it if we can't, really can't settle it. Uh, but essentially, uh, they generally have an argument on the phone about lackof services and then, my staff typically says, well, we're going to do what we have to do, which is to file a petition. So back to the word battle, uh, we generally get into an argument case after case after case.
Q: Otherwise, you, I think you've said before, they're determining whether they take a case or not, regardless of what the statute says of whether they should or not? They're, they're ....
A: They're making a discretionary decision about whether the case should be, there should be action taken or not, and we see our duties, uh, probably a little clear, uh, a little clearer and maybe even a little narrower. If there's a complaint, we have a duty to follow up on it.
Q: Due to this inaction, are you recommending to the school personnel that, on all these CPS/CWS referrals, that they also notify law enforcement so something is done and the child is protected?
A: Yes. Actually, I am. That, and I have been doing that for several years.
Q: Do you feel that, uh . . . .
A: With, with several people.
Q: They're consistently placing children at risk by their inaction?
A: I, I think any time that you don't follow up on any complaint and even it might seem minor at the time, you don't, if you don't know the facts or check out the facts, how do you know how big or little it is in terms of what's required and, um, you know, some of the cases don't even have contact made. So you go from no contact to removal and, um, you know, removal is not the rule, and so there's a lot that happens that, that, uh, DSHS has discretion on, that cases just sort of end up nowhere and, and with no status. They don't come back through the dependency filing system, so we know there's no action taken.
Q: Are they, uh, assuming this discretion as the rule in re, by statute, or are they just assuming this discretion on their own and changing what the statute and requirements require?..
A: Well, I believe they're taking what they consider to be their, uh, administrative prerogative to screen cases, and I know that they do now have, um, oh, uh, a risk assessment system.
Q: Risk, risk matrix, yes. A: Yes, and, um, I don't know what their operations are, but I'm assuming in a positive sense that they are using those matrix on each case but, if they never get screened or if they don't have any follow-up or even contact with the school if that happens to be the complaint or even with parents, and we know, because we're involved in the case, that things haven't happened, then something's not being followed through there. And that's, that's a lot of cases.
Q: Would you feel that the, the personnel that you've had contact with, I can't ask you to speak for other regions, but the personnel you've had contact with over, say, 20 years from, before the juvenile laws changed in late, in '77 and '78 to present, have you seen a consistent trend of the way that the situation is handled, otherwise the, the roadblocking and the inactive and lack of communication ... ?
A: Yeah, that's been a long-term problem, and I think it's gotten, um, I would say in the last, if I could just say five years it even seems to be worse. But, I mean, it's been a long-term problem. We're not talking, like I said earlier, this is not a new problem but, um, it should be going the other direction. And so each time a new Assistant Secretary comes in, I always think, oh, gosh, there's going to be somebody here who's going to change the policy and they're going to provide more services. Well, that hasn't happened.
Q: You've said that they use the excuse, uh, lack of personnel, lack of resources, money...
A: That's, that's generally true.
Q: But we go back several years in the late '70s when the resources were there, early '80s, and how was the service then? Same way? You still had the same basic problems then?
A: Well, I would say they weren't as, uh, the no's weren't as often. We got, we got no, we're not going to provide service to this kid, because this is not in our low, low, uh, risk category from their point of view but, um, no has gotten to be, uh, you know, the rule, no, we're not going to take this case. And so we scratch our heads as court personnel saying, well, when do we get a case accepted. how serious does it have to be in order to get some services for kids?
Q: Now do your, your peers in, uh, like positions through the state, are they voicing the same concerns in regards to DSHS and CPS, CWS?
A: Yes, yes, yes. That's, that also is common, all too common. So if you, if you were to ask, uh, if you would random sample of the 32 administrators how many are frustrated with this problem, you probably wouldn't like your answers, because they'd all be telling you the same thing I'm telling you. It just so happens that our, we have this situation with OK Boys Ranch. It's got a bit of a spotlight on this situation, and I think that's probably led to more exam of how did this, how was this allowed to occur and continue, and that's a legitimate question. It's been two years, and we're just now getting to it, so.
Q: Actually, it's been longer than that. It's been since you gave them the information for the audit.
A: Right. Oh, '88, 1988, yes.
Q: Yes.
A: Well; but I'm talking about the specific, after disclosure of the abuse there and the fact that it's been two years before we finally get to action is kind of, speaks volumes to me about what we've been facing and our frustration.
Q: And even back in the mid-'80s, you were bringing problems to the attention of the local office and the region office that there was problems there.
A: Yes, yes, well, I've been here 25 years, so I've been their nemesis for awhile bringing it, bringing it to their attention.
Q: And would you say over that, over that period that inaction has been the, the ongoing thing you've seen, rather than action?
A: Yes, and I'd say the inaction has gotten worse over time. When I first came here, I didn't feel that way at all about, um, the caseworkers at least accepting the case and trying to work with it and, um, it's just kind of gone from one extreme to the other, and I, and I don't know if I can, since I don't know their internal workings, I can't even tell you why that might have occurred, if it's just, uh, policy or, I doubt that it's policy, I just think it's different persons, uh, see things different ways.
Q: Different management styles from region to region and office to office?
A: Yes, and what's, and, and frankly, if people have wide discretion, they can do a lot of different things and if, unless they are, you know, and if their discretion is in, within certain narrow limits, then you have certain choices you have to make, and so I see that being also maybe a problem, and that is that there's an opportunity not to follow up on cases that shouldn't happen.
Q: Do you feel that they took that discretion upon themselves?
A: Well, everybody, every, every report they get is probably a statutory required report.
Q: And there's a statute . . . .
A: My, my interpretation would be that any of us that are reporting, whether it be police, schools, the, uh ....
