Nevada Faculty Alliance NFA News Archive

NFA Report PEBP Rate-Setting for FY2027

NFA News — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 20:27:00 GMT

Submitted by Kent Ervin and Doug Unger

On March 19th, the PEPB Board made final decisions on plan design and rates for FY2027, effective 7/1/2026.

Open enrollment will be May 1 to May 31. Participants should carefully consider whether to choose different plan options, which have major changes to benefits and premiums.

For NFA members, Kent Ervin and Doug Unger have prepared a comprehensive analysis of the benefits changes, new employee premiums, and a summary of PEBP’s problematic budgeting and rate-setting processes. Important highlights include:

High-Deductible Health Plan (aka Consumer Driven Health Plan):

Increase the deductible from $1650/$3300 to $1700/$3400 (single/family)
Increase the out-of-pocket maximum from $4000/$8000 to $5000/$10000 (single/family)
No change in employee premiums, which are the lowest of the three plan options, from the current year. For example: $55/month for employee-only and $411/month for a family.

Low-Deductible Health Plan (aka Copay PPO plan)

Currently no deductible. FY2027 deductible of $300/$600 (single/family)
Increase the out-of-pocket maximum from $4000/$8000 to $5000/$10000 (single/family)
Increase employee premiums. For example: increases of $68/month (75%) for employee-only and $159/month (32%) for a family, for new totals of $160/month (employee-only) and $657/month (family).

Exclusive Provider Organization (northern limited-network plan)

Decrease out-of-pocket maximum from $5000/$10000 to $4000/$8000 (single/family)
Increase employee premiums. For example: increases of $161/month (73%) for employee-only and $378/month (47%) for a family, for new totals of $361/month (employee-only) and $1,180/month (family).

Health Maintenance Organization (southern limited-network plan)

No changes to benefits, out-of-pocket maximum remains at $5000/$10000 (single/family)
Same employee premium increases as northern EPO plan: new totals of $361 for employee-only and $1,180 for families.

A summary rate table for state active employees is below. PEBP has published the full rate tables as approved by the Board on March 19th.

PEBP State Actives	FY2026			FY2027			Premium Change FY27 vs. FY26 ($)	Premium Change FY27 vs. FY26 (%)
PEBP State Actives	Total Rate	Employer Contrib.	Employee Premium	Total Rate	Employer Contrib.	Employee Premium	Premium Change FY27 vs. FY26 ($)	Premium Change FY27 vs. FY26 (%)
High-Deductible Plan (CDHP)
Participant	$849	$794	$55	$820	$764	$55	$0	0.0%
Participant+Spouse	$1,684	$1,370	$314	$1,624	$1,310	$314	$0	0.0%
Participant+Children	$1,162	$1,010	$152	$1,121	$969	$152	$0	0.0%
Participant+Family	$1,996	$1,585	$411	$1,926	$1,515	$411	$0	0.0%
Low-Deductible Plan (Copay PPO)
Participant	$886	$794	$92	$1,064	$904	$160	$68	75%
Participant+Spouse	$1,757	$1,370	$387	$2,113	$1,591	$521	$134	35%
Participant+Children	$1,212	$1,010	$202	$1,457	$1,162	$296	$93	46%
Participant+Family	$2,083	$1,585	$498	$2,506	$1,849	$657	$159	32%
EPO/HMO
Participant	$1,014	$794	$220	$1,309	$928	$381	$161	73%
Participant+Spouse	$2,013	$1,370	$943	$2,907	$1,642	$962	$319	50%
Participant+Children	$1,388	$1,010	$379	$1,795	$1,196	$599	$220	58%
Participant+Family	$2,387	$1,585	$802	$3,089	$1,909	$1,180	$378	47%

We thank the hundreds of NFA members and other state workers who submitted public comments opposing steep increases to employee premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Your input helped limit the damage, but there will still be higher premiums for the low-deductible and HMO/EPO plans and higher out-of-pocket maximums for the high-deductible and low-deductible plans in 2026-2027.

READ THE FULL REPORT >>

PEBP Update: Some Good News–and Lingering Uncertainty

NFA News — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:29:00 GMT

At the latest PEBP Board meeting on Feb. 24th, the worst‑case scenarios from the actuary’s presentation didn’t materialize, but serious questions remain about the program’s financial status. It was clear, however, that the hundreds of public comments from state workers made a real impact. Thank you to everyone who showed up and spoke out!

Major Decisions Delayed Until March 19

No final decisions were made at this meeting. The March 19 rate-setting meeting will be crucial. With PEBP’s financials under review and major premium adjustments ahead, state workers should stay engaged and prepared to weigh in. The Board’s decisions next month will determine employee premiums and potential relief on out‑of‑pocket limits for the coming year. NFA will continue to keep members informed.

Plan Design and Rate Decisions in March

Because the underlying financial data is still in question (details below), the Board directed PEBP’s actuary to bring back options in March, including:

No additional plan design changes beyond those already approved in December—meaning the increased deductibles and out‑of‑pocket maximums remain, but no further benefits cuts will be added.
Project rates using current plan experience and inflation. This suggests that no new charges will be added specifically to rebuild reserves next year.
Re‑price the three plan options to match experience and eliminate cross-subsidization. Because of claims experience, the low‑deductible plan and the EPO/HMO plan are likely to see substantial premium increases for employees.
A three‑year phase‑in of premium increases. This is intended to soften the impact—but increases are still coming.
Options to rescind December’s out‑of‑pocket maximum (OOPmax) increases. Thanks to a motion by Board members Blaine Harper (AFSCME) and Jennifer McClendon (NSHE North), the actuary will also present options for (a) rolling back the $1,000 / $2,000 OOPmax increase just for the high‑deductible plan; or (b) restoring the FY2026 OOPmax for all three plan options. Although their motion failed due to lack of cost data, both rollback options remain on the table for the March meeting.

High Uncertainty Over PEBP’s Financials

In written public comment for NFA (p. 921 of 1021), Kent Ervin pointed out errors and discrepancies in numbers provided by PEBP and its actuary. He asked, “How can any of the information and recommendations be trusted?” The day before the meeting PEBP removed slides from the presentation regarding revenues and reserves. At the beginning of the meeting, Chair Jim Wells indicated (time 3:28) that collections into the PEBP operating account may have been incorrect for the past 18 months. They "are hoping" to have a reconciliation in the next month. Segal, PEBP’s actuary, stated that monthly revenue is matching expenses for the first half of FY2026, which implies that previous statements about cash flow shortfalls were wrong. In an exchange during closing public comment (2:25:25), Wells indicated that they are investigating the source of incorrect state contribution amounts used by the actuary until now.

NFA and other public employee advocates are calling for an independent audit and review of PEBP’s accounting, budgeting, and rate-setting.

Chair Wells also criticized (2:35) public comments from union members. That was effectively rebutted by UNLV Professor Jorge Fonseca, who defended workers providing input in his public comment (19:24).

Media Coverage

The Nevada Independent: “Confusion over Nevada health insurance program’s finances clouds future for state workers. Officials admitted they are operating with incomplete financial information and cannot make insurance plan changes until the situation becomes clearer.”

KLAS 8 News:Looming insurance rate hikes cloud Nevada employees’ morale; ‘mass exodus’ coming? Ominously: “The Director of the Nevada Health Authority is exploring some new ways to purchase and provide coverage at the state level.”

