Montana
The biggest public secret in Montana is one that has no easy answer • Daily Montanan
I’ll let you in on a little media secret: One of the most asked questions we get is exactly the one we can’t answer.
Here’s the question we get a lot, and we’re not alone in our inability to get answers: How much does the state of Montana spend on attorneys defending itself in court?
I get the question. The number of jobs the state has single-handedly created for attorneys should help boost the state’s monthly jobs and unemployment rate statistics. For four years of Republican control in almost all aspects of government, no bad idea has been denied the opportunity of legislation.
A lot of nonsense flew through the Legislature to the open arms of Gov. Greg Gianforte, who seemed only too happy to add his signature for the sake of furthering the alleged Republican mandate. For example, the Montana Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed its decision to keep abortion legal through the 1999 case Armstrong vs. State of Montana, which hasn’t seemed to dampen the Republican enthusiasm to pass bills to restrict the practice, and thereby re-test the resolve of the courts. That has literally cost the taxpayers of Montana millions by re-litigating that which was already well established.
The logic, if you’ll excuse the abuse of that word, is that even the lawmakers know much of what they’re passing runs contrary to case law and the Constitution. That doesn’t matter. Their own legal staff have expressed concerns through legal notes. That doesn’t matter either.
These are show-bills that demonstrate how committed Republicans are to their own policies and satisfying a riled-up base. What happens after that truly becomes a matter for the courts and the state’s treasury.
The danger and fallacy of a supermajority is the belief that just because Montanans have generally supported Republicans, they support every single position that Republicans coalesce around. There are notable exceptions, for example, support for public lands even though the GOP has tried to curtail our natural resources and access. And, of course, Montanans seemed repeatedly enthusiastic about marijuana, leading to a tug-of-war where the people won the right to weed and the state’s coffers filled with a different type of green, despite the GOP’s attempts at paternalism.
But the challenge with all these challenges is that the taxpaying Montana public is supporting a cottage industry centering on state litigation, but no one — and I mean no one — can say what that means for certain. In other words, how much is bad legislation costing us?
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen can hold onto his cowboy hat at this point: As much as he continues to add his name to any lawsuit that would seem to antagonize the Biden administration throughout the country, he’s got plenty of work here at home. And he doesn’t necessarily have a choice.
The Attorney General, by definition, is forced to defend the state, and by extension, the lawmakers who author and support some of these legally dubious bills, as well as the poor bureaucrats who are tasked with implementing them.
There have been so many lawsuits, it’s hard to track them all. Two years ago, after the contentious 2021 Legislature, we were tracking more than 40 lawsuits dealing with the state, the Gianforte administration and the courts.
One may think the exercise should be as easy as looking toward the state’s budget for the Montana Department of Justice and finding the literal bottom line. But that ignores how most people think the Montana Attorney General’s Office works and how it actually works in practice.
We get asked: How many lawsuits is the state fighting? How much has Montana spent on outside counsel? How much have these struck-down bills cost us?
We don’t know. We have asked repeatedly, and by “we,” I mean multiple members of the media.
The problem is one of budgets and categories. When asking the Legislative Auditor about it, they said the answer is not clear, and that Austin Amestoy of Montana Public Radio wrote a story about it a couple of years ago where the best he could do was estimate.
I have been and continue to be critical of the way Knudsen handles the Attorney General’s Office, but this time, he probably has a point.
Lawsuits come to his office in a variety of ways — from direct challenges to other officials getting sued in their official capacity, which then obligates the state’s legion of attorneys, housed under the Attorney General, to defend them. Which department specifically pays the bills depends on how the lawsuit is filed.
The other complicating factor, of course, is that sometimes the costs are borne by in-house counsel — that is, attorneys who work for Knudsen. Some other times, the counsel comes from the private sector.
