The Senate Ethics Committee convened its first witness testimonies on Friday as part of its investigation into Sen. Jason Ellsworth’s alleged conflict of interest. The inquiry centers on a six-figure state-funded contract Ellsworth arranged without disclosing his long-standing personal relationship with the vendor. A legislative audit in February found that he had structured the contract in a way that bypassed state oversight.
The bipartisan committee, composed of two Republicans and two Democrats, has spent the past month preparing for the hearings. Special counsel Adam Duerk led the questioning of witnesses, while Ellsworth’s attorney, Joan Mell, cross-examined and raised objections throughout the proceedings. The committee will ultimately report its findings to the full Senate, which will decide on any potential disciplinary action.
Testimonies began with legislative staff who first handled Ellsworth’s contract, which totaled $170,100 to track legislative proposals from Republican lawmakers. Witnesses described the contract process as irregular, noting that contracts exceeding $100,000 typically require bidding and Department of Administration approval. Instead, Ellsworth submitted pre-written proposals without a competitive bidding process.
Legislative Financial Director Angie Carter, the first witness, testified that Ellsworth initially sought full upfront payment, a practice she deemed atypical. She expressed concerns about the contract being split into two agreements, a move that would have allowed it to evade standard oversight. After discussions, the contract was ultimately consolidated into a single agreement with monthly payments of about $7,000. Carter noted that Ellsworth did not obstruct the revision process once concerns were raised.
Legislative Services Deputy Legal Director Jaret Coles also testified, stating that he first learned of the contract through Carter and immediately questioned its validity. He highlighted missing terms that would have protected the state’s interests, raising concerns about the lack of guarantees if the contracted work was not completed. Coles ultimately worked with Ellsworth to draft a sole source justification form, a document required when bypassing the bidding process.
The contract was later classified as an “exigency” agreement, a designation typically reserved for emergency situations, such as facility failures. Coles, however, testified that the end-of-year deadline for using the funds did not meet the definition of an unforeseen emergency. His concerns were echoed by officials from the Department of Administration, who later determined that the contract’s classification as an exigency agreement was not legally justified.
The ethics committee is expected to call Department of Administration officials as the hearings continue, further examining whether Ellsworth’s handling of the contract violated state laws and ethical guidelines.
By: DNU staff