KTNV 13 Las Vegas: State employees asking for clarity after confusion regarding health insurance plans

The Nevada Globe: Insurance Ultimatum: State Workers Warn of Resignations Over Looming Rate Hikes

beinsure.com: Nevada state workers push back on projected PEBP insurance increases

NFA calls for independent audit of PEBP

NFA News — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 19:30:56 GMT

In public comments by Dr. Kent Ervin submitted to the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) Board for their February 24^th meeting, the NFA raises significant concerns about severe, unexplained fiscal discrepancies in PEBP’s projections for Plan Year 2027. Despite substantial increases in state funding approved by the Nevada Legislature and Governor, PEBP and its actuarial consultant, the Segal Group, are presenting revenue estimates that are approximately $100 million per year lower than what was budgeted. The NFA believes that this gap is neither adequately explained nor justified.

Dr. Ervin highlights repeated errors in PEBP and Segal’s previous presentations—including incorrect employer funding amounts and omissions of reserve data—and contends that these mistakes undermine confidence in the rate‑setting process. Because of these inaccuracies, the memo asserts that the Board should postpone any action on plan design or employee premiums until the financial projections can be validated.

Key concerns include:

Revenue shortfalls: Segal’s projected revenues for FY2026 and FY2027 fall far below legislatively approved budget levels, despite increases in state subsidies and employee premiums. The memo questions Segal’s methodology and asks why revenue is lagging even when expenditures are on track.

Lack of transparency and accountability: The memo argues that PEBP has not provided clear documentation explaining the discrepancies, and that “final” funding numbers used by Segal were available publicly a year earlier.

Impact on employees: The proposed premium changes—especially shifting to percentage‑based premiums that vary by plan option and dependent tier—are described as inequitable. The memo highlights that some tiers, particularly families with children, would face disproportionately large increases. It also raises concerns about rising out‑of‑pocket maximums, which would hurt members with chronic health needs.

Cross‑subsidization between plans: Under Segal’s proposed methodology, employer contributions would decrease for members enrolled in the high‑deductible plan—even though that plan already subsidizes richer plan options.

An independent audit of PEBP’s budgeting, accounting, and rate‑setting processes.
Phasing in any employee premium increases over at least three years, separating ongoing costs from temporary reserve restoration.
Maintaining the long‑standing flat‑dollar employer contribution policy rather than moving to percentage‑based premiums.
Protecting out‑of‑pocket maximums from further increases.
Examining more equitable alternatives, such as the memo’s own proposed model that retains flat subsidies and a three‑year phase‑in.

To address these issues, the NFA recommends:

The NFA calls on the PEBP Board to adhere to their stated values of affordability, accountability, fairness, compassion, and sustainability while addressing this “sudden fiscal crisis.” The resolution requires a comprehensive audit and demands transparency and accuracy.

NFA Calls on Members to Respond to PEBP Crisis

NFA News — Sun, 08 Feb 2026 16:34:23 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) is calling on its members to take immediate action following alarming financial projections reported at the January 20, 2026, Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) Board meeting. At that meeting, PEBP officials disclosed a $45 million shortfall in mandatory reserves and warned that the program could face bankruptcy within five years if unaddressed.

A recent article in The Nevada Independent summarized the fiscal crisis facing Nevada’s public employee health plans.

During the January 20th meeting, the PEBP Board considered a proposal to increase member health care premiums by 84% beginning July 1, 2026. The Board postponed a final decision until a special meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 18 at 1:00 p.m.

PEBP has since informed the Legislature that the Board will evaluate additional alternatives to address the deficit.

NFA Calls on Members to Participate in Public Comment

The NFA is urging members to make their voices heard before the PEBP Board finalizes any decisions with major financial consequences for employees. Recommended actions include:

Submitting written comments through the PEBP Public Comment Upload form by 1:00 p.m. on Monday, February 16;
Calling into the meeting using the number provided in the February 18 meeting agenda;
Providing live public comment via the Board’s Zoom link at the start of the February 18 meeting.

The deadline for written comment is 1:00 p.m. Monday, February 16, with live participation available at the February 18 meeting at 1:00 p.m.

The NFA emphasizes that member participation can influence outcomes at this critical moment.

READ MORE >>

Nevada’s Public Employees’ Health Benefits Are in Crisis

NFA News — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 18:05:18 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) issued a statement to the legislature’s Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee (meeting on January 27) warning that the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) is facing a serious financial crisis.

Fiscal Shortfall

PEBP mandatory reserve levels are deficient by tens of millions of dollars. Even more alarming, actuaries project PEBP could become insolvent and unable to pay all claims by FY2028 without additional revenue or benefit cuts. NFA’s statement analyzes the reasons for the shortfalls and how they developed.

Premium Hikes and Benefit Cuts are Likely

Restoring reserves in the next year would require an unreasonable 84% increase in employee premiums, according to the actuary. The PEBP Board will meet on February 18 to consider options including premium increases and benefit cuts.

What Must Happen

NFA urges state and PEBP leaders to:

Restore reserves gradually over three or four years. The State must share the burden, and not rely entirely on employee premium increases or benefit cuts.
Protect employees from added financial strain, especially after increases to outofpocket maximums already approved for FY2027, from $4000/$8000 (single/family) to $5000/$10000 for the high-deductible and low-deductible plan options
Investigate the causes of both expense overruns and revenue gaps, and review reserve standards to ensure longterm stability. PEBP must be held accountable with full transparency in its budgeting and rate setting.
Commit to a comprehensive funding solution during the 2027 legislative session.

Without appropriate action, PEBP could face the inability to pay medical claims within a few years—impacting tens of thousands of Nevada public workers, retirees, and families. The NFA stresses that the solution cannot rely solely on employee premium hikes or cuts to employee benefits.

NFA Reaffirms Solidarity Amid Escalating Immigration Related Harms

NFA News — Sat, 24 Jan 2026 20:04:04 GMT

In a January 23rd letter to its members, the Nevada Faculty Alliance expressed deep concern about escalating violence and apparent lawlessness associated with recent ICE actions in Minneapolis. The NFA highlighted the killing of poet and immigrant rights advocate Renee Good, reports of warrantless home entries, assaults on peaceful protestors, and troubling incidents involving children and families—developments that point to a broader national pattern of harm.

"Our students and their families are understandably experiencing heightened fear, vulnerability, trauma, uncertainty, and even physical and medical harms because of these ongoing assaults.”
— NFA Letter to Members

The NFA emphasized in its letter that immigration enforcement is not solely a political issue but also an education issue, with well documented impacts on student attendance and academic performance, especially within targeted communities. These effects are being felt directly across Nevada’s higher education system.

In alignment with its partners, including the AAUP and fellow labor organizations, the NFA continues to call for:

Accountability for the killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti
Immediate withdrawal of ICE operations from Minnesota
No additional federal funding for ICE in the upcoming Congressional budget
A full investigation into ICE’s human and constitutional rights violations
An end to business and logistical support for ICE by Minnesota and national companies

Individuals seeking additional background can visit the AAUP’s page on “Political Attacks on Higher Education.”

The NFA remains steadfast in standing with its members, students, and all those affected by these ongoing injustices.

