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 Gary Tabor Page

--part 1----part 2----part 4--
Q Did you ask anyone at this meeting or anywhere else whether Mr. Sutherland was on the Board of Directors of the Kiwanis Club of Olympia?
    A No.
      Q Did you care?
    Q I know it wasn't an issue that you saw. Was it an issue that mattered?
    MR. LAW: Object to the form.
    MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
    A Not in my opinion, no.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Did you seek any counsel from anyone else to determine whether it was appropriate for Mr. Sutherland and his office to be involved in investigating a corporation who held the license for the O.K. Boys Ranch at a time when the O.K. Boys Ranch management was being investigated?
    MR. HANSEN: Object to the form of the question; misstating facts grossly.
    MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
    A First of all, I've already answered that I didn't know  that that's the case, and still don't, because I think  you're making some suggestions that may or may not be  true. But I did not discuss the issue with anyone because  it was not an issue, in my opinion.
      Q (By Mr. Paul) So, without making any investigation, you  determined that it was not an issue; is that what you're  saying?
    A I didn't determine it at all. It never came up.
  Q And you made no investigation to determine what rules may or may not apply?
    MR. HANSEN: I object to the form of the question.
    MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
    A I am well aware of the rules that are involved in  prosecutorial discretion. There was no question about any  rules of the prosecutor exercising his discretion being  violated.
Q  (By Mr. Paul) What inquiry did you undertake to determine that there was no question?
    A I made no inquiry because there was no issue.
    Q How would you know if there was an issue, sir, if you didn't make any inquiry?
    MR. HANSEN: Objection. You're arguing with the witness at this point.
    MR. PAUL: Go ahead, sir.
    A The elected prosecutor has the authority under law to make decisions about whether or not to file charges. Separation of powers in the constitution of the State of Washington in the United States give him that power.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) The State has a lot of power, doesn't it?
    A I'm not going to argue with you.
    MR. HANSEN: Objection. Yes. Yes, we're going to stop this. You're getting personally involved here, and you're arguing with the witness. Please.
    MR. PAUL:  Mr. Hanson, if you don't agree with my question, that doesn't mean it's inappropriate.
    MR. HANSEN: But you're arguing with the witness. Please, Counsel.
    MR. PAUL: The witness has expressed his opinion, and I'd like to. ask some questions about that.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) The law requires an impartial prosecutor, does it not?
    A The law requires that a prosecutor fulfill his duties. A prosecutor is given great discretion as to how those duties are fulfilled.
    Q I'm got going to argue with you, sir, about how great the discretion the county prosecutor is. I am going to ask you, though, does the law require an impartial prosecutor?
    A I think that a prosecutor should always be impartial, yes.
  Q And that's the requirement found in Washington law; is that correct?
    A I don't know that it's found in any written law. I think that case authority would indicate that if a prosecutor acts inappropriately, that can be reviewed by the courts.
    Q And there is a doctrine known as the Appearance of Fairness doctrine, is there not?
    A I think that is a doctrine that is case precedent, yes.
Q And that applies to prosecutors, does it not?
    A Well, certainly it's been addressed in issues regarding prosecutors, the appearance of fairness yes.
    Q So that doctrine of law applies to prosecutors, correct?
    A It might, in a particular case.
    Q Doesn't it apply to all prosecutors in every case, sir?
    A Well, if you want to discuss the Appearance of Fairness doctrine, it has to be raised by someone and then there has to be a determination of the facts in an individual case. And so it might apply in an individual case, or it might not. The issue never arose in this particular case.
    Q I understand your testimony, sir, but my question is: Regardless of whether it was raised, this doctrine applies to prosecutors in their capacity in determining whether chargas are to be filed, does it not?
    A I don't know what you mean by it applies. I think that the appearance of fairness is something that a court can review as to a prosecutor's decision in the filing of charges or the handling of a criminal case.
    Q And the law a1so requires that the judge appear to be impartial; is that correct?
    A Again, case authority says that a judge should have the appearance of fairness, yes
.     Q And in a prosecutorial capacity, you sit as a quasijudicial officer, do you not?
    A Well, a prosecutor is a member of the executive branch, not the judicial branch however, we are officers of the court just as any attorney would be.
