Councilors Ellis and Shaffer raise concerns worth taking seriously, but their joint statement ultimately rests on a flawed premise: that more councilors automatically means more democracy. It does not. What matters is not the number of seats on the dais but the quality of representation, the accountability of elected officials, and the responsiveness of the institution to the public it serves. Consider what the current structure actually produces: nine councilors, all serving two-year terms, all elected simultaneously in even-numbered years. In a single election, every seat is on the ballot — and every seat can turn over. There is no structural guarantee of continuity, no experienced cohort carrying institutional memory across election cycles, no mid-term accountability for any sitting member. A wave election could sweep in nine brand-new councilors at once, each simultaneously learning the job from scratch while making decisions affecting 60,000 residents. By contrast, a six-ward council with four-year staggered terms ensures that experienced members are always present when new ones arrive — a basic principle of sound governance that Corvallis currently lacks entirely.
Corvallis is an outlier — and not in a good way
Let’s start with the facts on the ground in Oregon. Among the state’s major cities, nine councilor bodies are the exception, not the rule. Eugene, with nearly 180,000 residents, governs with an eight-member city council. Bend, with roughly 102,000 residents, operates with seven city councilors. Gresham, Oregon’s fourth-largest city at 114,000 people, manages with a seven-member council. Beaverton, with nearly 100,000 residents, runs its city government with six councilors. Closer to home, the comparison is even more striking. Springfield, with a population nearly identical to Corvallis, operates with six ward-based councilors elected to four-year terms. Albany, Corvallis’s Willamette Valley neighbor to the north, likewise governs with six councilors — two elected from each of three wards — serving four-year terms. Two nearby cities of comparable size, both operating effectively with six councilors on four-year terms. Corvallis, by contrast, runs nine councilors on two-year terms — a structure that stands alone in the region and invites the obvious question: what problem, exactly, is it solving?
In other words, Corvallis — with a population of roughly 60,000 — currently runs a council as large as or larger than cities twice its size. That is not a badge of democratic virtue. It is an artifact of an outdated structure that has never been seriously examined.
Bigger isn’t better — it’s just noisier
Ellis and Shaffer invoke “robust discussion” as a virtue of larger councils. But there is a meaningful difference between robust discussion and fragmented deliberation. Academic research on legislative body size consistently finds the relationship between council size and democratic quality to be far more complicated than the councilors suggest. A review published in the Journal of Local Self-Government examining the trade-off between council size and democratic responsiveness found the empirical record to be decidedly mixed — larger bodies do not reliably produce better citizen outcomes. Meanwhile, a systematic review published in Local Government Studies found that citizens of smaller municipalities feel a greater sense of political efficacy and participate to a greater degree in local politics — a finding that cuts directly against the Ellis-Shaffer argument that smaller councils erode civic engagement.
Four-year terms produce better councilors, not fewer of them
The claim that four-year terms will shrink the candidate pool deserves scrutiny. Yes, some past councilors have said they wouldn’t commit to four years. But the inverse is equally true and more consequential: many capable, experienced people — professionals, parents, working adults — will not run for a two-year term precisely because the time invested in learning the job barely precedes the next campaign. Springfield’s and Albany’s six councilors serve four-year terms — and those cities have managed to fill their seats. Four-year staggered terms allow councilors to develop genuine policy expertise before they face voters again. Institutional knowledge matters. Continuity matters. A council perpetually in campaign mode is a council that underserves its residents.
Ward size and candidate access are separable problems
Ellis and Shaffer argue that larger wards make door-to-door campaigning impractical and price out candidates without personal wealth. This is a legitimate concern about ward geography — but it is an argument for thoughtful ward design, not for preserving nine wards. Corvallis is not a large city. Six well-drawn wards in a community of roughly 60,000 people remain entirely walkable and canvassable. With regards to the financial barrier argument: if ward size actually drives campaign costs, the solution is public campaign financing or contribution limits, not perpetuating a council structure that has produced its own share of uncontested races.
The “dearth of candidates” cuts both ways
Ellis and Shaffer acknowledge that Corvallis already struggles to attract candidates for council races, then cite this as an argument against reduction. But consider: nine wards requiring biennial elections means the city must recruit and elect councilors almost constantly. A smaller council elected to longer, staggered terms reduces that recruitment burden, concentrates community attention on each race, and arguably raises the civic stakes in ways that attract stronger candidates. Chronic low-turnout ward elections in a fragmented nine-ward system are not a sign of vibrant local democracy — they are a sign of voter fatigue and civic disengagement.
The real question
Ellis and Shaffer ask who would benefit from a smaller council and suggest the answer is city management. But the better question is who is harmed by the status quo. Voters in wards with uncontested elections are harmed. Residents who cannot identify or reach their councilor are harmed. A community that has struggled for years to undertake meaningful charter reform is harmed by a structure resistant to accountability and change.
Six councilors, elected to four-year staggered terms, is not a retreat from democratic governance. It is an alignment with how the rest of Oregon governs cities — and an upgrade toward a council professional enough to govern effectively, accountable enough to be held to account, and structured for the Corvallis of today, not the Corvallis of a generation ago.
Curtis Wright has served on, and often led, numerous City of Corvallis and Benton County commissions and committees and task forces. He has also served on or led numerous local nonprofit boards of directors. This response to Ellis and Shaffer’s letter first appeared as a correspondence directed to the City’s Charter Review Task Force, it 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