READ MORE >>
Do ICE Officers Have ‘Immunity’? - The Atlantic

ICE says its officers can forcibly enter homes during immigration operations without judicial warrants - NBC News

The Supreme Court clears the way for ICE agents to treat race as grounds for immigration stops - NPR

ICE Detains 5-Year-Old Boy and His Father Returning Home from Preschool, then Uses Boy 'as Bait' to Find Relatives - People

Detained Immigrants Detail Physical Abuse and Inhumane Conditions at Largest Immigration Detention Center in the U.S. - ACLU

Federal immigration enforcement near schools disrupts attendance, traumatizes students and damages their academic performance - The Conversation

NFA Raises Concerns Over PEBP Reserves and Large Premium Increases

NFA News — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 20:07:42 GMT

At the January 20th meeting of the Nevada Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) Board, the Nevada Faculty Alliance highlighted several concerns about the program’s long‑term financial outlook based on new data from PEBP's actuary, the Segal Group.

The Segal report shows that PEBP’s reserves are tens of millions of dollars lower than recommended, as has previously pointed out by NFA. Future revenue projections for FY2028–29 appear flat while healthcare costs continue to rise, anticipating a potential funding crisis at PEBP if trends continue.

Segal also outlined an employee premium increase of 84% that would be needed to rebuild reserves in a single year in FY 2027. The NFA suggested that a gradual, multi‑year approach would help avoid large swings in participant premiums.

The report further noted long‑standing pricing inconsistencies among PEBP’s three health plan options. Recent enrollment shifts should have been revenue‑neutral under Board policy, but the report indicates they were not. The NFA encouraged a closer look at how these discrepancies developed.

Other trends—such as enrollment growth influencing revenue figures—indicate that more time is needed to fully understand the program’s current trajectory. Comparisons with other Western states show Nevada’s benefits are generally middle‑of‑the‑pack, though family‑tier premiums remain notably high.

The NFA emphasized that rebuilding reserves and realigning plan pricing will likely require coordination with the Governor and Legislature and recommended continued discussion in upcoming committee meetings.

PEBP will report to the legislature at the Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee on January 27 and a special PEBP Board meeting to consider additional changes in plan benefits is tentatively scheduled for February 18. Public comments from members are encouraged at both meetings.

Contacts for additional information: Kent Ervin, kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org; Doug Unger, doug.unger@nevadafacultyalliance.org

Nevada Faculty Alliance Raises Concerns Over Budget Messaging, Potential Cuts Across NSHE Institutions

NFA News — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 16:09:19 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) urges the Nevada Board of Regents to scrutinize conflicting budget narratives emerging from institutions within the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), citing widespread confusion and concerns about how proposed cuts and fee increases are being justified.

In a letter sent to the Board, NFA leaders say faculty across the state are hearing dramatically different accounts of the system’s financial condition—ranging from warnings of deep academic cuts to assurances that no budget crisis exists.

According to the letter, administrators at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) have suggested that as many as 90 academic faculty positions may be eliminated if student fees are not raised. Meanwhile, faculty at the College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) report being told by their administrations that no budget emergency is underway.

At the same time, the letter states that both Western Nevada College (WNC) and UNR are exploring new infrastructure investments even as they consider reductions to lower‑level positions. The NFA argues that these mixed messages have left faculty uncertain about the true state of NSHE finances.

“There seems to be some disagreement across institutions about what the state of the budget is and whether it is considered a fiscal emergency,” the letter notes. The organization is asking Regents to press for clarity and consistency in budget reporting and decision‑making.

The NFA also raises concerns about the systemwide budget proposal submitted to the Board of Regents. According to the letter, the plan does not eliminate any executive‑level positions across NSHE, even as it proposes cuts to administrative faculty earning between $40,000 and $80,000 annually.

“If a goal of the Regents is to tackle administrative bloat and unnecessary projects, it does not appear that NSHE’s proposed budget cuts are in alignment,” the letter states.

The faculty group argues that without transparent and consistent information, it is difficult for employees, students, and the public to understand the rationale behind proposed fee increases, staffing reductions, or new capital projects.

The Board of Regents is expected to continue budget discussions in the coming months as institutions prepare for the next legislative cycle.

Changes in store for 2026-27 employee benefits

NFA News — Tue, 23 Dec 2025 16:14:40 GMT

The Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) Board met on December 12, 2025, to make decisions about plan design changes for Plan Year 2027, beginning 7/1/2026. Benefits are being reduced, but not uniformly by plan option. The following are the major changes from the current plan year for the self-funded PEBP plans.

High-deductible (“consumer-driven”) health plan with Health Savings Account:

Increase the annual deductible from $1650/$3300 (individual/family) to $1700/$3400, the new IRS minimum for plans eligible for Health Savings Accounts.
Increase the annual out-of-pocket maximum from $4000/$8000 (individual/family) to $5000/$10000. This will increase the costs for the 7% to 10% of participants who meet the out-of-pocket maximum, after which coinsurance does not apply.
These changes decrease the expected actuarial value of the high-deductible plan from 79.0% to 77.0% (percent of covered charges paid by the plan, the remainder paid by the participants).

No action was taken on increasing the employer contributions to HSAs for the high-deductible plan to offset the higher deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, but that can still be considered at the January or March board meetings.

Low-deductible PPO health plan:

Increase the annual deductible from $0/$0 (individual/family) to $300/$600.
Increase the annual out-of-pocket maximum from $4000/$8000 (individual/family) to $5000/$10000.
These changes decrease the expected actuarial value from 85.1% to 83.0%.

Exclusive Provider Organization plan (northern Nevada):

Decrease the annual out-of-pocket maximum from $5000/$10000 (individual/family) to $4000/$8000.
This change increases the actuarial value from 88.7% to 89.1%.

These changes will make the three self-funded plan options more differentiated, with a larger range of actuarial values. Not considering medical inflation, these changes are expected to reduce the total plan expenditures by $4 to $5 million—by shifting charges to participants who are meeting the current deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums. The PEBP Board modified the actuary’s proposal to increase the out-of-pocket cost on the high-deductible plan even more to $6000/$10000. The high-deductible plan is already subsidizing the other two plan options. The new actuarial values will directly affect total plan rates and employee premiums, which will be determined at the March board meeting. Total rates scale with actuarial values, so significant changes in employee premiums for the three plan options are to be expected. The board also was presented with but did not act upon proposed changes to the employer contributions from flat-dollar amounts across to the three plan options to a system with employed contribution percentages varying by plan option and dependent tier, which would also significantly affect employee premiums for play year 2027. Further consideration is expected in January or March.

A new pharmacy coupon program for in-hospital drugs, promoted to save money for both the plan and patients, was approved. Diagnostic breast imaging and colonoscopies will be covered at 100% (as for preventive services). Prior authorizations will no longer be required for biopsies, MRIs, and dialysis. The Board considered but did not approve enhancements to vision benefits and restoration of long-term disability insurance.

In good news for state employees, Carson Tahoe Hospital and UMR have finally agreed to extend their contract for in-network services for PEBP participants through 7/30/2027.

Kent Ervin and Doug Unger provided public comments at the board meeting. Kent’s written comments, including a discussion of PEBP’s deficient reserve levels, are available at the https://pebp.nv.gov/Meetings/archived-board-meetings/PEBP website.

