Senate Ethics Committee adopts preliminary witness list and subpoenas amid due-process dispute

The Montana Senate Ethics Committee voted 4-0 to adopt a preliminary list of witnesses and to authorize subpoenas for documents related to the legislative audit findings and possible contracts with private bill‑tracking firms.

The actions begin a formal fact‑finding process into matters described in a legislative audit report that counsel for former Senate President Jason Ellsworth says is already tainted and raises jurisdictional and due‑process questions.

Committee Chair Mandeville opened the meeting and special counsel Adam Duerk, introduced to the committee as the body’s special counsel, told members: "My intent here is to ensure that we engage in a fact finding process and follow that fact finding process wherever it may lead." Duerk later stressed the panel’s role as a fact‑finding body and said, "This is not a criminal matter."

Why it matters: The committee is considering whether to subpoena records and witnesses tied to findings in a legislative audit and alleged contracts for bill‑tracking work. Those subpoenas and witness calls could produce documents and testimony that inform any committee findings and possible recommendations to the full Senate.

What the committee approved - Witness list: By voice vote the committee approved a preliminary list of witnesses the panel intends to call, including legislative audit staff and counsel, Legislative Services Division staff, Department of Administration procurement staff, several senators and two private contractors. The committee recorded the motion as carrying 4 to 0. - Subpoenas and document requests: The committee also voted 4 to 0 to authorize subpoenas for a broad set of records identified in the committee’s document list, and the motion adds the Office of Budget and Program Planning to the list of entities whose records may be sought.

Documents and evidence the committee has identified include: contracts or potential contracts with Bryce Eggleston, Agile Analytics, or Agile XO (including contract number LSD250016LS and related exhibits), copies of deliverables and reports from those firms, communications between Senator Ellsworth and the firms from April 29, 2024 to Jan. 29, 2025, communications among Legislative Services Division and the Department of Administration about those contracts, and a record the committee cited as showing how a $6,300 bill‑tracking charge was calculated. The committee also referenced the legislative audit division hotline submission and findings document dated Jan. 24, 2025 as the basis for the investigation.

Defense counsel’s objections and requests Joan Veil, who identified herself as counsel for former Senate President Jason Ellsworth, objected at length to the proposed rules, timing, and scope. Veil argued the proposed procedures do not sufficiently protect the presumption of innocence and that the panel may lack jurisdiction because the audited conduct occurred outside the current legislative session. She said the panel’s context is "tainted by the media publicity" and stated that the committee’s introductory language mirrors the audit division’s findings.

Veil asked the committee to extend deadlines in the draft rules, raising several procedural concerns the committee will need to address if the investigation proceeds: she said the four‑day response window set out in the proposed rule E10‑30 is "an impossible standard" for preparing a meaningful response; she requested more time to review documents and to retain experts; she urged the committee to adopt deposition procedures and to provide documented notice of witnesses and the substance of their expected testimony; and she warned the panel that legislative staff and other potential witnesses could face workplace pressure and asked for protections against retaliation.

Counsel and staff described the subpoena process Special counsel Duerk and committee counsel Joseph Carroll explained how subpoenas would be issued and enforced under Montana law. Carroll read citations to Montana Code Annotated provisions governing subpoenas for records and service, including the provision that a subpoena for production of records generally requires production "not later than 10 business days from receipt of the subpoena." Duerk said the panel can use established procedures to protect personally identifying information and that staff would return at the committee’s recess to address notice and protective measures.

Schedule and next steps Committee members discussed a proposed schedule for hearings and further rule work. Senators asked for a separate rules meeting on Friday to review the proposed procedures in more detail. The committee discussed holding an adjudicatory hearing on Feb. 12–14 (as proposed in the meeting) with follow‑up committee meetings the next Monday and Tuesday to work on findings; members also agreed to recess the current meeting until 4:00 p.m. to continue discussion of notice provisions and related materials.

Committee directions and unresolved items The committee asked counsel for both sides to meet after the session to try to resolve scheduling, witness lists, and document‑production scope. Counsel for Ellsworth asked for more time to receive and review documents before finalizing any respondent witness list and exhibits. The committee recorded two formal actions (the witness list and the subpoenas/documents list) as approved by voice vote, each "carried 4 to 0." The rules for timing, deposition procedures, burden of proof, and in‑camera review or protective orders for sensitive material remained open for further rule drafting and committee consideration.

Ending The committee recessed to reconvene at 4:00 p.m. to continue discussion, particularly on the provision of notice and related document circulation.