Latest news with #McGillvray
Associated Press
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Ellsworth receives lifetime ban from Montana Senate floor for ethics violation
Former Senate leader Jason Ellsworth was banned from the Montana Senate floor for life as part of a censure Tuesday stemming from an ethics investigation into a government contract awarded to a friend. The Senate voted 44 to 6 to censure the Hamilton Republican, who has survived three different expulsion votes since mid-March, each failing to reach the two-thirds majority necessary to pass. Before the vote Tuesday, Republican and Democratic leaders praised the compromise. 'It's more than just the Senate Ethics Committee report, so I want to make that clear,' said Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray. 'So, we're going all the way back to the (Federal Trade Commission) complaint in 2009 where he was fined $600,000 for failing to disclose material facts to customers in his business in magazine sales. Two different infractions where he was stopped by the Montana Highway Patrol, abused his position as a senator and was ultimately charged with multiple misdemeanors. In May of (20)23 when he was issued an order of protection alleging domestic abuse. December of (20)24, we're all familiar with, two bifurcated contracts, which the legislative auditor found to be acts of fraud, waste and abuse, which led to this ethics committee holding hearings.' The earliest incident cited by McGillvray, specifically Ellsworth's settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, predated Ellsworth's 2018 election to the state Senate by several years. Senate Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Belgrade, said the vote was about Ellsworth's failure to disclose his personal relationship with a friend and former business partner, Bryce Eggleston, who in late December received a $170,100 contract to observe and report on how government agencies put into practice any 2025 Republican bills that become law limiting the autonomy of Montana courts. An investigation by the Legislative Audit Division concluded that Ellsworth attempted to split the work into two contracts to avoid a $100,000 threshold that would have required the work to go out for bid. Ellsworth has denied involvement in how the contracts were originally set up. In the end, the state Department of Administration put the work into a single contract classified as a 'sole source' agreement, which allowed the work to be awarded without open bidding. The contracts drew public attention when current Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, and Majority Aide Rhonda Knudsen reported Ellsworth for investigation to the legislative auditor. Eggleston said he lost interest in the work because of the scrutiny. 'I believe, many of us believe, that this motion is appropriate for the unethical failure to disclose a conflict of interest, which we believe is what is at issue,' Flowers said. 'Penalties in the motion are strict, in my opinion, but I also think they're fair.' The full slate of penalties presented by McGillvray included removing Ellsworth from Senate standing committees and interim committee assignments during the next two years. Ellsworth will be allowed to vote remotely during Senate floor proceedings, including any Senate special session during the 2025 biennium. Ellsworth is banned from initiating verbal communications with executive branch directors and legislative staff. He also lost access to legislative office space, including legislative staff offices for the 2025 biennium. Ellsworth did not respond to press inquiries after the vote. The senator was not present on the Senate floor Tuesday but did vote against censure, which some lawmakers said went too far. 'I have some deep concerns about the fairness of the process from its inception, specifically when the Ethics Committee was convened,' said Sen. Ellie Boldman, D-Missoula. In a Democratic caucus a week earlier, Boldman suggested that Ellsworth was being punished for defying Republican Senate leadership on the first day of the session by collaborating with Democrats in reassign himself and several other lawmakers to preferable committees, this after being assigned to a committee that dissenting lawmakers described a parking spot for Republican senators who prevailed in some of 2024's most contentious legislative primaries. Ellsworth served as Senate president in 2023 but lost the position to Regier this session. 'I think I certainly would have been interested in a compromise, but the good senator from Ravalli County has kids. He has a new grandchild,' Boldman said. 'I'm sure he'd like to, as a former president of this body, be able to come here and, whether he has to vote or not, take photos and still be part of this institution until the day he dies. And I think this is just too close to expulsion for my liking.' Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy, D-Box Elder, said there should have been a stepped-in disciplinary process, akin to a stepped-in warning for employees. 'I think there should be steps or procedures, such as the first being a verbal notice, second being a written notice and third being expulsion,' Windy Boy said. There remains an ongoing investigation by the Department of Justice into an alleged act of official misconduct identified by the Senate Ethics Committee early in its work on the Ellsworth matter.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Montana Senate votes to punish Ellsworth, revokes lifetime floor privileges