Submitted by Kent Ervin 12/23/2025

Regents Look to Change the Rules of Collective Bargaining Amid Negotiations with Four Institutions

Amy Pason — Thu, 04 Sep 2025 21:17:49 GMT

At the September Quarterly meeting, the Board of Regents will decide on proposed changes to Title 4, Chapter 4 of their Handbook that govern the right for academic and administrative faculty to collectively bargain. NFA has long criticized that this internal system means that management gets to make the rules we bargain under and then decides to approve contracts or not. This is one reason why we have been working to obtain collective bargaining rights in state law (as we tried again this past legislative session with AB 191 to do), so that faculty have a level playing field to negotiate.

The Regents voted to oppose AB 191 in the legislature, citing that complying with state granted rights and legal requirements (that other public state employees have in statute) would increase legal and other costs on NSHE (a claim NFA has refuted). Regents also justified that faculty do have the right to collectively bargain—under the Regents’ own rules in Title 4, Chapter 4 (T4C4). Even with the legislative set back of AB 191, the Regents have chosen this first Quarterly Board meeting under the new leadership of Chancellor Matt McNair along with Board of Regents Chair Byron Brooks and Vice Chair Stephanie Goodman to amend T4C4.

These changes come at a time when our colleagues at CSN and WNC have been in contract negotiations since November 2024, and when TMCC and NSU will be starting contract negotiations. In short, NSHE is changing the rules and processes by which negotiations occur in the middle of negotiations already taking place.

NSHE is also choosing to amend individual sections of T4C4 one by one, with, according to their own briefing paper, more proposed changes to come. This means more potential rule changes throughout the year, resetting and delaying contract negotiations further for our institutions. The piecemeal approach makes this problem worse by creating ongoing uncertainty—negotiating parties cannot know what other rule changes might be coming, making it impossible to negotiate in good faith or plan strategically.

The most troubling sections NSHE has proposed to update first are Sections 9 and 10 related to how contract items are funded—which constrains how and what faculty can negotiate for in the contract. Previously, Section 9 recognized that external funding (the state portion of our overall budgets) is part of the overall financial picture that negotiating parties on both sides should keep in mind. In the past, that means that faculty recognized those limitations and negotiated items that could be achieved through prioritizing other internal funds (student fees, etc.) that are under the control of the institution. If anything might require more funding, NSHE could then account for and factor contracts into their budget request to the legislature. The change in Section 9 assumes that all contract items that have costs have to be approved and funded by the State Legislature. Section 10 changes indicate that Regents cannot ratify contracts that do not have approved Legislative funding. Any item not funded by a legislative appropriation will be void and unenforceable (even if an institution might have the funds to internally provide it).

In NFA’s interpretation, we highlight the following problems with the changes in Section 9:

Section 9 fundamentally misapplies NRS 218D.430, which governs fiscal notes for legislative bills—not NSHE policies or collective bargaining agreements.
The language of this NRS sets a threshold of $2000 to seek legislative appropriation. This means institutions would have to seek legislative approval for routine contractual items. Suddenly previous items in contracts (first aid kits paid for by administration, professional development funds, compensation for extra work calculations, etc.) would all need legislative oversight.
This limits the ability of institutions to negotiate meaningfully on anything with the uncertainty of what could be (might be) funded by the legislature.
This change also contradicts the 2025 Legislature's directive for NSHE to address its own revenue sources. The Legislature specifically conditioned AB 568 funding (to bridge budget deficits from the previous biennium’s COLA) on NSHE increasing non-state revenues. The proposed changes do the opposite by forcing NSHE to seek legislative appropriations rather than consider how student fees or other revenues are currently allocated or to consider the need to raise fees as needed to address budget needs.
This forces contract negotiations to follow legislative session timetables instead of academic or contract cycles if they are dependent on legislative funding. If these changes pass, this means some contracts being negotiated now might not get ratified until after the 2027 legislative session.

NFA has consistently supported the right of faculty to collectively bargain; faculty retention and morale is higher when faculty have a say in their own working conditions as achieved through collective bargaining processes. NFA has also supported shared governance processes and seeking ways to have collegial negotiations with institution administration, based on known budget outlooks and conditions. The proposed changes to T4C4 would disrupt current and signal that Nevada is moving away from established labor rights, making our institutions less attractive to excellent faculty. At a time when Nevada's higher education needs to compete nationally for top talent, these changes send exactly the wrong message about our commitment to faculty stability and shared governance.

Higher Education Legislation of the 83rd Session

Amy Pason — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:43:48 GMT

Throughout the session, NFA was tracking bills that had any and all NSHE connections. Some bills (not listed here) were related to teaching or other professional licensure or practice compacts, or had very specific connections to specific programs (meat harvesting anyone?). We focused mostly on issues that impacted most institutions or that helped with educational access and attainment.

Notable bills that made it through the session include:

AB 153: Offers financial aid information and assistance with filling out the FAFSA for incarcerated persons.
AB 269: Student loan repayment for providers of health care in underserved communities.
AB 286: Establishes pilot programs for NSHE institutions to assess competencies of teachers using alternative licensure paths.
AB 289: “The Board of Regents may establish a course in financial literacy.” This single sentence bill indicates a curricular priority of the legislature. Most institutions testified in support as they already provide financial literacy education in some form (specific course at UNLV, programming in orientation weeks by other institutions, elective courses, etc.).
AB 345: Assemblymember Mosca’s constituent interest bill requires NSHE to develop policies around open education or low-cost course resources (a priority of NSHE student government leaders), study food insecurity issues experienced by students, and for NSHE to create data dashboards to track Nevada high school student success in NSHE institutions including whether they enroll in co-requisite courses, find employment after graduation, and completion rates.
AB 394: NSHE institutions must create emergency plans for addressing opioid overdoses. This type of program is already available at some institutions, so this would help bring similar resources to all institutions.
AB 462: Creates a Career Pathways Oversight Committee that includes NSHE members with one charge to evaluate dual enrollment programs offered by institutions; another part of the bill provides for financial aid and scholarships for teachers of dual enrollment programs to pursue graduate education in NSHE institutions.
SB 266: Providers of behavioral health services in underserved areas offered student loan repayment.
SB 293: Allows institutions to directly compensate student athletes for name, image, and likeness or enter into other contracts related to NIL with the athletes.
SB 406: NSHE cannot be sued for issues related to education delivered in Spring 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Governor Vetoes Bills Related to Freedom to Read and Research

Governor Lombardo issued a lot of vetoes this session, including other bills supported by NSHE and NFA. AB 416 would have prevented banning or labeling books in NSHE libraries that Regents found offensive and would have required a developing policy to prevent limiting access to library resources. The bill also had similar provisions for K-12 and public libraries and would require anyone who wants to ban a book to go to court to make this request. The Governor vetoed this bill on the basis that it takes decision making out of parents and school district hands. Notably, Regent Boylan stated in the June quarterly meeting that he was very opposed to this bill (as he claimed it was nasty towards Regents), and was glad of the veto.

Lombardo vetoed two bills that were specifically brought forth by UNLV students (SB 156) and initiated by UNLV faculty (AB 328). SB 156 would address gun violence prevention and education by allowing the Attorney General to receive funds and provide grants for research on gun violence and prevention. This bill was amended over the course of the session with gun rights advocates first opposed for the state funding anything that might highlight negative impacts of guns and then opposed that funding would come from outside groups (such as Moms Demand Action) to fund gun violence prevention research. Knowing this bill was initiated by UNLV students and would support research efforts, NFA supported. Similarly, AB 328 would create a commission to study the impact of race and discrimination in Nevada and offer policy recommendations. The bill was also later amended to include a different committee related to Juneteenth. The Governor vetoed this bill solely due to the Juneteenth committee as that included a provision that local governments that celebrate Juneteenth should contribute to a Juneteenth Educational and Economic Fund. We wonder if the Governor would have still allowed the Racial Justice Study Committee to move forward.