    Q You indicated you gave deposition and other testimony in State vs. Madry?
    A No, I said State vs. Rupe.
    Q Rupe, okay. Is a prosecutor required to disqualify him or herself if there is a conflict of interest, sir?
    A I don't know that there's any hard and fast rule as to what a conflict of interest is.
    Q Assuming that a conflict of interest does exist, is it then incumbent upon the prosecutor to remove him or herself?
    MR. HANSEN: Object to the form of the question.
    A Well, you've asked me to assume something. I guess in whose mind would be the issue. If a court says there's a conflict of interest, then the answer would be yes.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) I'm just saying let's not quibble about a conflict and whether or not it exists. I'm saying let us assume, and your answer is assuming a conflict of interest, then a prosecutor has an affirmative obligation not to proceed as prosecutor; is that correct?
    MR. LAW: Object to the form; misstates his answer.
    MR. PAUL: I'm asking a question. Go ahead.
    MR. LAW: Excuse me. Separate and apart from this, I'm in a position where I can see the court reporter directly, and, as we had the problem last week - and I think she would really vouch for it - you're picking up your speed and you're giving her some real problem. I want to have a good transcript.
     MR. PAUL: I think there's a question pending, Mr. Law.
       Can you repeat the question preceding Mr. Law's recent speech?
    THE COURT REPORTER: Question: "I'm just saying let's not quibble about a conflict and whether or not it exists. I'm saying let us assume, and your answer is assuming a conflict of interest, then a prosecutor has an affirmative obligation not to proceed as prosecutor; is that correct?"
    A Not necessarily, because I think the prosecutor could find that there's a conflict as to himself, but not as to other members of his staff.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) And nothing of that sort was discussed involving the O.K. Boys Ranch case and Mr. Sutherland,  was it?
    A No.
    (Discussion off the record)
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Has the Prosecutor's.Office ever referred a case out specifically as a result of the conflict of interest, as far as you know?
    MR. LAW: Asked and answered, Counsel.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) I believe you answered that there was the Clark County referral, and I don't recall frankly whether that was based on a conflict of interest.
    A No, I don't think that was a conflict of interest.
    Q I don't either. Go-ahead and answer, if you would, please.
    A Criminally, I don't recall ever referring a case out for a conflict of interest.
    Q Has there been an occasion where you've discussed actual or potential conflicts of interest at your Prosecutor's Office?
    A No, I don't recall any such discussions.
    Q You indicated earlier that the RPC, or the Rules of Professional Conduct, apply to you; is that correct?
    A Yes.
    Q Are you familiar with Rule 3.7 about a lawyer as a witness?
    A Yes.
    Q Is it your understanding that a lawyer is prohibited from acting in a capacity of a lawyer when someone in that person's law firm or that individual is a witness to an action or controversy.
    MR. LAW: Object to the form of the question. It misstates the rule, Counsel.
    MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
    MR. HANSEN: It does.
    A I'm aware there have been challenges from time to time about the - about trying to disqualify a prosecutor.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Okay. Now, I think Mr. Law's objection was, is that there are certainly exceptions to that rule. I think we can all agree on that.
    MR. LAW: Actually, Counsel, my objection was that you have misstated the rule.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) What is your understanding of the prohibition on a lawyer acting as a witness?
    A I'd have to read the rule. I don't recall specifically.
Q Let me pass you what is captioned Rule 3.7 to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
    A Well, I can read it, but the general rule is that a lawyer should not be an advocate in a matter in which another lawyer in the same firm is likely a necessary witness, but there are four exceptions listed there.
    MR. HANSEN: I'm also going to interpose a continuing objection of relevancy to this whole line of questioning.
    MR. PAUL: It's a deposition in discovery, not a matter wherein you need to preserve your objection based on relevance, Counsel.
    Mr. Hanson: I will not make any further objections as to relevance either.
    MR. PAUL: It's taken a year and a half, but that's fine with me.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Did you write a report declining to prosecute, Mr. Tabor?
    A I wrote a memorandum.
    Q And was that written on or about February 24, 1993?
    A It was.in February of '93, yes.
    Q Was your decision not to prosecute made at about the same time?
    A Yes, shortly before the memo was written.