And as anyone who has ever covered a lawsuit knows, the courts have their own pace, which can grind along for years, but the attorneys submit bills every month. Those attorney billing cycles may not overlap with budget years neatly. Now, compound that by dozens of cases and getting any sort of answer about how much we’re spending becomes nearly impossible.
So, this isn’t the case of government officials trying to “hide the ball” so as not to cause sticker-shock at the amount of taxpayer money we’re spending on attorneys.
Yet maybe the “how much” question, though, isn’t quite as important as the question: Why have we seen such a dramatic rise in challenged legislation? Or, what do Montanans have to show for all this legislation besides mounting legal costs?
Montana
Montana State doctoral student awarded national research service grant for gut microbiome, arsenic research
MISSOULA — Four out of five members of Montana’s Public Service Commission were in a federal courtroom in Missoula Thursday morning, as the PSC’s former president challenges the disciplinary action taken against him earlier this year. Now, newly released documents are shedding more light on to what led up to this point.
(Watch the video for a closer look at the case.)
New documents shed light Montana PSC dispute
Commissioner Brad Molnar has sued President Jeff Welborn, Vice President Jennifer Fielder and Commissioner Annie Bukacek – the three PSC members who voted in May to require him to work remotely, after an investigation into complaints about his workplace conduct. Molnar has claimed he is being unfairly punished for constitutionally protected speech, and he asked Senior U.S District Judge Donald Molloy to allow him to return to the PSC offices.
Matthew Monforton, Molnar’s attorney, told the judge that barring Molnar from the building was limiting his ability to do his job.
“He has not been officially kicked out of office, but his voice has clearly been diminished,” said Monforton.
But Natasha Jones, an attorney representing the other three commissioners, said the findings were about behavior, not just speech, and that the PSC’s action was a reasonable response.
“These are serious concerns about a pattern of conduct that has made employees quit,” she said.
Jonathon Ambarian
On Tuesday, Molloy ordered the release of redacted versions of two full investigative reports into Molnar’s conduct – more than 100 pages of documents. Monforton had moved for the full reports to be made public, and Molloy ruled attorneys for the other PSC members hadn’t shown a compelling reason to keep the documents under seal as long as the names of people involved in the investigation were obscured.
While the names remained redacted in the investigation reports, the attorneys for Welborn, Fielder and Bukacek also filed additional documents – including a public declaration from Bukacek and from former PSC executive director Alana Lake, providing information about their allegations against Molnar.
The two reports, from an outside investigator, cover Molnar’s alleged actions over two periods: the first from February to August 2025, and the second from August to October 2025. The investigation began after the first formal complaint, filed by Bukacek in May 2025 – though the reports say employees had been bringing up concerns about Molnar’s behavior informally for several months prior.
Bukacek’s complaint claimed Molnar had repeatedly made what she called “sexualized and demeaning comments.” The examples she cited included saying the PSC should replace “Taco Tuesdays” with “Topless Tuesdays,” reminiscing about watching girls in bikinis as a teenager, and commenting about the beauty of women in areas of China who didn’t get “old and wrinkly.”
In her declaration, Bukacek also claimed Molnar had “maliciously disseminated false information” about her and “engaged in behavior that was dismissive, derisive and otherwise abusive.”
“My primary concern now is not for my safety nor my feelings, but for the rest of the staff who may not have the temperament to speak up or may feel too intimidated to speak up given concerns over job security,” Bukacek said in her declaration.
MTN News
The investigators determined Molnar had violated the PSC’s code of conduct by making comments of a sexual nature, and that it appeared his behavior had continued for some time after he was warned about it. They also found he had behaved unprofessionally and in a belittling manner toward Bukacek, though they said Bukacek herself had at times used “language that could be considered inappropriate” in emails to staff or other commissioners. Bukacek told MTN she “readily self corrected” any behaviors that were brought to her attention.
The investigation also found a violation in connection with a complaint from a PSC staff member, who said he “felt bullied” by Molnar when the commissioner sent an email complaining about his team not being “people with competence.”
