Speakers urge council to disclose details of complaint and legal actions in the Councilor Ellis matter

Several community members used the council’s public‑comment period on March 17 to press the council and city staff for more transparency and follow‑up on a legal matter involving Councilor Ellis.

Tim Roach, who spoke during the posted public‑comment period, urged the council to “continue your discussion and to take up action on the lingering issues from the case the city had against Councilor Ellis,” and asked the council to identify who filed complaints and why the public record lacks details. “There’s absolutely no way the city staff or council should have taken a single step on that complaint without the name of a specific resident of Corvallis on it,” Roach said.

Chris Solvite, a community member who participated in a related appeal, alleged the city engineer telephoned his firm five days before an appeal hearing and that the engineer subsequently declined to appear. Solvite said the absence of his expert witness “handicapped our chance to explain the reasoning behind our position.” He also said he intended to file an ethics complaint over the matter.

City Manager Mark Shepherd responded in public comment that he took the allegation seriously and asked HR to investigate. Shepherd read HR’s written response from the engineer, which HR supplied to the city manager: according to the engineer, he “has not received a call from a city engineer, nor did he hear about a call from a city engineer to anyone else in his firm,” and he said he was not available to attend the hearing because of a family commitment and “did not want to involve himself at that level.” Shepherd told the council he regarded the differing accounts as a “difference of understanding” and said Mr. Solvite told him he planned to file an ethics complaint against city staff and the city attorney.

Separately, Barbara Bull and former councilors and other community members said the judge in a related case described the city’s actions as retaliatory and as chilling speech at the dais; they asked for personnel‑ and policy‑level review so the process would not repeat. In public comment, Bull summarized a timeline and urged an investigation to answer “unanswered questions” about who took which steps and whether alternatives to the approach used were considered.

City Attorney Mike Reeder was named during the public comment record as having been involved on the staff/legal side; speakers asked for additional clarity about which staff or councilors made complaints and how anonymous complaints were treated.

Ending: Councilors did not take action on these public comments at the meeting. The city manager said HR had made a preliminary inquiry into one specific allegation and the engineer provided a written denial. Several speakers requested a broader investigation or additional transparency; no formal council direction was recorded at the meeting.