Corvallis’ city government could look very different come 2029. A volunteer task force is putting the finishing touches on a ballot measure that would reshape the City Council in ways not seen since the charter was first adopted in 1948. If passed, Corvallis would have fewer city councilors, and they would serve longer terms.
The Charter Review Task Force’s members are Mayor Charles Maughan, City Councilors Briae Lewis, Ava Olson and Jan Napack, and three community at-large volunteers.
At their May 27 meeting, a consensus was formed over the proposed measure’s points. At their next meeting on June 10, they’ll likely finalize the language. On July 20, they will ask the City Council to refer the measure for November’s ballot, and from there, it would be up to Corvallis’ voting public.
However, there may be some sticking points. Fewer city councilors would mean fewer wards, and those wards would need to be larger. At present, the map for those newly envisioned larger wards hasn’t been offered up by the task force. Privately, some on the council believe a map of the new ward boundaries can wait until after voters approve. Others worry not having the map makes approval less likely.
Known ward boundaries may be especially important as there is a growing sense among Corvallisites that the further east they live, the less their voice matters to city leaders.
Plus, even now, some on the City Council believe the task force has headed the wrong direction. City Councilors Charlyn Ellis and Paul Shaffer have co-authored a letter that is enormously critical. The text of their letter is below, but first, here’s a look at the task force’s late-stage consensus.
THE TASK FORCE CONSENSUS
Fewer Councilors, Fewer Wards
The biggest structural change: shrinking the Council from nine members to six and redrawing the city from nine wards down to six. That would make Corvallis look a lot more like its Oregon peers — statewide data shows six is the most common council size, and until recently Corvallis was the only city in Oregon with nine councilors.
Longer Terms, Staggered
Currently, all nine councilors face voters at the same time, every two years. The proposal would move to four-year terms with staggered elections — councilors from even-numbered wards elected in presidential election years, odd-numbered wards in midterm years. The task force found that since 1973, an average of nearly five new councilors have joined the council every two years, with some terms seeing seven of nine seats flip to newcomers at once. Supporters say that kind of turnover makes it nearly impossible to maintain continuity or institutional knowledge.
Corvallis and Philomath were, until recently, the only two cities in Oregon still using two-year council terms.
Term Limits
The charter currently has no term limits at all. The proposal, as it is now, would cap both councilors and the mayor at three consecutive terms. Terms served before January 2027 wouldn’t count, and partial terms under two years wouldn’t count either — so the clock effectively starts fresh. After sitting out a period, a former councilor could run again.
The task force has maintained they couldn’t point to a specific problem term limits would fix in Corvallis right now, but cited democratic renewal, limiting incumbent advantages, and motivating timely action from electees as rationales. They also noted term limits are wildly popular with Oregon voters — every recent ballot measure imposing new term limits around the state has passed, some by margins exceeding 78%.
The Transition Plan
If voters approve the measure, the new six-ward map would need to be drawn by December 31, 2027. All six councilors under the new structure would be elected together in November 2028 and be sworn January of 2029. Odd numbered ward councilors would serve an initial two-year term to kick off the staggering pattern. Beginning in 2030, all councilor terms would be four years.
Why One Measure, Not Three?
The task force debated whether to put term limits, council size, and term length on the ballot separately. They ultimately decided to recommend a single measure, arguing the changes are legally intertwined — several would amend the same section of the charter — and that term limits were partly intended to balance the other changes, particularly the longer terms. They also pointed to the cost and complexity of running multiple campaigns, noting the previous task force phase produced four separate ballot measures and that was a significant lift.
HERE IS ELLIS AND SHAFFER’S LETTER
Members of the charter review task force: First, thanks to all of you for participating on a task force to update the Corvallis City Charter. It’s a grind, and often thankless work. Our comments were inspired by recent material circulated to the Corvallis City Council by Danielle Chambers and dated March 31, 2026. Their commentary on group size is thought-provoking, but frankly, we find the analysis to be largely inapplicable, perhaps even counterproductive, to considering the size and workings of the Corvallis City Council. Efficiency is nice, but that absolutely should never be the overriding objective of local government. Collegiality is likewise nice, but certainly not necessary; the same with happiness.
In a democracy, power comes from the consent of the governed. Critical to the legitimate workings of an effective local government is the need to hear and respect the diverse concerns, priorities, and aspirations of the local community and of individual citizens, and to then make decisions that are in the overall best interests of the entire community. Corvallis has a wide variety of “communities,” each with unique demographics. Residents have different, sometimes conflicting, goals, values and approaches toward meeting those goals. It is essential for the council to hear, respect and represent all perspectives and viewpoints. Fewer members on the council almost certainly means that fewer of those ideas and perspectives will be meaningfully articulated. A council that represents all of the City and all of its residents must have robust discussions of issues; sometimes those conversations are contentious. Healthy debate and being responsive to the public must trump efficiency every time. Democracy can be messy and contentious – appropriately so.
We now have nine councilors. The discussion around reducing council size was long focused on seven wards, then suddenly six became the proposal de jour. Now there is a proposal for five! Is this a soon-to-be recommendation from the task force? In our opinion, the proposal is awful; the process has been even worse. How can councilors and the public respond thoughtfully to a moving target?
We see nothing good for the public (the governed!) by reducing council size. It might make meetings smoother and city management has long embraced the concept, but . . . Where is the community in all of this? Are they asking for such a drastic change? Are Corvallis residents well-served by a reduction in Council size, and if so, how?
- Any reduction in council size reduces community access by the public to “their” councilor. Community engagement and communication (already a challenge) will continue to erode. Public trust – that the council is hearing and considering all voices – will be reduced.
- At present, a candidate can walk their ward and talk with constituents. A decrease in the number of wards (i.e., an increase in ward size/population) limits that possibility. “Your” councilor ceases to be a known and reliable contact but turns into a somewhat remote “them.”
- Reducing council size reduces the opportunity to serve. We already have a dearth of candidates for many races, and a reduction in council size and increase in Council terms would only exacerbate the problem. In the past ten years, multiple councilors have said they would not have considered running for Council if they had to commit to a four-year term.
- Reducing the number of wards will make it more expensive to run for council. The result will be a reduced pool of people who are able to spend their own money running for office. The likely result will be a bias toward candidates of means, and more problematic, the increased influence of special-interest money in campaigns. Not a good outcome; not good for Corvallis.
- Every ward is different. Each ward has its own demographics, issues and personality, and on some issues, a shared sense of purpose. If ward sizes increase, those localized factors will be homogenized into irrelevance. Local issues and “personalities”, which are invaluable to community living, will be eroded. This is not a good outcome.
As you consider your final package of recommendations to the City Council, we ask that you focus on who would benefit from the proposed changes. If the primary beneficiary is city management or city council, i.e., efficiency, collegiality, or happiness, but not the public at large, carefully consider and reject proposed changes to Council size, term length, or term limits. The bottom line is that although fewer wards would be convenient for city managers and might make council more efficient, the streamlining would likely ill-serve the residents of Corvallis, and more importantly, the essential responsibilities of the city council to reflect and serve all of the public. Fewer voices, fewer perspectives on the issues, less robust discussion and decision-making based on fewer perspectives — all would ultimately be to the detriment of Corvallis and to the governed.
To contact Chris Evenson about this story, email office@corvallisadvocate.com
The opinions expressed in this story are those of Corvallis City Councilors Charlyn Ellis and Paul Shaffer, they may or may not reflect the views of The Corvallis Advocate, or its management, staff, supporters and advertisers.
Do you have a story for The Advocate? Email editor@corvallisadvocate.com