Still Debating NSHE as the 4th branch of government

A last-minute bill (AB 600) aimed to clarify that different state agencies and boards are directly under a specific branch of government even though they might live in different parts of state statute. NSHE is one of those agencies that does have its own constitutional provision, so by a ruling of the Nevada Supreme Court, NSHE does technically operate autonomously from the Executive branch. Although the bill would not affect NSHE’s status, because the Nevada Supreme Court had not directly ruled on other agencies, the Governor vetoed this bill worried that it might be unconstitutional (and, we guess, affirms he sees NSHE as a fourth branch of government?).

***

Articles in this series:

Legislative Wins for Public Employees in the 83rd Legislative Session

Amy Pason — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:33:45 GMT

This session was full of many election reform bills (most vetoed), education related bills (lots happening in that K-12 space), and public worker/labor related bills. Although there were not many successes for public sector workers (as there never are in bad budget years), there were a few notable wins:

AB 232: School district employees will now get a full year of credit towards their Public Employee Retirement Systems (PERS account) as long as they work 900 hours a year. For some education paraprofessionals or other workers (bus drivers, office administrators, etc.), their full workday might be less than 8 hours, so they previously only received a partial year credit.
SB 418: provides more mechanisms to collect delinquent PERS payments when agencies or schools do not pay their share. Charter schools have been one of the main culprits of delinquent payments, with some charter schools closing before they pay up on these accounts. Our own Kent Ervin gave notable testimony on this issue as covered in the Nevada Current.
AB 356: Changes the timelines for collective bargaining by public employee groups so that contracts can be finalized before the Governor finalizes the executive budget proposal. If the Governor cannot budget for the agreed upon contract terms, rationale also has to be provided. This should prevent problems as we saw this legislative session when bargaining agreements for AFSCME and other public workers were not approved until near the end of the legislative session and where the Governor did not include anything in the executive budget related to expected contract salary increases that might result from the negotiations. As we can attest, the Governor not anticipating outcomes of the CBA negotiations did not sit well with quite a few members of the Assembly Ways and Means committee.
AB 596: This bill funds appropriations for state public workers in collective bargaining units. Although the negotiations and approved contracts for these groups included cost of living and other funding asks, given the budget constraints, the state was not able to fund the full negotiated contract amounts. For these workers, they still will receive a small cost-of-living increase and retention bonuses. If NSHE faculty and professionals were in state-recognized bargaining units, we, too, might have been able to get contracted raises from the legislature. Without our collective bargaining rights in statute, we rely on NSHE and our institutions to budget in raises (as with merit pay).

One bill we aren’t really sure whether to see this as a full win is SB 161 that was brought forward by the Clark County Educators Association (CCEA). We should note that the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) was opposed to this bill in all its iterations as it leaves out different educator and education worker groups they represent. The bill was originally introduced as a compromise: instead of CCEA sponsoring a ballot initiative to make it legal for some K-12 teachers to go on strike, the bill initially limited strike rights to being court approved. It also changes processes related to arbitration to hopefully allow those to be resolved more quickly. Somehow the bill was amended to remove the court approval part, which basically allows some teachers and employee organizations representing teachers to engage in strikes, as long as they are not district wide. We’re still not sure how this one got signed by the Governor, but as these changes are now part of the same state law that covers all other public employee collective bargaining (where we are trying to get into), we will have to see how these provisions play out.

***

Articles in this series:

A Recap of the 83rd Legislative Session by the NFA Government Relations Team
The 83rd Legislative Session and the NSHE Budget: The Bills, Blow-Ups, and What Died
NFA's Report and Outlook on the 2025-2027 NSHE Budget
Higher Education Legislation of the 83rd Session
[PREVIOUS] The Board of Regents Vote to Suspend Merit for the Next Biennium
Legislative Wins for Public Employees in the 83rd Legislative Session
[NEXT] The Many Vetoed Collective Bargaining Bills by Governor Lombardo

The 83rd Legislative Session and the NSHE Budget: The Bills, Blow-Ups, and What Died

Amy Pason — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:22:09 GMT

As previously reported, the main NSHE budget (base and main enhancements) approved left funding mostly flat in comparison to the previous biennium. We avoided some of the negative budget impact proposed by the new funding formula (as that was not implemented) and the legislature did include the small institution factor funding and research space funding for our research institutions.

THe One-SHot APpropriations

The more positive budget news from this legislative session was extra one-shot appropriations added in addition to the Governor’s recommended one-shot appropriations benefiting institution infrastructure, specific education programs, and research. Some one-shots that really are continuing costs to our institutions (such as the salaries covered by cost-of-living increases) were initially in the base NSHE budget, but changed to one-shots to reconcile the Governor's original budget that came to the legislature with a $335M deficit.

In addition to the $11M campus safety funding (AB567) and COLA backfill funding AB568:, this included:

SB 498: Nursing Expansion: This continues the $10M/year to support nursing education at all our institutions. Additionally, the legislature amended it to add another $1.5M for WNC and $2.5M to NSU to support their facilities related to their nursing programs.
SB 427: NSHE Capital Improvement Projects: This bill began as planning funding for the UNR Life Sciences Building ($6.2M) and the UNLV Business Building ($6.2M), and the legislature amended it to add in $1.1M for WNC’s Observatory, $300K for CSN’s Northwest campus, $3.5M for TMCC building improvements, and $2.4M to GBC for building improvements and HVAC systems.
SB 119: NV Grow Program, $1.2M to CSN to continue to implement the program.
SB 486: $10.7M to the Promise Scholarship Account

Funding was also appropriated for grant funding related to the Youth Behavioral Risk Survey (AB 331); Funding for the UNLV Law School pro bono work (AB 476); Funding for NSHE programs offering degrees in behavioral health and wellness practitioners (SB 165); Graduate Medical Education grants (SB 262), DRI’s Cloud Seeding Program (SB6); UNLV Dental School funding for cleft and craniofacial care (SB280); and NSU license plates with proceeds going to athletics and student food and basic needs programs (SB181).

THe Blow-UP

We should note that although NSHE and institution lobbyists coordinate, they are not always in lockstep or fully sticking to the Regent approved funding priorities. As example, we watched AB 379 that would appropriate funds for CSN’s Northwest campus. Curiously, this bill only listed a $1 appropriation and passed out of Assembly Ways and Means with still that $1 appropriation. It was only during the Senate Finance hearing that the actual intent of the bill was made known. In the hearing, CSN VP of External Affairs Clarissa Cota asked to amend the bill to be a $500,000 appropriation and that the $1 appropriation was just a placeholder until end of session appropriations could be doled out. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Finance Committee were not very happy about this surprise (as you can see in the hearing here), and based on the other NSHE representative in the room in Carson City, they didn’t know this bill was still out there nor that they would do a surprise appropriate ask in the hearing. Although this particular $1 wonder bill died, CSN still got some appropriation in SB 427.