Senator Jason Ellsworth, R-Hamilton, watches a vote during the Senate Floor Session on Wednesday, February 12, 2025. (Nathaniel Bailey for the Daily Montanan) As the Senate chamber emptied on Tuesday afternoon, a sergeant-at-arms cleared off the desk of Sen. Jason Ellsworth. The Montana Senate voted 44-6 to punish the Hamilton Republican, for his failure to disclose a conflict of interest in procuring a contract for a close friend, and for a 'pattern of abuse.' In making the motion, Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, said the punishment was for more than just the conflict of interest which was the focus of a Senate Ethics Committee. He said it encompassed years of wrongdoings by Ellsworth, including running afoul of the Federal Trade Commission more than a decade ago, two altercations with law enforcement, and the work done late last year to a $170,100 contract that skirted procurement rules. 'I think this is appropriate,' McGillvray told his colleagues on the floor. 'These incidents were very, very serious and the Senate should respond accordingly.' Ellsworth, who apologized for only an appearance of impropriety, voted remotely against his own censure. He did not respond to texts or phone calls about his censure. Last week, the Senate voted twice on motions to expel Ellsworth, but couldn't get to the 2/3 majority (34 votes) needed to punish or expel a member, as a majority of Democrats voted against expulsion. Another expulsion vote taken before the censure also failed. Negotiations between McGillvray and Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, and Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Belgrade, took place over the last week, up until Tuesday when McGillvray said he crafted the final language that went 'right up to' the line of expulsion. The censure includes the following: Removal from Senate standing committees No assignment to interim committees No verbal contact with executive branch directors or legislative staff, unless Ellsworth is first contacted by them. Revocation of access to legislator or legislative services office space Revocation of floor privileges for life For the remainder of the session, all Ellsworth can do in an official capacity is vote, remotely, on second and third readings of bills, and on motions made on the floor. Former legislators are allowed floor access after they serve, but Ellsworth will not be allowed to enter the Senate chamber again. Regier told reporters after the vote that he remained disappointed that the chamber was unable to muster the votes to expel Ellsworth, casting blame on the minority caucus. 'This is everything that the public of Montana does not like about politicians, and we didn't expel that from the system,' Regier said. 'I'm still for (expulsion), still disappointed that the Democrat party didn't stand up and get rid of corruption. But I am glad, as a conciliatory action, that action was taken and there was repercussions.' McGillvray added he felt the Democrats likely prevented the expulsion of Ellsworth to secure a vote on legislation. 'Democrats don't protect corrupt Republicans out of principle,' he said. Six members voted against the censure, including two Democrats — Sen. Ellie Boldman and Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy. Two Great Falls Republicans Sens. Jeremy Trebas and Daniel Emrich had voted for expulsion but not for the censure, and Wendy McKamey, also of Great Falls, voted against the censure. Both Democrats spoke on the floor about their reasons for resisting the motion. Windy Boy said he thought there should be a progressive warning system before a punishment was enacted, while Boldman said she still doubted the fairness of the entire process and felt that revoking floor privileges for life went too far. 'The political witch hunt needs to stop,' she said. Many members of the Republican majority, however, still favored expulsion. Sen. Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus, who led the Senate Ethics Committee, made a substitute motion to expel Ellsworth, which failed on a tie vote. 'I don't see what has changed in the last week that would change my mind that expulsion is the most appropriate punishment,' he said. 'I feel the infractions of the Senator from Senate District 43 has made over the course of his service in the Senate makes him unsuitable for office.' Sen. Chris Pope, a Bozeman Democrat, also served on the Ethics Committee and again made his case that censure was the best route and would be a 'very black mark' on Ellsworth. 'I think there's a sense in this body that our colleague has really fallen and that there needs to be consequences,' Pope said. 'We also, as a body, I think, have been interested in being judicious and being fair, but being very explicit as to what the punishment and what the long term need is here for this body to express itself, and its commitment to transparency and integrity and decorum.' Flowers said he felt the censure was fair, even though it went further than what his party had initially proposed — including the revocation of floor privileges and speaking to legislative staff — and for the most part his caucus had been happy with where things ended up. 'I applaud the Ethics Committee for being as efficient as possible with that effort and fair, but it did take a lot of time and energy, and I think just brought a kind of a little bit of a pall on our proceedings in here,' Flowers said. 'I think all of us are ready and happy to be moving on.' Ellsworth's office had yet to be emptied as of Tuesday afternoon.
