Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Senate Ethics Committee opens investigation into Sen. Jason Ellsworth, votes to pursue hearings

2221295 · February 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Montana Senate Ethics Committee on Feb. 3 read a formal notice to Sen. Jason Ellsworth about alleged procurement and ethics violations tied to an Agile Analytics contract and voted to pursue hearings; the committee set response requirements and heard a recusal request and open‑meetings concerns.

The Montana Senate Ethics Committee on Feb. 3 read a formal notice alleging that Sen. Jason Ellsworth potentially violated state ethics and procurement rules in connection with contracts awarded to Agile Analytics LLC and voted to pursue hearings into the matter.

The committee read a notice letter into the record that cites a legislative auditor memorandum dated Jan. 24, 2025 (Ref. Y25-0076) and identifies alleged facts and statutory provisions that form the basis for an investigation. The committee then approved a motion to pursue hearings based on the allegations in the letter.

The notice, read into the record by committee counsel, states that on Jan. 27 the full Senate voted 49-0 to convene the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate whether the senator from Senate District 43 violated or potentially violated provisions of the Montana Code of Ethics, the joint rules of the Legislature, the rules of the Senate, or other law or administrative rule. The letter attaches the legislative auditor’s memorandum as Exhibit 1 and lists the statutes and authorities the committee will consider.

Why it matters: The allegations center on the procurement and structuring of contracts with Agile Analytics, including whether prior personal or business relationships with Agile’s owner, Bryce Eggleston, were disclosed and whether the work was improperly split into multiple contracts to avoid procurement thresholds. The initial contract terms are described in the notice as exceeding $100,000, which, if accurate, would trigger competitive‑bidding or other procurement requirements under state law.

Alleg…

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to keep reading

Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.

  • Unlimited articles
  • AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
  • Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
  • Follow topics and more locations
  • 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
30-day money-back on paid plans