Dear Ms. Duke,

I am writing further regarding R000879-070126, and specifically the Department's determination that it "did not locate records" responsive to my request for any record in which I am named or identifiably described in connection with personnel, human resources,
legal, risk, or accountability matters.

I am not, in this letter, asserting what any particular record contains. I am placing on the record the reasons that a determination of "no records" in this category is difficult to credit given what is already publicly documented about my matter, and asking
the Department to reconcile the determination with those facts or to document the search that produced it.

Consider the nature and scope of the matter the Department was searching against.

My dismissal from the Oregon State Parks volunteer program, and the events surrounding it, are not an ordinary personnel or volunteer matter confined to a single park. They involve a written expulsion from every state park in Oregon that cites protected speech
as its basis — a First Amendment question on its face. They involve, by the agency's own subsequent conduct, correspondence from the Deputy Director drafted with the involvement of counsel, an assertion that I might file legal action, and a warning of referral
to the Department of Justice. They involve three armed officers — two Oregon State Police and one federal — appearing on restricted federal land on the anniversary of my dismissal. They involve a matter I have documented publicly and in detail, and which I
have raised, in writing, at every level of the executive branch.

Over the course of approximately a year, I directed correspondence concerning this matter to the Director of Oregon State Parks, to the Deputy Director, to the Office of the Governor, and to the Governor's campaign, among others. That correspondence names me,
originates from me, and concerns the legal, risk, and accountability dimensions of my treatment. I raise this not because I sent it to the Department, but because a matter carrying this profile — constitutional exposure, executive-branch correspondence, law-enforcement
contact, and public documentation, sustained over a year — is precisely the kind of matter that a central administrative services agency responsible for personnel, human resources, legal, and risk functions across the executive branch would ordinarily have
some record of.

That is the discrepancy I ask the Department to address. The Department is the executive branch's principal body for personnel, human resources, risk, and related administrative functions. My matter is one with documented personnel, legal, risk, and accountability
dimensions, escalated across the executive branch over the course of a year. A determination that the Department holds no record — not one — in which I am named or identifiably described in connection with any of those matters is difficult to reconcile with
the documented profile of the matter itself.

I ask the Department to do one of the following.

If, notwithstanding the above, the Department maintains that it holds no responsive records in this category, I ask it to document the search that produced that determination: the custodians and offices searched, the systems and repositories queried, the date
range applied, and the search terms or identifiers used. A determination of "no records" is a statement about a search, and the facts above make the adequacy of that search a fair and material question.

Alternatively, if the Department has construed the scope of this portion narrowly — for instance, by treating records that reference me as belonging solely to the separate portion of my request still under review — I ask it to state that construction expressly
and its basis. My request defines this category by content: records in which I am named or identifiably described in connection with the enumerated matters. That turns on what a record concerns, not on its author or channel. Under ORS 192.329(2)(a), the Department's
obligation runs to records within its possession or custody, without regard to authorship.

I ask that the Department treat this as a request to revisit the closure of this portion in light of the discrepancy, and to respond by documenting the search or by identifying the scope construction it has applied.

I appreciate your attention and will await the Department's response.

Sincerely,

Robert Samuel White

Founder, Autonomy Realms

Owner, eNetwizard Inc.

Former Oregon State Parks Volunteer

Current U.S. Forest Service Caretaker

Steward, oprdvolunteerabuse.org