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill to reallocate marijuana tax revenue clears Senate vote
David Burr demonstrates removing leaves on marijuana plants to allow more light for growth at Essence Vegas' 54,000-square-foot marijuana cultivation facility on July 6, 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Ethan Miller | Getty Images) The Montana Senate on Thursday advanced a measure to change what programs receive more than $60 million in funding from recreational marijuana tax revenue. Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, is carrying Senate Bill 307 to shift marijuana tax revenue away from Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks programs, and bolster marijuana prevention and enforcement operations. McGillvray framed the bill as a 'simple' policy choice, and asked legislators whether they care more about children and those impacted by marijuana, or wildlife habitat. 'I would submit to you that the deer, the elk, the ducks, the geese are all doing pretty good in Montana,' McGillvray said, adding that FWP has 'buckets' of money they could spend. 'I'm asking (us) to prioritize the babies, the moms, the teenagers, the children, the adults that are addicted to this and need a way out,' he said. But opponents said that the funding was allocated for FWP programs for a reason, and that if the Legislature wants to address prevention efforts, they should tackle that separately. Sen. Sara Novak, D-Anaconda, served on the Business and Labor Committee during the 2021 session, when recreational marijuana was legalized with support from conservation groups counting on some of the revenue. 'We worked very hard on a big piece of legislation that put all the guiderails around the legalization of marijuana, and it included the allocation of revenue sources,' Novak said. 'I do wholeheartedly think we need to take a hard look at prevention, education, treatment, the crime that goes along with all of that and the whole trickle effect, I just don't think that this bill is the way to go about doing that.' SB 307 had a lengthy hearing before the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs Committee, where many drug prevention specialists and law enforcement representatives spoke in favor of the bill, but were outnumbered by more than 20 opponents representing conservation groups. FWP director Christy Clark also testified in opposition, citing several programs that would be 'virtually eliminated' without the funding, including a wildlife tracking system for birds and bats and funding for endangered and threatened species. She also told the committee the state park funding has allowed FWP to catch up on a 'major backlog' of maintenance programs, including 55 separate projects since 2021. McGillvray's bill was amended to remove several provisions including funding a marijuana prevention account and suicide prevention grant program, and creating a marijuana accountability council. It also added back in funding for veterans and the board of crime control that the bill originally stripped out. Now, the bill will allocate 26% of revenue to the Healing and Ending Addiction through Recovery and Treatment Fund, 4% to a new marijuana law enforcement account, small portions to veterans and the board of crime control, and the remainder to the general fund. By comparison, the bill would more than double the dollars going to the HEART fund, which originally allocated the first $6 million of annual revenue from marijuana, currently an estimated $60 million. Senators in favor of the bill spoke about the problems seen with higher potency THC products and the need to prioritize treatment programs and enforcement. Sen. Mike Yakawich, R-Billings, said that he had smoked marijuana for two years in the 1970s and subsequently had health issues he attributed to the drug use, so he understood the detrimental effects, and cautioned against use. But ultimately, he said, this isn't a bill about marijuana, it's a bill about money. 'I'd like to call it a wise use of THC money,' he said. 'This is a wise allocation of money. It's creative. It's innovative. Four years, five years from now, if people say 'Yakawich, you did a poor job with that bill, and we need to fix it,' well that's what we do as legislators.' In a similar vein but on the opposite side, Sen. Emma Kerr-Carpenter, D-Billings, reminded the body that they weren't discussing THC levels, detrimental medical effects of the drug, or regulating the industry — the bill is simply about funding. 'We have the good sponsor taking revenue that we allocated a couple sessions ago that goes to a purpose for conservation of public lands, and instead takes it and diverts it over into mental health care and substance use prevention. And my question is, why can't we do both at the same time?' Kerr-Carpenter said. 'We do not have to take from one to do the other. We don't have to choose.' McGillvray reemphasized that he believes FWP is 'flush with cash' — despite some specific 'flush' accounts he referenced having limitations for spending — and that they don't need to take in marijuana revenue. 'We don't use revenue from gas taxes to deal with Medicaid or health concerns, we use it for roads and bridges and stuff of that nature,' he said. 'If you use revenue for marijuana to deal with the harms of marijuana, it's what we do and how we logically allocate revenue.' The bill passed the Senate 30-20, with two Republicans joining all Democrats in opposition. SB 307 will have a hearing before the Senate Finance and Claims committee on March 24, and the full Senate will vote one more time on the measure.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Claims court endorsed by Montana Senate
