The state Senate is mulling an ethics report about one of its own. Lawmakers hope to pass bills to boost teacher pay. The state school superintendent supports eliminating the federal Department of Education. And Montana's congressional delegation has no desire to hold public town halls.
Capitol Talk is MTPR's weekly legislative news and analysis program. MTPR's Sally Mauk is joined by Montana Free Press State Editor Holly Michels and Lee Banville, Director of the University of Montana School of Journalism and Professor of Political Reporting.
Sally Mauk: Holly, the Senate Ethics Committee has completed its report on Senator Jason Ellsworth's alleged ethics violations, and they've given that report to the full Senate. What does it say and what happens now?
Holly Michels: Yeah, Sally. This is a lengthy report, 30-some pages, and it summarizes the Senate Ethics Committee's fact-finding mission. They were looking into Ellsworth's actions about dividing this contract that he tried to award to a friend to stay below a threshold where more scrutiny would have been placed on this contract. This committee didn't get into the criminal investigation, that's what the Attorney General, who's looking at official misconduct by a public official. This report is a summary of what they determined are the facts of the situation. They're not recommendations to the full Senate about what they should do with Ellsworth, but just that compiling of fact. This committee over three days heard testimony from a series of witnesses called by both the lawyer hired by Senate President Matt Regier, as well as Ellsworth's own attorney.
This report has this testimony from state and legislative employees that shows that Ellsworth had a relationship with the man he tried to contract with, who was Bryce Eggleston. There's also information in this report from Eggleston, who gave a deposition to Ellsworth's attorney, but he did not appear before the committee even though they subpoenaed him. Ellsworth himself also did not testify so there's nothing from him in this report.
There's a summary of testimony from legislative staffers who describe these contracts. Ellsworth brought them as being different than ones they'd normally see. One classified them as alarming. The report also cites Misty Ann Giles, the head of the State Department of Administration. She testified that the state felt it was stuck with this contract Ellsworth brought because it was already signed when he presented it to staff. She also told the committee — and this is in the report — that a relationship like one Eggleston and Ellsworth had should have been disclosed by Ellsworth in this contracting process.
After some debate among the committee, their final report also references a different report from the legislative auditor that found Ellsworth did artificially divide this contract in violation of state law. And something else the report highlights is that when Ellsworth was in a meeting with the Senate select committee that created the bills, he wanted Eggleston to track through this contract. Ellsworth actually agreed at one point with other lawmakers about using legislative staff to do this bill-tracking instead of hiring out someone like Eggleston. So, there's a lot in this report.
Next steps like you said, Sally, the full Senate has it, they'll review it, then they decide what to do with Ellsworth as a full chamber that could range from nothing to expulsion. It's probably worth pointing out here too that Ellsworth has been participating remotely in the session for weeks citing health issues.
Sally Mauk: Lee, it's highly unlikely anyone's going to be expelled over these alleged violations, so what's the actual fallout other than maybe damaged reputations?
Lee Banville: Certainly, when we look at the full scope of what Senator Ellsworth did, I mean, this report does outline some really troubling behavior that voters will have to decide about down in Hamilton if the Senate doesn't take a step like expulsion. I mean, we could see a lesser punishment. You know, we'll have to see how that plays out in the coming days. I really think the underlying fallout from all of this really stems more from how it sort of affected the entire relationship of the Senate Republican caucus, because we've seen throughout this session a lot of back and forth that have involved Senator Ellsworth and the Republican majority. And that kind of damage that we've seen continue to bubble up throughout this session. That's the question, will that fester? It kind of reminds me a little bit of back in 2010 when Western Tradition Partnership ran the campaign to sort of oust several of what were deemed moderate Republicans. And that effect kept coming up session after session as Republicans who had been targeted saw this as some kind of trench warfare within its own party. I don't know if it's that serious, but, you know, certainly the depth of tension that we've seen between the Ellsworth group and the rest of the Republicans gives some worry that maybe that could be one of the, probably the most lasting effect of what we've seen this report sort of highlight.