Q: Doctors.
A: Medical people, ourselves, we're, we're following the statutes. Statute's. quite clear, and so we make the report and . . . .
Q: The statute says they have to investigate or take action?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: Are they?
A: - Well, to the best of my knowledge?
Q: Yes.
A: Uh, my choices are some of the time or most of the time here, and I'll have to go with some of the time.
0: Some of tbe time they're taking action?
A: Yeah, I would, yes.
Q: We're stop the tape. We're restarting the tape now at 11:30. We were interrupted by the court commissioner. Corinne, uh, interview with Corinne Newman. The time is now 11:37. Corinne, we've had, uh, a statement taken here, and we've covered a lot of things. Can you add anything or do you,feel you want to add anything to what we discussed today, or give us an overview?
A: Well, um, so I, for the sake of not being redundant here, um, I guess I feel like, um, this OK Boys Ranch situation shows the horrendous, as far as I'm concerned, lack of follow-through or disorganization within the DSHS system that this would be allowed to happen. Something is really wrong, systematically, that there aren't better checks and balances in, in that system. I think that, um, maybe there needs to be a, a new approach to legislation. Uh, frankly, I guess I feel like when the law enforcement and juvenile courts were in the decision-making chair of, uh, what needed to be referred and what didn't need to be referred, that we had more action being taken. So I don't know if there's a problem with too much discretion here or if, if it's, may, it could be just our own local office that has a, um, an out-of-the-ordinary problem with that, because I know everybody in the state is frustrated. But I, but this, our, we're having, our, uh, history's stacking up to be pretty negative here. And so, from that point of view, um, I just can't tell you enough of, of how frustrated I have been that, since this situation at the Ranch was disclosed that it's gone on this long. So, if there's anything that's making me nuts, and it's most frustrating as an administrator, is to see that, that we, that the response has been so slow to take care of a problem that is so blatant. And, if it's this way on a case like this, I'm really concerned about the welfare of kids that are in maybe less-serious situations but needing attention. You know what I'm saying? So something's wrong in the system, and there needs to be change, and I feel like, um, that the managers of DSHS really have to take a look at this situation and, and use it as a model of what not to do and, and, and to make some serious significant change that will show up in the daily operations of every, uh, county in the state.
Q: Do vou feel that, uh, some of these managers feel they're not culpable, and they can do what they want and just go an about their business and don't have to answer to anybody?
A: Oh, I don't know. Um, I guess that infers that there would, be a cavalier attitude about, I don't have to do what I, what I don't want to do. Um, um, I'm not exactly sure how I could explain what I think managers, I don't know if they feel like there's no point of doing it or if they feel too overworked or I, I couldn't exactly tell you why people aren't following through on their workload like it needs to happen. Um, sometimes I think it's just values, and maybe that's another area in the, in the DSHS system that needs to be resolved, and that is, uh, what the, what the agency values are and, when people don't follow through on things, that they be dealt with immediately and consequences be delivered so that they understand what needs to be done. I'm required to do that. If I have a problem here, I have to take care of it immediately. It's my own liability if I don't, and so why isn't that the same case in the state system. That would be my question.
Q: Don't you feel that by statute, it really, really makes that same determination for state, but it's just not being administered?
A: Well, something's not happening administratively that this could occur and, and remain a problem for over two years from the time of discloiure, if we're, if we're using the OK Boys Ranch as an example. So, I don't want to get on a soapbox, but I have strong feelings about this.
Q: Do you, uh, to ask you one other thing, do you feel that, when they changed the, the way the juvenile laws were administered and the, and the areas of responsibility in late '77, early '78, that this had a, a big change in the way business is done in regards to kids?
A: Oh, I think there was, uh, a unbelievable impact, um, with the change of the law, and I think, uh, you know, the transfer of different responsibilities to different organizations, um, I personally believe that we didn't even hear about street kids until after, uh, they could no longer come to detention centers for incorrigibility or other problems when, when we were basically. providing the, the, if you will, the center receiving for law enforcement. I don't ever know of, of, of a term called street kid until after the law changed, and then when all kids, runaways weren't dealt with and youth-at-risk people weren't handled and all that, it just sort of got progressively worse to where we are, and obviously the pendulum's going the way slowly, but, uh, we have like a 15-year problem here that needs to be resolved, and some of this, the law reflects on this inaction I guess is another way of putting it. I think they are directly connected.
Q: This form, uh, that you did of detention usage. The summaries?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, you compared OK Boys Ranch, Deschutes and Brentwood. Now, are these the same size group homes?
A: Approximately about the same size. I think Deschutes was, uh, 10 to 12 kids. Ranch is like, I want to say 10 to 12, maybe 13 kids, and Brentwood is at least eight or more there, and they're all, now Deschutes of course is no longer in business, but they are like size. Um, and, and so that's what's so glaring about the data that I've gathered and that is that ....
Q: So we're comparing 1,933 days at OK Boys Ranch the children were in, in custody at this facility, compared to Deschutes at 411 days and Brentwood with 370 days.
A: Yes.
Q: Uh .... A: And over time, that's maybe
Q: And this is two-year-old data here.
A: Yes. This, this does not include '93 and '94 data. This is just what we had to the end of the year.
Q: Do you have anything to add?
A: Not at this time, but I might think of something.
Q: Okay. Thank you for your time. We're going to end the tape now at 12:40. Have any, uh, threats or promises been made during this taping?
A: No. they have not.
Q: Okay. And this was with your own free will?
A: It absolutely was.
--part 1--
--part 2--
Back to the beginning OKBR Home Page(http://lbloom.net)
Back to the beginning Corinne Newman Page

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.