Sen. Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, speaks to the Senate Republican caucus after it elected him to be Senate Majority Leader for the 2025 session at a meeting on Nov. 14, 2024. Soon-to-be Senate President Matt Regier looks on. (Photo by Blair Miller, Daily Montanan) District courts in the state of Montana saw more than 57,000 cases filed in 2024, with a record 13,854 criminal cases filed across the state's 22 judicial districts. The former chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court has described the state's court system as 'stressed,' even as far back as 2019? To fix that, Sen. Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, introduced a bill to create a new intermediate-level court to remove complex civil cases related to the constitutionality of government actions, as well as asbestos claims, from the district court's purview. The bill passed the upper chamber 28-22, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in opposition. The goal, according to McGillvray, is to free up the district court dockets and allow specialized judges to rule on complicated constitutional issues, which would 'enhance the efficiency and productivity of the court.' 'I think the definition of insanity is keep doing the same thing over and over, you'll get the same result, which is a clogged up court system that is behind on dealing with these civil cases that need to be addressed in an efficient manner,' McGillvray said during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 4. The new government claims court created in Senate Bill 385 would have concurrent jurisdiction with the state's district courts over alleged illegality or unconstitutionality of government actions, including legislative actions, administrative rules, citizen-passed ballot measures and agency permitting actions. The three justices would be appointed by the governor, rather than elected as district court and state supreme court justices are currently, and serve six-year staggered terms. McGillvray listed off the number of additional district court judges needed to cover the existing workload — 11 across the state including five in Yellowstone County — as justification for the new court. But opponents of the new court said McGillvray's bill wasn't adequately addressing the issue among district courts, took power away from the judicial branch and Montana voters, and was just a reaction to the Legislature losing several court cases over laws passed during the last two sessions. Anne Sherwood, representing Friends of the Third Branch, an educational organization focused on the state's judiciary, raised concerns about how many cases the court would actually divert from district court, saying that constitutional challenges are a small portion of the dockets. She also pointed out one major refrain from the Republican majority's judicial reform push has been enhancing accountability for judges. 'These judges are going to be appointed by the governor. They're not going to be accountable to the people of Montana,' Sherwood said. 'These judges are going to be making decisions that have statewide impact, and people are not going to be able to vote for or against those judges. That's huge.' Proponents for the bill included the Montana Family Foundation, Americans for Prosperity-Montana and an attorney representing himself. Derek Oestreicher, chief legal counsel with the Montana Family Foundation, said the group doesn't typically weigh in on judicial bills, but felt the bill provided an opportunity to address a strained court system where judges are stretched thin with growing caseloads, especially criminal, neglect and dependency cases. 'These cases demand careful attention and swift resolution, particularly when vulnerable children and families are involved,' Oestreicher said, adding the Foundation sometimes saw cases take years to resolve. 'The burdens on our court system have resulted in delayed justice far too often. This bill is a win-win for Montana.' On the other side, Al Smith, representing the Montana Trial Lawyers, said the group opposed the new court and would rather see the legislature direct funds to the district courts. 'You're taking powers that are granted to district courts and handing them over to an appointed, not elected judiciary,' Smith said. 'Who came up with this idea? Was it the courts? Was it the people that used the courts? Was there any deliberative process to determine that this is the answer to our problems?' The bill came out of the interim Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform, but in another form. Originally introduced as Senate Bill 52, a proposed 'Court of Chancery' would have also been a three-judge governor-appointed court, but would have overseen business law, land-use law and constitutional law. In an early press briefing with Senate GOP leadership, McGillvray emphasized that the Chancery Court was 'basically a business court.' 