    MR. PAUL: Let's go off the record.
    (Discussion off the record)
    (Recessed at 11:53 a.m.)
    (Reconvened at 1:07; Mr. Kelley and Mr. Cochran absent at this time.)
    MR. PAUL: We're back on the record.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Mr. Tabor, were you aware that Pat Sutherland was on the Board of Directors of Kiwanis in 1992?
    A I don't think so. I knew he was a Kiwanian; that's all I recall knowing.
    Q Did you inquire about whether he7was on the board?
    A No.
    Q Were you aware that the O.K. Boys Ranch situation  was discussed at the January 1993 Board of Directors meeting where Mr. Sutherland was sitting on the Board of  Directors?
    MR. HANSEN: Object--
    MR. LAW: Object to the form of the question. It doesn't indicate whether he was there or not.
    MR. PAUL: Go ahead.
    A I'm not aware of when or if it was discussed, no.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Were you aware that Mr. Sutherland attended the meeting in January '93---
    A No.
    Q ---where the Olympia Kiwanis Club Board of Directors discussed the O.K. Boys Ranch situation?
    A No.
    Q Were you aware that that meeting was just one month before your decision not to prosecute?
    A No.
    Q Were you aware that the O.K. Boys Ranch was and is a standing committee of the Kiwanis Club of Olympia?
    A I didn't understand it that way, no.
      Q Do you as of today?
    A Not really. I don't have a clear understanding of what  relationship there is there.
      Q  Were you aware that the standing committee arrangement was designed in part so that Kiwanis could flex political muscle for the Ranch?
    A No.
    Q Are you aware of Canon No. 6 for the judicial - for the legal ethical canons requiring a duty to disclose all dealings with an opposing party?
    A I'm generally aware of the Canons of Ethics. The parties in a criminal case are the State of Washington and the defendants.     Q And if Mr. Sutherland had occasion to be on the Board of Directors of a defendant corporation, would that in your mind create a conflict of interest?
    A There-wasn't a defendant corporation. It was defendants.
    Q I understand. I'm just saying, in your mind, if the defendant was a corporation and if Mr. Sutherland sat on the Board of Directors of that corporation, would that, ir your mind, create a conflict of interest?
    A I don't know without more facts. I would not assume one way or the other.
    Q Is there anything that prevented you from attempting to determine whether there was a relationship whereby the O.K. Boys Ranch was a standing committee of the Kiwanis Club of Olympia?
    A I have plenty of other things to do, and it didn't make any sense to do that. It would be a waste of time.
    Q Why would it be a waste time?
    A Because the issue is not whether or not the O.K. Boys Ranch Board did anything or whether Kiwanis Board did anything. The only issue was about three named defendants. The Olympia Police investigation made absolutely no issue of any involvement of any other people other than those three. That was the scope of the investigation.
    Q Were you aware that in 1989 Tom VanWoerden swore in an affidavit that he could bring a hundred witnesses, including public officials, to testify about how the O.K. Boys Ranch performed its contract with the State?
    A I'm not aware of that, no.
    Q Were you aware that Mr. Sutherland signed the papers relating to the Board of Adjustment wherein the O.K. Boys Ranch obtained land use variances to construct their facility?
    A No, I'm not.
    Q Did you ever attend meetings for the Kiwanis Club of Olympia?
    A I have attended there on a f ew occasions.     Q At the times you attended those meetings, was the O.K. Boys Ranch discussed?
    A Not to my recollection. Usually the days that I attended would have been the Law  Enforcement Awards Day.
    Q Why did you decide not to commence prosecution of Tom VanWoerden, Colette Queener, or Laura Rambo? And if you wish to address them individually, please feel free. In other words, if the answer is not the same for each of the three named individuals, by all means, explain your differences.
