On Monday, officials published a webpage on the City of Corvallis website titled Records Relating to Charlyn Ellis vs. City of Corvallis. It appears to offer all the evidence, correspondence and documents associated with the matter – and it also supplies an update on estimated costs.
“As of February 4, 2025, the City of Corvallis has paid its attorneys (Brewer Coulombe PC, Beery, Elsner & Hammond LLP, and Markowitz Herbold PC) $232,797.68 in relation to the Ellis vs. City of Corvallis matter. Additionally, the City of Corvallis anticipates paying an insurance deductible of approximately $109,000 to cover Charlyn Ellis’ attorney fees,” according to the webpage.
City attorney’s interpretation
The page also offers the City Attorney’s interpretation of the federal court ruling. Beery, Elsner & Hammond LLP is the City’s contracted legal services provider, and an individual attorney is not identified.
“The Court concluded that the “Influence” and “Discussion” clauses of Section 23(f) in the Corvallis City Charter are unconstitutional restrictions on speech under both the state and federal constitutions. The Court also determined that the City’s attempt to enforce the unconstitutional provisions based on Councilor Ellis’s speech was retaliation for the speech. Because the Court determined the clauses are unconstitutional on their face, the Court did not analyze whether the provisions were unconstitutionally applied to Councilor Ellis’s particular speech. The Court also declined to decide whether Councilor Ellis’s conduct violated the provisions in the first place.
In the opinion, the Court used the strictest tests for regulations of speech under both constitutions, relying on the terms “by suggestion or otherwise” and “discuss” in Section 23(f). Under those strictest tests, laws that target specific speech are presumptively unconstitutional. By contrast, courts apply a less rigorous free speech test for both constitutions when analyzing regulations that are not directed at speech itself but rather focus on prohibited effects. The opinion thus does not affect charter provisions that do not directly target speech but that prohibit the undesired effect of influencing or coercing a city manager in the making of an appointment, such as the coercion clause in LOC’s model charter.”
Attorney for Ellis also offered an interpretation
On the day Judge Ann Aiken issued her ruling we asked Ellis’ attorney, Jesse Buss, for his view of the decision, and he emailed back with an extensive response.
” In a way, you can blame climate change. This mess all started back in September 2023, when Councilor Ellis was—as usual—showing herself to be a climate champion. But—as far as what Councilor Ellis did—it’s pretty innocuous stuff we’re talking about here.
Councilor Ellis took the lead in trying to get more City staff support for the Climate Action Advisory Board and to meet Corvallis’ climate change-related goals. She discussed the matter at two public meetings, and then made a motion for the City Council to have the City Manager get going on the hiring process for a Climate Program Specialist. The City Council had already budgeted for that work.
But the now former City Attorney and some members of the City Council at the time confronted Councilor Ellis afterwards, accusing her of violating section 23(f) of the City Charter because she was trying to tell the City Manager what to do. And they said she had forfeited her elected position because of it.
So Councilor Ellis filed this lawsuit to fight back — because an elected official shouldn’t lose their position just for doing their job. Voters elected her and the other councilors to make public policy and to direct the City Manager in his job.
What Judge Aiken did today is strike down most of Section 23(f) of the Corvallis City Charter as unconstitutional under both Article 1, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Aiken also found that the City unconstitutionally retaliated against Councilor Ellis for exercising her protected First Amendment rights.
The judge agreed with Councilor Ellis that the purpose of Section 23(f) is to combat cronyism and patronage—in other words, corruption. But Section 23(f) was worded way too broadly so that it prohibited totally innocent speech. That’s what happened here; Councilor Ellis didn’t say or do anything that was corrupt—for example she didn’t try to get the City Manager to hire a family member, or award a city sewer or paving contract to a friend. No, Councilor Ellis was prosecuted under Section 23(f) only because she discussed the City’s need to hire a Climate Program Specialist, and asked the City Council to have the City Manager get going on that hiring process. The City Council had already decided to dedicate funding to climate work. So Councilor Ellis was just doing her job. And for doing her job, she almost lost it.
Councilor Ellis was just reelected to represent Ward 5 for another term. So now that the offending portions of the City Charter have been struck down as unconstitutional, the City Councilors can focus on getting their work done without walking on eggshells. And they have been walking on eggshells for the past year. So now the City can move on, and the City Councilors can speak their minds without fear of immediately losing their jobs. They just need to worry–as they should–about what the voters want from them.
Generally speaking, today’s decision is a win for freedom of expression and speech. But because Section 23(f) had been used to silence elected public officials, interfering with their ability to do the jobs they were elected to do, it’s also a win for representative democracy.”
Prior to the Ellis lawsuit
Early on, seventeen former city councilors and a past mayor, and both of the city’s primary news outlets reviewed the language of the Charter and all the evidence in this matter. All independently concluded that Ellis’ actions had, in fact, not violated the language of the Charter at all, and that the city’s officials should drop the matter. They didn’t drop it, and a little later Ellis filed the federal lawsuit that put an end to the whole thing.
To view the City of Corvallis webpage titled Records Relating to Charlyn Ellis vs. City of Corvallis, click here.
Do you have a story for The Advocate? Email editor@corvallisadvocate.com