Missoula, MT – After weeks of controversy, the Montana Senate finally addressed the question of whether to take disciplinary action against former Senate President Jason Ellsworth on Monday. However, the debate ultimately ended without a consensus on an appropriate punishment.
The issue centered around a $170,000 contract Ellsworth approved with Bryce Eggleston, a long-time business associate, and his company, Agile Analytics. The contract called for an analysis of outcomes from judicial reform bills, a key legislative priority for Republican leaders this session. The contract’s structure raised concerns within the Senate, particularly regarding potential attempts to circumvent oversight rules on state contracts.
An investigation by the Legislative Audit Division (LAD) pointed out that the contract was originally split into two smaller contracts, which appeared to be a method to avoid the required oversight. While the Ethics Committee did not find evidence of personal financial gain on Ellsworth’s part, it raised questions about his failure to disclose his ties to Eggleston, a potential conflict of interest.
Despite these concerns, senators were divided over the appropriate course of action. The Montana Constitution grants the Senate the power to expel or punish a member for “good cause,” but a two-thirds majority vote is required for expulsion. On Monday, a motion to expel Ellsworth was put forward by Sen. Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus, who argued that Ellsworth’s actions represented a “betrayal of the institution” and public trust. Mandeville was joined by Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, who supported making the expulsion immediate.
Ellsworth, who had been voting remotely for several weeks, attended the debate in person. He expressed regret over the appearance of impropriety the situation may have created, but maintained that he had not personally benefited from the contract. “Most importantly, to my family – my children, my mother, my father, and all Montanans, I’m genuinely sorry,” Ellsworth said during his remarks.
Despite his apology, some senators, including Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, felt that the severity of the situation warranted expulsion. Hertz dismissed the apology, arguing that Ellsworth should have known better. “We don’t need to study this, we don’t need to change our rules,” Hertz said. “We all know what ethics are and what we should and should not do – except for the person in Seat 31 who has a problem with that.”
On the other side, Senate Democrats were split on the issue. Senate Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Belgrade, told his caucus that they could “vote their conscience,” though he himself would oppose expulsion. Flowers acknowledged that Ellsworth’s behavior was problematic but argued that expulsion was not justified, given the limited findings from the Ethics Committee. He emphasized that the ongoing investigation by the Montana Department of Justice would provide a clearer picture of the situation, and could lead to further actions later in the session.
Following the failed expulsion motion, Sen. Josh Kassmier, R-Fort Benton, proposed a motion to censure Ellsworth instead. The censure would have removed Ellsworth from two of his committee assignments, kept him off interim committees, and barred him from the Senate floor until mid-April. Kassmier expressed belief that while Ellsworth made a mistake, it did not warrant expulsion, and argued that some of the calls for expulsion were politically motivated. “We need to be thoughtful about our approach today,” Kassmier said. “This vote establishes a lasting precedent. For me, an expulsion is a step too far.”
In the end, neither the motion for expulsion nor the censure received enough support to pass. With the two-thirds majority vote for expulsion falling short and censure failing to gain a majority, the Senate did not take any formal action against Ellsworth on Monday.
The controversy surrounding Ellsworth’s approval of the contract is far from over. Some senators suggested that further accountability may come through the Department of Justice’s investigation into the matter. Depending on the outcome of that inquiry, the Senate may return to the issue later this session, potentially with a clearer understanding of the facts and a more decisive course of action.