What Could Have Been (But Died in the Process)

Throughout the session, there were a number of other bills with financial benefits (or impacts) to NSHE that did not make it through the session. Those include:

SB 472: This bill would have increased the weighted-student-credit hour amounts adjusted for inflation and given additional appropriations to institutions with increased enrollments. This bill got lost in the 11th hour shuffle, where the Assembly tried to amend the bill to reduce appropriations and delay the implementation until 2026, but the Senate did not agree. As the clock struck midnight, this difference was not reconciled and the bill died
AB 397: This bill originally started out as just requiring fee waivers for homeless students, but later was amended to help standardize most of the current fee waivers offered by NSHE. The Native Student fee waiver was only amended to update some language on tribes eligible, but other waivers were all made to be “last dollar” waivers–meaning students would first apply any federal aid, scholarships, or grants before the waiver would be applied. The Governor vetoed this bill specifically because he did not want the “last dollar” provision to be applied to waivers related to veterans or the National Guard. This was one of two other fee waiver bill casualties of the session. SB 237 was a fee waiver for dependents of deceased first responders that never made it out of committee. AB 532 was the first bill to attempt standardizing fee waivers, which brought lots of opposition from tribal communities as it would reduce the current waiver provisions for them.
AB 139 never had a hearing, but would have provided funding to subsidize schools to pay for dual/concurrent enrollment programs. SB 181 (NSU’s license plate bill) also originally had language about appropriations for dual enrollment that was amended out.
SB 429 would have provided scholarships for those pursuing social work degrees, but this bill died early on in the session.

We note these failed bills only because we are sure that fee waiver bills will come up again next session, and certainly we can track other grant or scholarship programs proposed for different professional or degree areas.

***

Articles in this series:

[PREVIOUS] A Recap of the 83rd Legislative Session by the NFA Government Relations Team
The 83rd Legislative Session and the NSHE Budget: The Bills, Blow-Ups, and What Died
[NEXT] NFA's Report and Outlook on the 2025-2027 NSHE Budget
Higher Education Legislation of the 83rd Session
The Board of Regents Vote to Suspend Merit for the Next Biennium
Legislative Wins for Public Employees in the 83rd Legislative Session
The Many Vetoed Collective Bargaining Bills by Governor Lombardo

A Recap of the 83rd Legislative Session by the NFA Government Relations Team

Amy Pason — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:14:40 GMT

Just as our national organizations of AAUP and AFT advocate on behalf of all faculty on legislation, initiate lawsuits, and support faculty at member institutions, your membership in the Nevada Faculty Alliance also comes with advocacy for faculty at our Nevada State Legislature. Yes, NFA, you have lobbyists in Carson City!

This year we were working with an expanded team with Kent Ervin leading as our Legislative Director, Amy Pason as the chair of the state Government Relations Committee, and Doug Unger and Ian M. Hartshorn as co-Vice Chairs of the state NFA Government Relations Committee. With the addition of Amy and Ian this session, we are building capacity to be able to lobby for sessions to come.

Over the past 120 day session, we:

Testified at 80+ bill and budget hearings.
Met individually with legislators over 95 times.
Collaborated with other public employee and labor groups on legislation.
Coordinated with NSHE and institution lobbyists on shared priorities.
Handed out numerous one-pagers of legislative priorities, end-of-session priorities, and information specific to AB 191 and AB 188.
Sent weekly email updates to members signed up for legislative updates.
Sent action alerts related to bill hearings and Board of Regents meetings.
Wrote op-eds (This is Reno; the Nevada Independent) and press releases related to collective bargaining.
Analyzed data and created charts related to budget and benefits (you can review on NFA Headlines).
Enjoyed solidarity and strategizing at AFL-CIO sponsored events.

To sum up the 83rd Session, we offer:

The Good: Passage of mandatory Regent training, and one-shot money appropriations for our main priorities of campus safety and to backfill budget deficits from last session’s historic cost of living increases.
The Bad: Collective bargaining for NSHE professionals (faculty and graduate assistants) died in committee; bill to restore retiree health benefits for state public employees was gutted, passed both houses, but then vetoed.
The Ugly: Governor Lombardo breaks his own veto record, much of it targeted at pro-worker and pro-education legislation.

Our Legislative Wins:

SB 322 Regent Training was signed by the Governor on May 31, after unanimous support in both houses. Working with bill sponsor Senator Angie Taylor, we modeled this legislation after similar legislation for K-12 Boards of Trustees, and even helped facilitate adding bipartisan sponsorship with the addition of Assemblymember Alexis Hansen. Although the required training is minimal (open meeting law and anti-discrimination every other year), the bill also includes a list of other necessary topics and a reporting requirement to hold Regents accountable to this training.
AB567: $11M towards campus security funding. Following the events at UNLV, ensuring that all our institutions are safe for faculty, staff, and students has been a priority of our advocacy. This funding was part of the Governor’s recommended budget, and although not the full $38M requested by NSHE to meet safety needs, NFA advocated for this as our top one-shot funding priority.
AB568: NFA’s advocacy for the Regents to approve the historic 12% and 11% COLA raises last session meant that NSHE did have funding gaps to cover (as the legislature only funded around 60% of the total cost of those COLAs). Although we would have preferred the legislature to increase the NSHE base budget to make us whole from this increase, we advocated for the Governor’s recommended one-shot to help cover this continued budget gap in this biennium. We are grateful that the legislature provided this bridge funding and explicitly said it was for instruction and personnel costs.

Our Legislative Partial Win:

SB 494: Nevada Health Authority. One of the Governor’s priorities was to reorganize state health agencies to create the Nevada Health Authority that would oversee the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP), the Silver State Health Exchange, and Medicaid. As this reorganization impacted PEBP (and had provisions in the initial draft related to the composition and function of the PEBP Board), NFA worked with other PEBP stakeholder groups and the Nevada Health Authority to amend the bill to clarify the independence of the PEBP Board under this new structure. We also worked to include provisions related to customer satisfaction surveys and data collection to better understand retiree benefits and costs. The study components were also part of AB 188, so including them in SB 494 saved that part of the bill from the Governor’s veto pen.

The Work Yet to Do:

AB 191: After a successful hearing in the Assembly Government Affairs committee, our collective bargaining bill died waiting for a hearing in the Assembly Ways committee due to the inflated fiscal note submitted by NSHE. We heard that the Governor would have likely vetoed our bill (again) and is principally opposed to collective bargaining by graduate student workers. As noted below, the Governor used many of his vetoes on collective bargaining or worker benefit bills. If nothing else, we have now four sessions of practice with running this collective bargaining bill, and we’ll be ready to bring this bill back for the 84th session.
AB 188: After a lot of amending to take out the meat of the bill (that all state public employee retirees should have state subsidized health insurance as all pre-2011 hires have), the Governor vetoed the amended bill that merely helped current retirees by raising the cap on their HRA and giving a $1 raise to the state contribution to the HRA for these retirees. PEBP claimed they would need to raise their reserves related to allowing retirees to save more in their own HRAs–and apparently the Governor believed PEBP’s fiscal concerns over those of our retirees. AB188 was one of many last minute veto dumps, so this bill gets automatically reintroduced next session.

