Part 1
March 8, 2025
Helena, MT- The Montana Senate Ethics Committee met on Friday to examine a potential ethics violation involving contracts signed by Sen. Jason Ellsworth with his longtime friend, Bryce Eggleston of Agile Analytics. The contracts aimed to monitor the 27 judicial reform bills scheduled for consideration in this legislative session, track their progress through the legislative process, and provide reports on those changes and final outcomes.
At the heart of the controversy are two nearly identical contracts, totaling roughly $170,000, which were hurriedly pushed through in the last six days of 2024. The facts will determine whether Ellsworth had an unreported conflict of interest and ethics violation.
Background
Former President Senator Ellsworth, representing the Montana Senate and the Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform (Select Committee), was the Senate President for the 2024 Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform. He formed this committee to draft legislation that would limit the powers of our judiciary after the Montana Supreme Court ruled that several laws passed by the Republican majority in the Legislature were unconstitutional. During both the November 14th and December 4th committee meetings, discussions took place regarding the desire to track these 27 bills and whether they should attempt to hire outside resources or utilize existing resources through the Legislative Services Division. In November, Ellsworth asked for a motion and stated, “Maybe a college student or somebody that can work cheap,” and that this was “not a full-time position by any means.” The motion was not taken up, and it was agreed to revisit the topic at the December meeting. In the meantime, LSD was asked to determine what could be accomplished internally. Fast forward to December, Rachel Weiss, Research Director for the LSD, proposed that her staff commit to a summary of the bills at the start, monthly updates, and a final report at the end of the session. Additional changes and updates could also be easily tracked by anyone interested using Bill Tracker provided on the legislative website and the selection process for committee preferences and legislators is already highly efficient. Ellsworth said he was “perfectly fine with that.”
Regarding the funding source:
“In late April or early May 2024, the Governor’s Office allocated $500,000 to the Montana Senate to fund special committees formed during the interim period. This appropriation was intended to support the operations of these committees, including the Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform, chaired by then-Senate President Jason Ellsworth. The funds were designated for use until December 31, 2024, after which any unused portion would revert to the Governor’s Office.”
(Montana Legislative Audit Division, 2025)
Senate Ethics Committee Composition & Purpose
The four-member Senate Ethics Committee consists of two Republicans and two Democrats: Senators Forrest Mandeville (Chair), Tom McGillvray (Vice Chair), Chris Pope (Vice Chair), and Laura Smith. It was made clear that their mission was strictly a fact-finding one, which would be presented to the entire Senate body for review, and together they would decide what action, if any, to take.
Challenges
The committee staff attorney, Adam Duerk, presented in person, while Ellsworth and his attorney, Joan Mell, participated remotely. However, the committee quickly encountered many interruptions—mic feedback and the repeated need to clarify procedural rules. These interruptions highlighted the delicate balance between courtroom-style questioning, the more fluid nature of a legislative committee hearing, and the technical difficulties that come with remote participation.
Most of the morning was spent whittling down a long list of witnesses and excusing many for lacking direct knowledge of the case. Though Mell had many objections, the focus remained on uncovering the facts, rather than personal opinions or conjecture.
Testimony
Only two witnesses provided testimony: Angie Carter, the Financial Services Supervisor, and Jaret Coles, the Deputy Legal Director of Legislative Services.
Angie Carter testified that on Thursday, December 26th, while the office staff was still out on Christmas break, Angie Carter received two signed contracts from Ellsworth, accompanied by invoices requesting upfront payment. This situation was unusual, as both the Financial Services and Legal Services departments play crucial roles in the creation and review of contracts. Their processes ensure that contracts include clear benchmarks, payment schedules, and necessary legal protections.
Upon reviewing the contracts, Carter noticed the absence of standard language, and she observed that the two contracts were nearly identical. This raised concerns and prompted a sense of urgency to determine how to align these contracts with established policy in a very short timeframe. The funding source for these contracts was the Governor’s appropriation to the Montana Senate, which was set to expire on January 1, 2025. Carter clarified that while the contracts did not need to be paid by that date, it was essential for them to be signed and the funds allocated before the deadline.
Jaret Coles’ testimony offered some insight into the process that unfolded. He echoed Carter’s concerns regarding the upfront payment in full for both contracts prior to any completed work, the lack of legal recourse if the job was not finished, and the split into two contracts.
During a phone call, Ellsworth had asked him to complete the “sole source” form to evaluate whether the contracts qualified. Jaret Coles provided testimony about what Ellsworth communicated during their phone conversation, which was summarized on the sole source form as justification. He stated, “I was unable to find anyone who could provide the required services except through Agile Analytics.” The closest alternative he identified involved lawyers who charged over $300 per hour. The services needed are highly specialized, and there are no vendors available off-the-shelf that can meet these requirements.”
In an email to Misty Ann Giles at the Department of Administration (DOA), Coles wrote: “Long story short, the president attempted to enter into two contracts without our support the day after Christmas. They are missing multiple elements that make them problematic. We advise that LSD cannot pay on the contracts and that he used procurement procedures, including seeking sole source justification.”
Per Coles’ testimony, this email essentially tossed the ball to the Department of Administration (DOA) for determinations on exigency and funding. It’s important to note that procurement is not necessary for exigent circumstances, which is why he handed the contract over to Misty at the Department of Administration (DOA). The DOA is responsible for determining whether there was an exigent situation.
Coles said the Legislature has essentially “given away the farm” as far as authority is concerned, which further complicates the process.
Key Question: Exigent Circumstance or Calculated Maneuver?
The committee turned its attention to whether the contracts met the requirements of “exigent circumstances” — a key issue under state procurement rules. Given the amount of time the funding was available and the prior discussion of the Judicial Standards Committee regarding the desire to track these 27 judicial bills through the process, doubt was cast on whether “exigent” was appropriate. The situation was further complicated by the lack of competitive bidding, the absence of the mandatory 10-day sole source justification process, and the curious way Agile Analytics split and billed its contract into two, which kept each under the $100,000 trigger for DOA review.
The issue hinges on whether the contracts, executed in the waning hours of the year, were a legitimate response to an “exigent circumstance” or was it part of a less transparent maneuver?
While Mell, Ellsworth’s attorney, insisted that the legislators hold discretion over hiring decisions and it is not standard procedure to be questioned about personal relationships, opposing counsel Duerk argued that the timing of disclosures under Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 2.2.112 was critical to determining whether Ellsworth’s actions were appropriate.
Next Steps and Conclusion: As the investigation continues, the Montana Senate Ethics Committee faces the difficult task of balancing the procedural intricacies of government contracting with the larger questions of ethical conduct. The committee’s final report will be critical in determining whether any ethical rules were violated and what, if any, consequences will follow. For now, the matter remains in the hands of the committee, and Montanans are left waiting to see how this controversy will unfold. The next hearing is March 14th.