Mr. Albert,

I am the one who needs equitable access. The four institutions I brought to you have answered my requests with $2,979.50 in fees: $1,808 from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, $572.50 from the Office of the Governor, and $599 from the Department of Justice. The Governor's office and the Department of Justice denied my fee waivers. OPRD has never decided them. Oregon State Police is withholding four records of the visit its detectives made to my door. Is that what equitable access looks like to your office?

I do not see how you could possibly lack information, unless you mean from the agencies. My request of October 14 sets out all four disputes, names the part of ORS 192.464(2) each falls under, and supports them with 102 citations and 39 pages of attachments. Every document is published in full, in the public domain, at oprdvolunteerabuse.org. On October 21 you wrote that you had read the materials. If you need anything more from me, ask, and you will have it the same day.

You asked which request to begin with. I answered on October 21: Oregon State Police first, with a written schedule for the rest, and my agreement to extend once you sent one. How much more agreeable do you need me to be, or is the real problem my directness? If so, could you point me to the specific problem it presents for you, and why it should be held against me?

You describe facilitated dispute resolution as "merely mediation." Mediation is why I came to you. Your mediation has been requested since October 14. A written agreement reached in it controls the resolution of the request, and a state agency that fails to engage in it in good faith can be made to pay the requester's costs and attorney fees. It is a process built precisely for a situation like mine.

Your office has two people and received nearly four hundred requests last year. That is a question of how the State funds you. It does not change the law, and it does not move the burden to me.

ORS 192.468 gives you discretion over how you conduct a session. It does not give you discretion over whether to provide one. ORS 192.464(1)(a) says you shall.

I can see what you are doing. You are adding terms the law does not contain to a law that already decides this, so that when I do not accept them, your refusal is recorded as mine. That is a pretext. It is the same behavior I have witnessed repeatedly in this record: shifting the blame to the person who documented.

Every channel the State of Oregon built to repair what was done to me has pointed at containment. Yours is the last one. You can be the advocate your office is named for, or you can be the last door that closed. That choice is yours, and the record will show which one you made.

Respectfully,

Robert Samuel White
rswfire.com
oprdvolunteerabuse.org
autonomyrealms.com