Staff tell Senate Ethics panel two signed contracts and invoices were submitted at year‑end; legal staff asked DOA to retool agreement

Legislative Services Division staff told the Senate Ethics Committee they received two signed agreements and two invoices late in December 2024 that raised immediate procurement concerns.

Angie Carter, the branch financial director, testified she was the only member of her office in on Dec. 26 and received an email forwarding two signed agreements between Senator Ellsworth and an entity labeled Agile Analytics. Carter said both contracts lacked typical signature blocks showing legislative legal review, omitted a payment schedule and set compensation as payable “in advance upon execution,” leaving a combined invoice amount of $170,100 due on receipt. Carter told the committee she did not pay the invoices and immediately forwarded the materials to legislative legal counsel for review.

Jarrett Coles, deputy legal director for the Legislative Services Division, described first seeing the two signed contracts on Dec. 27. Coles said the agreements contained elements that raised risk for the state—most notably the immediate‑payment terms and missing standard contract protections (for example, detailed deliverable timing, milestones and cure or withholding mechanisms). Coles testified he worked with LSD director Todd Everts and reached out to Department of Administration Director Misty Giles because the contracts exceeded LSD’s delegation authority and raised sole‑source and exigency questions.

Coles said he drafted and emailed a Department of Administration sole‑source justification form, gathered answers to questions from Senator Ellsworth by phone (and a follow‑up text), and submitted the justification to DOA for its review. He told the committee that DOA and LSD iterated on a retooled contract that included more of the standard state terms, and that LSD did not make final execution of the larger contract on its own because of delegation limits.

Special counsel presented screenshots of the two early contracts and the attached invoices; Carter confirmed the amounts and that the invoices were marked due upon receipt. Coles said the Department of Administration ultimately became the lead on resolving procurement questions because the amounts were over LSD’s $100,000 delegation threshold.

What the testimony means: Committee members said the materials and testimony were relevant to the question of whether a disclosable private interest existed and whether proper procurement processes were followed. The committee reserved rulings on exhibit admissibility and said it would consider the Department of Administration’s work product and the full legislative‑auditor investigative files when those materials are offered or subpoenaed.