Sally Mauk: There's certainly a serious schism in the Republican caucus that this whole episode exemplifies.
Holly, Montana ranks very low in teacher pay, which makes it hard for many school districts, especially in rural areas, to recruit and retain teachers. And there is legislation in this session to try and address that.
Holly Michels: There is, Sally. One of the bigger education funding bills we're tracking is the STARS Act. That would put about $100 million towards salary increases for early career teachers. STARS stands for Student and Teacher Advancement for Results in Success. So, this bill has passed the House and its had its first hearing in the Senate and it's seeing strong support so far.
It's carried it by Representative Llew Jones, a Republican from Conrad. What it would do is financially incentivize school districts who set starting teacher pay at more than $41,000 a year. And like you said, Sally, recruiting and retaining teachers has been a huge struggle for schools across Montana. And part of the issue is that we continually rank among the worst states for what we pay early career teachers. So, this is an effort to address that.
Outside of that, there's some other bills this session looking at school funding formulas. But there's also this major once-every-decade commission that will meet in the interim after this session ends. They're tasked with doing a really dramatic review of the state education funding formula. So, there's a lot of focus on that work that'll happen over the interim, and we're not seeing a ton of other bills this session to address the school funding, though there are some swirling out, that STARS Act is really the big one trying to help districts boost teacher pay.
Sally Mauk: Well, meanwhile, Lee, President Trump wants to eliminate the Federal Department of Education, and that's something only Congress can do. So instead, he's gutting the department's workforce. And Montana Representative Ryan Zinke agrees that individual states are better suited to administer federal education programs and funds. And here's what he had to say:
Congressman Ryan Zinke: If you look at Montana, for instance, a rural state, oftentimes what's concocted in Washington, D.C., when it goes out to Montana, doesn't exactly fit. So, in a lot of cases, the states are better for administering the programs. No one's talking about cutting Title I, or Title IX, or Title X. It's about who's best to deliver the funds.
Sally Mauk: Well, that sounds good, Lee, but the devil's in the details.
Lee Banville: Isn't it always? One of the most important things to understand is federal policy towards education is actually fairly minimal — but funding is not. And so, what we're seeing is, yes, Congressman Zinke sees states as a better administrator, but the question is, will we be receiving the same amount of funding that we have been receiving if the Department of Education goes through this radical remodel or deconstruction? I think this, along with Medicaid funding, these are two big policies set by the federal government that seem to be up for conversation right now and could have enormous impacts on the ground in Montana because, you know, Holly was talking about starting teacher pay, that we continue to struggle to rise above the very bottom of the list. And what we see is that's with the current level of federal funding. If that federal funding changes, if the formula is evolved or changed in a radical way, which we might see if the Department of Education that administers those funds is suddenly looking like a different institution. I mean, it doesn't mean that the money will continue to flow to Montana in the same way. That's the question. If the Department of Education is no longer the organization sending us those funds, but we're still getting the same amount of funds, we're still administering the same basic rules, okay, then that probably won't have this dramatic effect, but it's this enormous change to the system which we wouldn't really know what the fallout will look like, and it will be happening at the same time that the state is going through this every-10-year assessment of how we fund schools. So, we could be looking at a very different funding model come two or three years from now.
Sally Mauk: And it's worth noting that Montana's State School Superintendent was present when Trump signed the executive order to basically gut the Federal Department of Education, showing that she's obviously in support of whatever is happening on that front.
And Holly, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are questioning why they don't have more say on a big pile of money, soon to be $100 million, currently being controlled by the governor's office. What are they talking about?