'The whole goal of this, of course, is to expedite business cases and bring them up to the surface and provide high quality judges where they're predictable, they're ruled by the rule of law consistently and accurately, and attract businesses in the state of Montana,' McGillvray said. The bill came close to getting a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee — the Senate GOP sent out a press release about it on Feb. 5 — but towards the end of February, McGillvray withdrew it. He said the court's jurisdiction was too broad and unwieldy, and that the Governor's Office had concerns, so he reduced the jurisdiction. But the junque file for SB 52 — documents detailing comments and emails among legislators, staff and consultants during the bill drafting process — indicates a court focused on constitutional claims was always the goal. In an email to McGillvray, Rob Natelson, an attorney and former UM law professor who was an advisor to the Judicial oversight committee and contracted by the Legislature for $10,000 to help draft some of the judicial reform bills, outlined his consideration for the court. 'The new court's jurisdictional scope should cover areas in which the existing system has been a problem in Montana,' wrote Natelson. 'The poor quality of adjudication of constitutional cases has been a MAJOR problem in Montana.' Another draft version of the Chancery Court would have only given it jurisdiction over constitutional claims and environmental lawsuits involving the Montana Environmental Policy Act — the law upon which a recent controversial court case, Held v. Montana, was predicated, and an order overturned two legislative statutes. The new bill draft, SB 385, was requested by Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, using leadership privileges to submit a late draft request. McGillvray carried the bill and it passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 5-3 party-line vote. Debate continued on the Senate floor Wednesday, mostly along partisan lines. Democrats, and a small number of Republicans, said it was adding partisanship to the judiciary and ignoring the existing problem with district court case loads, while a majority of Republicans lauded the effort to streamline the system. 'This work can help with those district court demands,' said Sen. Barry Usher, R-Billings, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'I think this is a great deal, I think the sponsor's done a lot of research. We spent a lot of time in the judicial select committee on this and I think it's a great bill.' Republican Sen. Russ Tempel of Chester said he opposed the bill for its costs. The fiscal note indicates that the court would cost the state a million dollars in fiscal year 2026, $3.5 million in 2027, and roughly $2 million each of the next two years. 'I was sent here to reduce government, not increase government,' Tempel said. According to the bill's fiscal note, each judge would be paid $240,000 — 20% higher than associate judges on the state's supreme court. McGillvray said the higher salary was not meant to disparage sitting supreme court justices, but to properly incentivize highly qualified, specialized judges for the new court. 'I think (Supreme Court judges) should be paid higher too. We need to start paying the judges more, because we need good judges and we need to attract high-quality attorneys,' McGillvray said. Salaries and expenses for the government claims court would come from the state's general fund. Other opponents latched onto an amendment added in committee to put asbestos claims under the court's jurisdiction. Currently, asbestos-related claims, a major issue for residents of Libby who have been exposed to asbestos-tainted vermiculite mined near the town, are handled by the Montana Asbestos Claims Court, created in 2017. Hundreds of cases were moved from district courts to the asbestos court, and several lawyers who represent asbestos victims testified against the bill in committee. Three Democratic senators said they'd received emails from residents of western Montana, specifically near Libby, worried the bill would affect the asbestos cases currently active. McGillvray said he added asbestos claims to the jurisdiction of the government claims court at the request of current Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice Cory Swanson, and that active cases would just have the option of changing venue. Sen. Cora Neumann, D-Bozeman, said the bill should be considered in the context of dozens of other judicial reform legislation pushed by the GOP-majority this session. 'I can see how when bill after bill is introduced on the same topic, because it's a high priority for part of the caucus, you start to lose track, almost,' Neumann said. 'At the end of the day, this is just another attempt to control the courts, which our Chief Justice asked us not to do.' In committee, McGillvray called opponents who testified against the bill as 'hard-left dark money groups that like the status quo,' and on the Senate floor he pushed back against detractors again, saying many positions taken by opponents were red herrings. He said an efficient and consistent justice system will bring business and money to Montana. 'I think this is a great idea, whose time was a long time in coming. It's time to move forward with fresh ideas,' McGillvray said. The final vote tally wavered a bit around the pass-fail margin before ending at 28-22, with Republican Sens. Mike Cuffe, Gregg Hunter, Jeremy Trebas and Tempel joining all Democrats in opposition. The bill was referred to the Finance and Claims Committee for further consideration.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Marijuana revenue bill asks lawmakers to choose drug prevention or conservation and recreation