    A I think I can group-all three together. Primarily, I made that decision based upon my evaluation of the situation  as it existed in February of 1993; specifically, that  Mr. VanWoerden was resigning his position with the O.K.  Boys Ranch. That was one of the primary concerns of the  Olympia Police from the very beginning expressed to me as they-thought there was a problem with the relationship  between the Olympia Police and Mr. VanWoerden and the way the O.K. Boys Ranch worked with the police. They  indicated to me that it would be their hope that  Mr. VanWoerden could be relieved of his duties. When I was contacted - and I don't recall whether that was late January or early February - by an attorney for Mr. VanWoerden, Mr. Buzzard, he indicated to me that there was a consideration of his client resigning and would the Prosecutor's office agree not to pursue charges if Mr. VanWoerden resigned. I told Mr. Buzzard at that point I would discuss that with the Olympia Police. I did call Chief Wurner and discuss the matter with him, and he indicated he would leave that to our discretion. He had no problem with that. We discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the case, which also had a bearing on my decision. That was primarily that this was a somewhat technical allegation. The issue surrounding the statute, or several issues surrounding the statute, one of which was what abuse must be reported in that the statutes concerning rape of a child provide for an age disparity to be present prior to there being a crime committed; that consentual sex between children who are close in chronological age would not be a crime and the issue about failing to report something was somewhat at - convoluted, I guess, is the way to put it, based on the statements of several people. Ms. Rambo indicated that she had had a discussion with someone in the State - and I don't remember whether that's CPS or DSHS - I believe DSHS, who indicated that if it was not a crime, it need not be reported. I was also aware of the fact that a trial on this matter would be a rather involved process and many of the witnesses who would have to be called would be - their credibility would be a paramount issue. There was an indication that many of these young people were reluctant during a criminal investigation to talk about the matter and indicated they did not wish to discuss the matter any further. There was the issue of whether or not the matter was reported in June, and I believe that DSHS acknowledged that they had, in fact, had a report about an orgy, and there was some discussion or disagreement as to exactly what occurred in that conversation as to whether or not the DSHS people told the O.K. Boys Ranch people that that was a sufficient report or not. The matter of July - the matter that actually came to light was reported by O.K. Boys Ranch. In reviewing the logs I seem to recall seven or eight log entries that dealt with what might be characterized as potential sexual abuse. Of those seven or eight log entries, several of them were dealt with in the criminal charges, and several of them could not be confirmed any further as to whether or not sexual abuse had actually occurred. In any event, based upon all - and I don't have a full recollection of everything that was included in the Olympia Police report, but I do recall that I reviewed it thoroughly; I discussed it personally with Detective Noble on several occasions; and, as I've already said, discussed it with Chief Wurner, and felt that it was not necessary to proceed with prosecution. One other thing I failed to mention is I was also aware that the State regulatory body had also taken a number of corrective action. So, taking all those things into consideration, I felt that a trial would not necessarily result in proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that there had been a number of remedial actions taken that would serve the interest of everyone concerned.
    Q Do remedial actions often form the basis for your decision to prosecute or not to prosecute?
    A That is a consideration, yes.
      Q What follow-up did you do to see how the remedial or supposedly remedial actions were taking effect?
    A Well, once the agreement was entered into - once I got back to Mr. Buzzard and indicated to him that in exchange for his client resigning we would not pursue charges, my office did nothing further as far as following up.
    Q Were you aware that one of the other suspects, Colette Queener, was given a raise and a promotion?
    A No, I was not.
    Q Is that a - strike that.  Why do you look at subsequent remedial conduct? Is that part of a deterrent?
    A Well, the purpose of the criminal law,is to punish, to protect society, and to accomplish just the orderly administration of particular servIces. And we considered remedial action in each of those areas.
    Q Is that the end of your answer?
    A Um-hmm.
    Q Did the subsequent increase in Colette Queener's pay serve as a punishment to her?
    A I don't know whether it did or not. As I said, I didn't have any knowledge of that.
    Q Did her promotion to a higher salary and a more comprehensive list of job duties punish her?
    A I don't know whether it did or not.
    Q Who made the decision not to prosecute?
    A I believe that it was my decision, although I did discuss it with Mr. Sutherland, but I was assigned the case and made a decision that required Mr. Sutherland's ultimate approval.
    Q Now, does Mr. Sutherland ultimately approve all such decisions? I don't know how your system works.
    A No, he does not. However, if there are decisions that are newsworthy, I try to keep him informed as my superior and as the elected prosecutor, so there had been a number of news reports surrounding this situation, and I felt it appropriate that he be apprised and have the opportunity to discuss with me if he had any problem with my decision.