However, much of the first report and the entire second report was focused on conduct after the initial complaints, when Molnar was accused of retaliating against people who participated in the investigation. Lake said in her declaration that she saw “an immediate and significant change in his behavior toward staff involved in the process.” She claimed he said he would use an attorney and private investigator to go after people who filed complaints, and she accused him of publicly criticizing her in interviews and removing her job responsibilities because of her handling of the investigation.
Lake said Molnar’s actions led to “declining morale within the agency,” undermined staff members’ ability to do their jobs and damaged her reputation. She said that led her to resign as executive director.
“I believe no employee should be forced to choose between reporting misconduct and protecting their career, reputation, or personal well-being,” she said in her declaration.
Lake has since become Helena city manager.
Jonathon Ambarian
The report said there was evidence to show Molnar had retaliated, including by “making disparaging statements about investigation participants” including Lake, by sending an email warning he could file complaints of his own against people involved, and by taking other actions investigators said could dissuade employees from reporting behavior in the future.
Monforton said during Thursday’s hearing that the initial comments Bukacek complained about were jokes Molnar had admitted were inappropriate, that he regretted saying them, and that he hasn’t made any similar comments in about a year. But he argued the vast majority of the findings against Molnar were about retaliation – and that those were primarily based on speech that the other commissioners don’t have the right to interfere with.
Monforton said it’s unreasonable to punish Molnar for what he said in the July news conference where he announced he was under investigation, in interviews with the media or in commission meetings. He said Molnar’s conduct doesn’t rise to the level of actual retaliation.
“This is an elected official, engaging in speech in his forum,” Monforton said.
He said Molnar may have made harsh comments toward staff, but that he had the right to raise objections about the way the agency does business.
Jonathon Ambarian
Monforton also argued the retaliation claims no longer justify keeping Molnar out of the office, since Welborn, Fielder and Bukacek voted to remove him as president in October and he no longer has the authority he’s accused of misusing. He said there haven’t been further complaints about his behavior since that time.
“We’re not asking for the moon and stars, we’re asking for the status quo as it existed for the last seven months,” he said.
Jones said there is enough evidence to show Molnar would have been punished regardless of whether any protected speech was excluded.
“This is not about a couple of jokes,” she said.
Jones said Molnar made maliciously false statements about people like Lake, and that type of statement isn’t covered by free speech protections.
She also said Molnar’s exclusion from the PSC offices is temporary, and that the PSC will reconsider whether to let him return if he apologizes for his actions, accepts the agency’s code of conduct and undergoes training.
Molloy indicated he saw indications that there was “acrimony” on both sides of the situation, and said he was skeptical it would be resolved easily.
“It would be nice if instead of juvenile behavior, there was professional behavior,” he said.
However, the judge said there was an avenue for Molnar to pursue if he wanted to reach a resolution.
Molloy took no immediate action Thursday. He told the parties he would rule as quickly as he could.
-
Finance4 minutes agoFinancial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO
-
Fitness12 minutes agoThe Best Fitness Trackers for Your Lifestyle, Workouts, and Goals
-
Movie Reviews20 minutes ago‘Finnegan’s Foursome’ Review: Edward Burns’ Spiky-Quaint Sports Dramedy Is a Tale of Family Therapy Through Golf
-
World30 minutes ago‘X-Men’ Star Famke Janssen Says Marvel ‘Made a Mistake’ By Not Asking Her to Return as Jean Grey in ‘Avengers: Doomsday’
-
Lifestyle1 hour agoJames Burrows, director of classic shows ‘Cheers’ and ‘Friends,’ dies at 85
-
Technology1 hour agoNothing cancels this year’s CMF phone due to RAM prices
-
World1 hour agoTwo-train crash leaves at least 1 dead, 89 injured as emergency crews rush to chaotic scene
-
Politics1 hour agoDouble endorsement drama: Trump backs second candidate in red state’s GOP gubernatorial runoff