Photo illustration by Getty Images. The primary question Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, posed to the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs committee this week was a choice between people or public lands and wildlife. 'Do you care more about children, teenagers that are having struggles with addictions, pregnant mothers that are using marijuana that's causing injuries to their babies?' McGillvray asked. 'We have to, as a society, decide — are people more important or trails, parks and wildlife?' 'What's the choice? Is it children, or gophers?' Numerous conservation organizations, and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, argued that eliminating a key funding source for habitat conservation, recreation and nongame wildlife programs was tantamount to eliminating the programs themselves. McGillvray was testifying in support of his Senate Bill 307 on Thursday, which would reallocate tax revenue from recreational marijuana in Montana, eliminating around $16 million in funding for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks programs and funneling it towards drug prevention and law enforcement operations. Following the legalization of recreational weed in 2020, the Legislature in 2021 passed the laws governing the new industry, including allocating the more than $60 million in annual tax revenue. Under the current structure of the law, each fiscal year, funds are distributed as follows: $6 million to the Healing and Ending Addiction through Recovery and Treatment (HEART) Fund Of the remainder: 20% to FWP's Habitat conservation program ($10 million in FY26) 4% each to FWP's state parks, trails and recreational facilities, and nongame wildlife accounts ($1.9 million each in FY26) $200,000 to veterans and surviving spouses account $150,000 to board of crime control The remaining revenue goes into the state's general fund, which is estimated to be $33.3 million for fiscal year 2026. Calling it a policy choice, McGillvray's primary argument for the reallocation was to connect the dots between funding sources and expenditures. In this case, the marijuana tax should pay to mitigate the social cost and harms of the drugs, he said. He used examples such as the cigarette tax, which directs revenues toward the harms from tobacco to Department of Public Health and Human Services programs and to six of the state's Native American tribes; or the gas tax, which is used for infrastructure projects and highway maintenance. 'Most special revenue sources are directed to something connected to that special revenue source,' he said. 'If marijuana taxes are directed toward parks, trails and wildlife habitat, then who's got to pick up the cost of the harms that come from the legalization and the use of marijuana? The property taxpayers, the income tax payers.' Under McGillvray's bill, a new marijuana prevention account would receive 16% of revenue, a marijuana law enforcement operation account would receive 8%, the HEART fund would receive 24%, and the state Department of Revenue would see an increase of funding for administrative costs. The HEART fund, a priority of Gov. Greg Gianforte in the original marijuana legislation, is a drug treatment program that doles out state money to local organizations and nonprofits to fill gaps in the continuum of substance abuse care and prevention services, according to the governor's office. McGillvray said his bill essentially doubles the money in the HEART fund. However many representatives of wildlife, conservation and public lands groups testified against SB 307, decrying the bill for stripping out vital funding for the programs administered by FWP. Thirteen individuals testified against the bill before Chairman Sen. Mark Noland, R-Bigfork, cut off testimony due to time restrictions, leaving nine opponents online and several in person out of the conversation. 'This bill would strip crucial funding from conservation efforts and will have immediate negative effects on public land and recreation opportunities in our state,' said Micah Fields with the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. 