    Q How many times did you discuss with Sutherland?
    A I don't recall exactly.
    Q More than once?
    A I think so, Yes.
    Q Did you give a statement - you said when there's a newsworthy angle to this, you might be more inclined to talk with Mr. Sutherland?
    A um-hmm.
    MR. HANSEN: Object to the form of the question.
    Q (By Mr. Paul) Did you give a statement or have occasion to talk to Devin Smith of The Olympia about your decision not to prosecute?
    A I may have. I don't recall. I talked to the press several times a week, so I do not have an independent recollection of any-specific conversation.
    Q Do you recall telling Devin Smith that you were concerned about the relative strengths and weaknesses in this case?
    A I don't recall having a conversation. I may have said  that.
  Q Do you remember telling Devin Smith whether you thought  this was somewhat of a technical violation?
    A I don't recall having the conversation with Devin Smith,so I don't recall anything that I may or may not have said to him.
    Q Could you have proven this case, sir, without the live testimony of the children involved, based on descriptions that Boys Ranch employees wrote in their treatment records?
    A, I think that unlikely.
    Q One of the reasons that you wrote in your February memo that you didn't - explaining why you didn't prosecute was that there would be a large number of witnesses; is that correct?
    A I think I said that, yes.
    Q Is it not the prosecutor's province to take on a case with a large number of witnesses?
    A We do that all the time.
    Q So that alone wasn't a reason not to prosecute, was it?
    A It was - it was a reason. It was not alone.
    Q Okay. Having a witness testify about embarrassing sexual details, is that something that the Prosecutor's Office has done on occasion?
    A Certainly.
    Q They do it all the time, don't they?
    A Yes.
    Q And that reason alone wasn't enough to--
    A That's true, that alone was not.
    Q You alluded earlier to requesting further information from Chief Wurner--
    A Yes.
    Q ---following the initial contact by Reiko?     A Yes.
--part 1----part 2----part 4--

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

From: ~~~~~~~~@aol.com
To: Louis Bloom manaco@whidbey.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 11:34 AM
Subject: OKBR
Just came across your pages and felt the urge to respond... In the early 80's (81-83) I was at the OKBR frequently as a young kid walking to/from school, I became friends with some of the boys. At one point a small boy confided to me that he was being raped by another boy in the home. The abusing boy talked about it openly!
Days later I walked the victim to OPD where we both gave statements. Later that evening I began to receive these incredibly threatening phone calls from a woman employee of the ranch who's name I believe was Paulette at my home. She kept calling over and over screaming at me calling me names. It was horrible. I thought I was helping someone. Nothing came of it. Then all these years later, it all comes out ... one of the boys that I had known there left as a young adult and still couldn't get it together, he eventually killed himself. As an adult now I don't often think back to those times but it still saddens me. All those boys that needed a safe nurturing place to be, and how many of them were better off for having been taken there? It's not about money. It cost these boys their lives, their souls, their trust. Those people who knew, who didn't care, they should feel such shame. Just my opinion.

From: louis a bloom manaco@whidbey.net
To: ~~~~~~~@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: OKBR
thanks for your e-mail. from what i've read, dshs, the olympia police department, and other "authorities" didn't consider child on child rape to be against the law. it was considered "normal experimentation". The "paulette" you mention, may have been Collette Queener who was an assistant director at the OKBR. Collette, OKBR Director Tom Van Woerdan, and OKBR counselor Laura Rambo Russell were ineptly charged by Wa. St. with "criminal mistreatment for failing to stop abuse". The charges were dismissed by Thurston County Judge Daniel Berschauer on technicalities. The lawyer who represented Collette Queener said, (Nov. 14, 1996 Olympian), that it was a "witch hunt", and that " a more innocent person (than Queener) you could not have for a client. She's an ex-nun ..... I don't see how you could view her in an evil or negative light."
I congratulate you for doing the right thing, when all those adults looked the other way. I repeat on most pages that the " OKBR has cost the Washington State taxpayers over $35 million dollars (so far)", because I think most people don't care about the kids involved, but they may care that it has cost them (taxpayers) money.
louis bloom

There were many obvious and long-term warnings about the 1970-94 child abusing Olympia Kiwanis Boys Ranch.