Combined Valente appeals denied after county says responsive records produced

Director Pearson denied four combined appeals from Mr. Valente against Washington County (appeals 2026-083, -086, -111 and -112) after the county said it had produced responsive records and the director determined Mr. Valente had not met his burden to show additional responsive records existed.

Mr. Valente said he sought documents tied to assessor methodology, a five-page "new quality guide," orchard-valuation materials and communications involving a city employee, Kyle Lovelady. He argued some responsive materials could exist and raised a copyright/fair-use issue related to the guide, citing a court decision he said discussed fair use of copyrighted materials.

County counsel (Mister Scott) told the director the county had conducted searches of email, electronic drive files and physical records, produced responsive documents, and that many of Valente’s requests sought professional judgment or methodology rather than existing records. The county said it had provided a quality guide and would follow up if additional responsive emails or files were identified.

The director said he reviewed submitted materials, found no indication the county withheld responsive records, and denied the appeals. He suggested that if Mr. Valente wants the specific document he referenced — materials developed with a city employee — a separate, narrower GRAMA request may be the better path and that the county indicated willingness to provide records if they are identified.

The director will issue a written decision within seven business days; parties may appeal to district court within 30 calendar days.