***

Articles in this series:

A Recap of the 83rd Legislative Session by the NFA Government Relations Team
[NEXT] The 83rd Legislative Session and the NSHE Budget: The Bills, Blow-Ups, and What Died
NFA's Report and Outlook on the 2025-2027 NSHE Budget
Higher Education Legislation of the 83rd Session
The Board of Regents Vote to Suspend Merit for the Next Biennium
Legislative Wins for Public Employees in the 83rd Legislative Session
The Many Vetoed Collective Bargaining Bills by Governor Lombardo

The Many Vetoed Collective Bargaining Bills by Governor Lombardo

Amy Pason — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:02:33 GMT

The Governor surpassed his own record veto tally from the last session with 87 vetoes. Unsurprisingly, a number of those vetoes were bills related to collective bargaining and workers. Most of the veto messages noted something about not burdening any business in these bad budget times, but even before the May Economic Forum projections, most of our labor allies were predicting vetoes from the Governor on these bills presuming the Governor is looking ahead on stances beneficial to his re-election campaign. Casualties of the veto pen include:

SB182: Would require certain staffing levels and health care provider to patient ratios in hospitals. The veto said this would not work without addressing health care worker shortages first.
SB 301: The right to collective bargaining for unclassified peace officer groups. This veto worried that other distinctions between unclassified and state classified system officers would also be challenged. This does not signal that the Governor would be open for other unclassified groups (like NSHE faculty and professionals) to gain collective bargaining rights under his watch.
SB 410: This bill would clarify that insurance benefits under collective bargaining agreements for local government employees also means dependent benefits. Lombardo vetoed this one because legislatively mandating subjects of bargaining “put the thumb on the scale” to the benefit of labor.
AB 155: Expands collective bargaining topics to include class size for K-12 groups; the veto message assumes this would require building new schools and be unfeasible.
AB 112: Allows use of sick leave to care for family members without retaliation; Lombardo said that this would mandate a benefit and disrupt collective bargaining negotiations.
AB 434: Prevents retaliation of employees who do not participate in meetings where political or religious views are promoted by the employer. The Governor was concerned about limiting free speech, even though the bill is clear it is just about not retaliating against employees who do not participate in such meetings.
AB 388: Would require employers with 50 or more employees to offer 12 weeks of paid family, medical, or safety leave; state workers currently receive 8 weeks of paid leave. This was one of the “no burden to businesses” veto messages, even though the bills would not go into effect for another two years.

The Governor’s veto arguments, especially against collective bargaining bills, echo a lot of what we heard in NSHE’s opposition to AB 191 (the right to collectively bargain for NSHE professions and graduate assistants). NSHE/Governor prefer limited mandated topics of bargaining because otherwise it get too complex; legislation should not allow the “thumb on the scale” in bargaining to be on the side of workers. Based on veto messages, we can also the Governor and NSHE also agree that we can’t affirm the rights of workers, because somehow that will impede the rights of management.

In the long list of vetoes (check out the Nevada Independent’s veto tracker), bills requiring prevailing wages for construction projects, workplace safety requirements, or mitigating heat or air quality hazards at work sites also got the veto treatment. We assume many of these bills will come back next session, so their chances of passing will be largely dependent on who is in the Governor’s Office.

***

Articles in this series:

A Recap of the 83rd Legislative Session by the NFA Government Relations Team
The 83rd Legislative Session and the NSHE Budget: The Bills, Blow-Ups, and What Died
NFA's Report and Outlook on the 2025-2027 NSHE Budget
Higher Education Legislation of the 83rd Session
The Board of Regents Vote to Suspend Merit for the Next Biennium
[PREVIOUS] Legislative Wins for Public Employees in the 83rd Legislative Session
The Many Vetoed Collective Bargaining Bills by Governor Lombardo

The Board of Regents Vote to Suspend Merit for the Next Biennium

Amy Pason — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:29:45 GMT

At the June 2025 Quarterly Board of Regents meeting, the Board voted to suspend the merit pay policy for the next biennium. Citing the continued cost of funding the historic COLAs awarded the previous biennium, institutional budget officers noted continued inability to address ongoing budget deficits and therefore inability to budget for merit increases with current revenue projections. NSHE noted that even with the one-shot state appropriations, this bridge funding would not be included in any increased state operating base budgets going forward. NSHE Chris Viton noted that all the institution budget officers were in agreement and had already agreed to this proposal before the NSHE Legislative Budget close. No institution President commented one way or the other about this agenda item. Similarly, this agenda item was not mentioned in the Chair of the Senate Chairs Council report.

NFA gave comment in the meeting that institutions should have come forward sooner to ask for suspension of the policy if they did not believe they had the budget for it; we pointed out that it was clear institutions made no effort to prioritize merit in their biennial budget planning (a point that Board Chair Carvalho underscored). There was some movement from Regents to look at this issue in case funding might allow for merit in fiscal year 2027, but without increases in student fees or some other revenue stream, faculty compensation might yet be left at the bottom of the priorities list.

NFA also addressed the Board regarding whether NSHE institutions could afford the 1% performance pay policy. AB568 provides $29 million/year in funding for the COLAs from FY2024 and FY2025. Caseload growth was funded except for a new inflation increment. The legislature appropriated $11.9 million/year for increased utilities costs which releases funds diverted from academic programs, and the state funded 100% of fringe rate increases. The extra 5% increase in student fees adds $16 million/year beginning in FY2025 is continuing, and scheduled increases in student fees add another $25 million/year for FY2027 and beyond. There are no faculty COLAs for FY2026 and FY2027. The current round of performance pay would cost about $7.4 million/year statewide in the state-supported budgets. A former chancellor once said a 1% salary adjustment was “budget dust”. Even while academic programs were cut and positions held vacant, the presidents managed to find money for Administrators–between November 2023 and November 2024 alone, NSHE executive and upper management compensation increased by about $6 million in excess of the 11% COLAs. So yes, NSHE can afford the 1% faculty merit pool. This is not a bad budget year that would require suspension of the merit policy, which was approved by the Regents to address salary compression and high faculty attrition. The Board decided to cancel faculty merit pay anyway.

NFA reminded the Regents that issues such as merit is not simply because faculty "deserve" it. As state employees, we see our pay decreased, benefits reduced, and benefits in retirement taken away to balance the state budget. Without advocating for our salary, we cannot plan for our futures.

***

Articles in this series:

A Recap of the 83rd Legislative Session by the NFA Government Relations Team
The 83rd Legislative Session and the NSHE Budget: The Bills, Blow-Ups, and What Died
NFA's Report and Outlook on the 2025-2027 NSHE Budget
[PREVIOUS] Higher Education Legislation of the 83rd Session
The Board of Regents Vote to Suspend Merit for the Next Biennium
[NEXT] Legislative Wins for Public Employees in the 83rd Legislative Session
The Many Vetoed Collective Bargaining Bills by Governor Lombardo

NFA's Report and Outlook on the 2025-2027 NSHE Budget

Kent Ervin — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:46:45 GMT

2025-2027 NSHE Budget Report and Outlook

The Nevada Faculty Alliance had a constant lobbying presence at the Legislature, advocating for higher education and NSHE professional employees. NFA worked diligently to advance shared budget goals in collaboration with the NSHE lobbying team, and we also advocated for professional employee compensation and rights. With the notable exceptions of the new funding formula being rejected and the failure to fund inflation adjustments to enrollment caseloads, NSHE came out very well in a difficult budget year.

Here we summarize the total appropriations for NSHE as well as instructional operating budgets by institution, and provide an analysis of implications for future NSHE budgets. (An end-of-session update on allof NFAs legislative priorities is also available.)