Holly Michels: Yeah, Sally. So, this is a fund that came from interest earned on an account that had money left over in it from the American Rescue Plan Act, though this money does not have the same strings or limitation in how it's spent as that COVID relief money from the federal government did. Like you said, there's about $100 million in that account and lawmakers are zeroing in on it this session, trying to get their hands around it and put some limitations on how it can be used. The governor has used that money to do things like buy a building for $12 million, pay $1.3 million for National Guard recruitment, and other things. As you can imagine, lawmakers want more insight into how that money is spent. The governor's office has responded saying that they do have the authority to spend this money, and that's something that the legislative fiscal division has agreed with. But lawmakers have drafted an amendment to a budget bill that could alter that and give more oversight. We're gonna see how that fares in coming days when that amendment's taken up, but I think among a certain group of lawmakers, there's definitely a push to get more hands on how this money is directed.
Sally Mauk: Well, finally, Lee, we spoke last week about the congressional delegation ignoring growing complaints about actions taken by the Trump administration, and those complaints got louder this week when 300 people showed up in Missoula to protest Congressman Zinke and Senators Daines and Sheehy declining to meet with them. And Zinke also this week drew another 100 protesters at an appearance he made at the new VA clinic in Hamilton. Clearly, Lee, the delegation believes meeting in person with the general public is a no-win situation for them right now.
Lee Banville: I would say it's been a trend by the Republican — specifically the Republican delegation members — to limit these public events. Senator Daines often does these telephone town hall meetings, which you have to apply to and sort of participate in and queue up to ask a question. And we don't see a lot of the wide-open meetings that may have marked the work of Senator Jon Tester. And I think some of that is fueled by what Senator Tester kind of faced when people were frustrated with those policies. It's sort of reminiscent of those days of the Tea Party showing up to express opposition to the Affordable Care Act or the Obamacare effort, where you saw these town halls turn pretty hostile. We're kind of in a similar moment where a lot of federal policies are irking a lot of people in lots of different ways. And so, this delegation is deciding, how am I going to address that public frustration? Am I going to embrace it and, you know, take it head on and sort of answer their questions, or am I going to seek to insulate myself from some of that public criticism? So far, it seems like the Republican delegation is leaning more towards, we're going to have a highly structured way to interact with the public. They can always email us or call the office, but we're not going to have these open-ended public events. And it will be interesting to see, do people see that as, okay, that's fine, that's how I'll interact with my member of Congress or my senator? Or are they going to see it as, you know, 'No, you're my representative, you're supposed to answer to me.' And so that's one of the things that we'll have to see. Certainly, right now, oftentimes, the people who show up at a protest like this are already people who oppose the policies supported by that member of Congress or that senator. You can kind of understand why they might want to limit some of that, but the question becomes, well, if it looks like they're just not actually answering the public's questions, then that might turn into something where people who are a little bit more on the fence about what they think about that member of Congress might start to see them as unresponsive and not really representative of their interests.
Sally Mauk: Lee, it's also worth noting that Senator Sheehy has yet to even open an office in Missoula, Montana's second largest city, and I think as far as I know that's the first time a sitting senator has not had an office in Missoula. And so one wonders what's going on with that.
Lee Banville: It is unusual. I mean, Senator Daines has had an office in Missoula, you know, since he began his service as the state's then junior senator. And I think that what we're seeing is, you know, Senator Sheehy is still figuring out exactly what his relationship with the public is going to be. Remember, I mean, he doesn't have political experience before he was elected to the U.S. Senate. So, I mean, he's still navigating some of those waters. We're also at a time of such division where there is a lot of animosity towards him in more liberal pockets in the state. And so, the question is, how does he start to respond to critics? And the hope is that he will respond to critics. He will open an office. He will engage in conversation. But it's kind of in his court to see what that is. It's been cast as a security issue, which I think is particularly troubling. But we also see that this is a time where security has become, and political violence has become more acceptable. But we don't see any examples of that specifically in Missoula or in Montana other than shouting at him when he went into a debate at Montana PBS during the campaign and sort of confronting him. But I think that is a far reach from political violence. That's political, maybe, harassment, but that's something different.
Sally Mauk: Holly and Lee, we are out of time. Happy spring, and I'll talk to you next week.
Tune in during the legislative session online Friday afternoons and on-air Saturdays at 9:44 a.m. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