'The most urgent and reckless threat within SB 307 is the impact this bill would have on quality outdoor opportunity in Montana, particularly the loss of support for trail stewardship, state park maintenance and habitat improvement projects for Montana's greatest assets, our public lands, waters, fish and wildlife.' The director for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Christy Clark, also spoke in opposition to the bill and listed off the work the department did that is funded through these revenue streams. Under the nongame wildlife programs, the funding has been used to gather data on species listed as endangered or in need of conservation and to establish a wildlife tracking system for birds and bats, two programs that would 'be virtually eliminated,' Clark said. The state park funding has allowed FWP to catch up on a 'major backlog' of maintenance programs, including 55 separate projects since 2021, she said, and the trails and recreation account had funded 140 projects in 34 counties for a more than $6 million investment in local communities with matching funds. In some instances, Clark said, the department was 'partially down the path' of many projects, and eliminating the funding would stop them completely. An FWP spokesperson told the Daily Montanan it doesn't oversee most trails, and therefore, it can't charge users fees for most of them. But on the other side, proponents argued that the greater need in Montana is towards preventing drug abuse by educating residents, especially youths, and cracking down on a potentially lethal black market trade. Coming on the heels of another committee hearing for a bill seeking to regulate THC levels in recreational marijuana, nine individuals testified in favor of the legislation, comprising addiction counselors, drug prevention specialists and former law enforcement. 'It saves money. It saves lives,' said Coleen Smith, a certified prevention specialist with the nonprofit Youth Connections Coalition. 'The governor has stated that he wants prevention in every county. The State of Montana has not put one dime towards prevention in over 20 years.' Stacey Zinn, a retired agent with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Montana, said the state was not currently prepared to handle the marijuana black market. 'To think that Montana is not going to have any nefarious gangs or people come into here to start working the black market, that's just plain out naive,' Zinn said, lauding the bill's commitment to funding a new enforcement account. 'We do not have the manpower to push back against these nefarious people.' Steve Zabawa, founder of Safe Montana, a group that advocates for THC regulations, said that shifting funds from FWP to prevention, treatment and policing programs would be 'a big win as far as our families.' 'It's that simple,' Zabawa said. 'Our trails are already in place. We have great trails, we have great fishing. We have great mountain climbing. They don't need the money.' But opponents responded by asking why the bill forced lawmakers to decide between two important program areas. 'What this bill does is it pits public safety, policing, prevention, against habitat and public access,' siad Tom Jacobsen of the Montana Wildlife Federation. 'They're asking you to make a decision — do you want to fund this, or do you want to fund that.' Noah Marion of Wild Montana added that state revenues and surpluses remain at historically high levels — including a billion dollar ending balance last fiscal year. 'There is more than enough revenue around to fund those priorities without jeopardizing Habitat Montana, our trails, our parks and other incredibly important Fish, Wildlife and Parks programs,' he said. Sen. Jacinda Morigeau, D-Arlee, raised a similar question for McGillvray, asking why the bill didn't reduce the revenue funneled into the general fund and add the prevention and enforcement measures in addition to the existing programs, rather than 'rob Peter to pay Paul.' 'Well, there's a guy downstairs (Gianforte), he's kind of jealous about general fund money,' McGillvray said. The governor's office did not respond to questions seeking comment on the bill. In response to opposition testimony from Brigadier General Renee Dorvall, deputy director for the Montana Department of Military Affairs, about removing funding from the veterans account, McGillvray said he was proposing an amendment to reinstate those funds, as well as the board of crime control account. According to the bill's fiscal note, the legislation as written would add 15 new positions on two enforcement teams under the Department of Justice, a canine unit, and two prosecutors. Sen. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls, asked McGillvray if all of the new full-time positions weren't just an 'unwanted DOJ jobs program.' 'I don't disagree,' McGillvray replied. Among the other opponents to the bill were representatives from Montana Conservation Voters, the Montana Audubon, Montana State Parks Foundation, Anaconda Sportsman's Club, Helena Hunters and Anglers, Prickly Pear Land Trust, and the Nature Conservancy, as well as many individuals who were unable to speak due to time constraints. In his closing, McGillvray called it a 'policy choice,' and said he wasn't disparaging trails, parks or wildlife. He pushed back against the opponents who said eliminating marijuana revenue for conservation and public lands would also eliminate the programs. He said FWP has 'plenty of money to deal with this,' in various funds. 'If they want more money, then charge a fee for trails, charge a fee for parks. Charge the fee users pay — that's how we do things around here,' he said. 'I grew up without a trail, and I figured it out … I'm not against trails. I like trails. Make your own trail.'
