Montana

Audit report finds Ellsworth committed waste, abuse • Daily Montanan

Published

1 year ago

January 24, 2025

Audit report finds Ellsworth committed waste, abuse • Daily Montanan

Former Montana Senate President Jason Ellsworth abused his position of power in a contract he signed with a former associate and rushed the process to finalize it, resulting in a waste of state resources, according to a report by the Legislative Audit Division released Friday.

According to the report, the Department of Administration recognized a problem with a pair of contracts Ellsworth originally wanted approved. In an attempt to rectify the issue, the Department of Administration used an exception to roll the contracts together, but auditors said the process was not justified by state rules.

“The initial effort (by Ellsworth) to artificially bifurcate the contracts and the subsequent acceptance of decisions to forgo proper sole source exceptions and exigency procedures deprived the state of the financial benefits of open competition in procurement, and therefore constituted a waste of state resources,” the report said.

The audit came after news that Ellsworth in December quietly signed a $170,100 contract with a former associate as head of a committee pushing for judicial reform despite committee members considering the expense unwarranted. The contract is in the process of being terminated.

Current Senate President Matt Regier criticized the deal, first reported by the Montana State News Bureau, as improper. Regier referred it to the Legislative Audit Division, which subsequently released the report to Senate leadership on Friday.

Ellsworth did not respond to requests for comment on Friday, but on Wednesday told the Daily Montanan that the allegations amounted to a “political witch hunt.”

Senate leadership began weighing in on the matter Friday afternoon. Minority Leader Sen. Pat Flowers, who had been mostly quiet about the allegations of impropriety, released a prepared statement.

“We take any waste or abuse of taxpayer dollars very seriously. Furthermore, it is our responsibility to hold our colleagues accountable for their actions. It’s clear that Senator Ellsworth’s conduct fell below the high standards Montanans expect from their elected representative. This matter should be referred to the Senate Ethics Committee for further review and an appropriate resolution,” Flowers said.

Regier previously said that an ethics complaint was likely to follow the release of the audit report, but would not respond to questions on Friday.

“I’m reviewing the Legislative Auditor’s initial report in detail and I’m glad to see the Senate Minority finally expressing concern over the situation. I plan to speak more on this highly concerning issue on Monday,” he wrote in a statement.

On Wednesday, Ellsworth told the Daily Montanan he was “fully cooperating” with the audit.

However, the report said the same day, Ellsworth declined to talk with the Legislative Audit Division for the investigation and did not respond to written questions, citing the need to secure a lawyer.

“He did not respond to our written questions, and we have considered his public statements, where relevant, and have relied on the factual evidence of his actions as supported by official documents and witness interviews,” the report said.

In December, Ellsworth attempted to enter into two contracts totaling $170,100 to hire Bryce Eggleston, with Agile Analytics, to conduct analysis of 27 bills throughout and after the 69th Legislature. The bills all came from the Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform, which Ellsworth formed while he was president and led as chairman.

But the report said Ellsworth first pressed to have two contracts approved, both under $100,000. The pair of contracts, one governing 14 bills and the other 13, were written to have all of the money paid to Agile up front, for flat fees of $88,200 and $81,900.

The report found no “no logical reason” the contracts were split but said they were divided to “unlawfully avoid oversight of the contracts by the Division of Administration,” which oversees procurements of more than $100,000.

“State law specifically prohibits artificially dividing contracts to avoid the required procurement process. Thus, these actions constitute an abuse of his government position by the former Senate President,” the audit report said.

During a meeting of the Senate Select Committee in December, Ellsworth asked the committee about hiring someone to track the committee’s bills through the session and provide regular reports and analysis, but his ask was for “someone ‘cheap’ such as a college student,” the report states.

The report notes that “even that modest proposal was disfavored by the committee members,” and committee member Sen. Daniel Emrich earlier told the Daily Montanan he felt “lied to” by Ellsworth’s actions.

Thus, the subsequent $170,000 consulting expenses constituted abuse of his position, according to the report.

Ellsworth contracted Eggleston, of Agile Analytics, a company that filed with the Montana Secretary of State in 2024, to do the analysis. Eggleston and Ellsworth have a long history of personal and business relationships.

The report also called the timeline into question, as Ellsworth initially presented the two contracts to the Legislative Services Division on Dec. 26, a Thursday between two government holidays and just five days before the funds appropriated to the select committee would expire.

The timing “caused an inappropriate use of staff time during what otherwise would have been a weekend or holiday in impossible [sic] attempt to correct an illegal contract constituted a waste of state resources.”

Emails between Ellsworth and staff with Legislatives Services and Department of Administration show that staff worked until the afternoon of Dec. 31 to correct and submit the contracts.

Sen. Jason Ellsworth sits through a Senate committee during the 69th Montana Legislature. (Keila Szpaller/ Daily Montanan)

Report details

Legislative attorney Jaret Coles on Dec. 27 informed Department of Administration Director Misty Ann Giles the two contracts from Ellsworth were likely invalid, but worried since both contracts had been signed.

“‘Long story short, the president (Ellsworth) attempted to enter into 2 contracts without our support the day after Christmas,” Coles said on Dec. 27.

Giles, who was on vacation, referred the matter to Department of Administration’s procurement operations manager, who asked why the “two seemingly identical contracts were executed rather than one,” and the department decided to combine them.

It said the final contract was one “sole source” contract, requiring monthly payments, but it took extraordinary work to write the agreement for Ellsworth at the last minute and during the holiday. By law, a sole-source contract of more than $100,000 must be publicly noticed for 10 business days.

The report said that in a normal situation, the Department of Administration would have stopped the process, but staff felt they were working “under exigent circumstances” because the appropriation from the governor’s office (for that committee) expired on Dec. 31. It said there wasn’t enough time to post for 10 business days as required by the “sole source exception.”

“Giles stated that, because a separate branch of government was involved, they felt they had to respect the separation of powers and have a ‘softer touch,’” the report said. “While acknowledging that the legal definition of exigency did not really apply here, they treated it as an exigent circumstance due to the imminent expiration of the Governor’s Office appropriation.”

A department spokesperson told the Daily Montanan earlier this week that “the Department of Administration’s State Procurement Services Division takes its responsibility of stewarding taxpayer dollars seriously.”

The audit report concludes that due to the timeline, and initial splitting of the contract, it could not meet the state’s definition of an “exigent circumstance.”

After Ellsworth’s contract came to light, he requested a termination of the agreement, stating a desire from Eggleston to avoid politics. Agile had already submitted an invoice, but Legislative Services Division did not plan to pay it.

Ellsworth earlier said concerns about the contract were a “manufactured controversy” and continued to maintain he had not crossed ethical lines in executing the deal.

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

1 hour ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing

02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing

03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing

06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing

21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing

28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

13 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link