Highlights of the NSHE Budget

Overall, NSHE total state operating budgets are increasing in dollar amounts as shown in Table 1. The total appropriations will increase by 9.2% for FY2026 over FY2025, then be about flat in FY2027 (small decline partly due to lower fringe rates in the second year).

Table 1. NSHE Total Appropriations
Fiscal Year	State Appropriations	Year/Year Change
FY2024 (actual)	$816,736,844
FY2025 (budget)	$898,940,295	10.1%
FY2026 (operating appropriations)	$982,055,914	9.2%
FY2027 (operating appropriations)	$970,657,934	-1.2%
Sources: FY2025 NSHE Budget-to-Actual Report and FY2025 NSHE Operating Budget, including all state appropriations for operations. FY2026 and FY2027, NSHE general fund appropriations in AB591, plus individual appropriations in AB568 (COLA backfill), SB498 (Nursing and NSU), SB119 (CSN NV Grow), and AB596 (Classified compensation). Excludes capital improvement projects, deferred maintenance, and various indirect funding, grants, and student financial aid.

For comparison with total appropriations in prior years, Table 1 includes the total NSHE appropriations in AB591, plus the following individual appropriations: (1) AB568, backfill of the 12%+11% cost-of-living adjustments in FY2024+FY2025 up to 80% at $28.7 million/year, (2) SB498, continued Nursing education expansion at $10 million/year plus $2.5 million for NSU academic programs in North las Vegas, (3) SB119, for the NV Grow program at CSN, and (4) AB596, compensation for Classified employees with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), which were partially funded.

No cost-of-living adjustments were provided for NSHE faculty or other state employees not covered by collective bargaining agreements under NRS 288. For non-CBA employees, retention bonuses of $1000/year will be discontinued as of 7/1/2025 and the employee retirement contributions will increase from 17.5% to 19.25%, a 1.75% reduction in take-home pay. As a result, net take-home pay for faculty will decrease.

For the main instructional budgets of the seven colleges and universities, Figure 1 below shows state funding and student fee and tuition revenue per full-time-equivalent student, adjusted for inflation, from FY2007 through FY2027. Although state funding per student has recovered from the pandemic budget crisis, it is still significantly lower than before the Great Recession. Student registration fees have made up some but not all of the difference. Non-resident tuition revenue has suffered from decreasing out-of-state student enrollment recently.

Figure 1. State appropriations and student revenue per student FTE for the combined instructional budgets of the seven NSHE colleges and universities, FY2007 to FY2027.

COLA Backfill Funding

Notably, AB568 will provide $28 million per year in backfill funding for the 12%+11% COLAs awarded in FY2024 and FY2025, up to 80% per budget. This is a big win for NSHE, faculty, and students. This funding helps cover the budget mitigations made in FY2025 to cover the COLAs and other shortfalls: (1) the student fee and tuition increase by 5% or $16.2 million/year, which remains in effect, (2) faculty COLAs delayed by three months, a one-time savings of $19.3 million, and (3) positions held vacant or other budget cuts totaling $27.9 million/year. In addition, the regular inflationary increases in student fees will be 2.7% in FY2026 (about $8.7 million/year or more) and 5.2% in FY2027 ($16.8 million/year) based on the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), per the NSHE Predictable Pricing Program, for ongoing revenue of $25 million/year not counting enrollment growth. In addition, institutions with enrollment growth received caseload increases, totaling $22.8 million/year in base funding across NSHE. With the 80% COLA funding in AB568, the $11.9 million/year budget enhancement for increased energy costs, and the scheduled student fee increases, the institutions should be able to cover the 1% internal performance pay (merit) pool for faculty and fill open academic positions. It is time to restore academic programs!

However, AB568 also states that it is funding only for the next biennium and explicitly instructs NSHE to raise non-state revenue to cover these costs after FY2027. For the instructional budgets, that means the Legislature mandates the Board of Regents to raise student fees and tuition as necessary to continue the AB568 funding past FY2027. This should be done soon to give students time to plan ahead, but it is also time to reconsider the Predictable Pricing Program—a five-year future commitment on student fee increases is problematic given fast-changing economic conditions. Because of their lower percentages of state versus student funding, UNLV and UNR will require higher student fee increases than the other institutions.

Raising an addition $28 million/year from student fees and tuition alone would required roughly a 9% increase in per-credit fees and tuition. Since it is clear that the Legislature will only fund COLAs for the state-funded portion of NSHE budgets, a portion of future inflation-based increases in student fees should be reserved for COLAs and performance pay in the next budgeting process, not committed to other uses. The scheduled increases in student fees and tuition based on the Higher Education Price Index will be 4.0% in FY2028 and and 3.5% in FY2029.

Additional One-Shot Appropriations

Campus security, NFA’s top budget priority, received a $11 million one-shot appropriation in AB567. NSHE requested $38 million plus continuing funding of $7 million. SB498 continued the Nursing education expansion for two more years at $10 million/year. SB427 and SB498 provided $6.2 million each for UNLV and UNR for building planning and design, and a total of $11.0 million for other institutions for renovations and deferred maintenance.

In other funding related to NSHE, the Knowledge Fund, which provides research grants for NSHE, was continued at $2.5 million/year, rejecting an increase to $14.6 million/year in the Governor’s budget. A budget of $50 million/year for Graduate Medical Education largely from Medicaid funding was also rejected, but SB262 provides $4.5 million/year.

Employee Compensation

Governor Lombardo’s budget had zero cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for FY2026 and FY2027, and the Legislature did not award any across-the-board COLAs. Nor did the Legislature address the 1.75% increase in employee retirement contributions, which will result in a decrease in take-home pay for active employees on 7/1/2025, as described in a previous article on the history of COLA funding.

Unfortunately, NFA’s consistent advocacy for state employee compensation, including NSHE professional employees, to cover inflation and retirement contribution increases were unsuccessful. NSHE did not support these efforts, at least in public.

The lack of new COLAs for FY2026 and FY2027 undermines the historic but underfunded 12%+11% COLAs in 2023-2025. As shown in Figure 2, relative faculty take-home pay, adjusted for inflation, will fall to 19% below the level in FY2009 by the end of the next biennium, wiping out the gain from FY2025.

Figure 2. Net take-home pay based on legislatively funded COLAs, furloughs, cuts, average merit raise, and retirement contribution, adjusted for inflation (FY2009 = 100%).

AB596 will partially fund collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between the State and Classified employee bargaining units, including for NSHE Classified employees. However, the legislature provided no funding for COLAs or continuation of retention incentives for non-collective-bargaining employees. That shows legislative intent to increase compensation only for state employees in state collective bargaining units, at least when budgets are tight.

Therefore, NSHE would be better served with collective bargaining for professional employees in NRS 288, with negotiated CBAs channeled into the state budget on the same timeline as for Classifed CBAs as envisioned in AB356. For the state classified staff bargaining units, AB356 will place compensation increases in GovRec at the outset rather than waiting for crumbs at the end of the session. The Board of Regents opposed AB191, which would have established collective bargaining for NSHE professional employees, based in part on exaggerated fiscal impact estimates from NSHE legal counsel, but that decision will turn out to be short-sighted.

Another NFA priority was AB188 which, if signed by the Governor, will modestly improve retiree health benefits for state employees hired before 2012. Unfortunatley, the main provision to restore retiree health benefits for post-2011 state hires was amended out to move the bill forward in the face of an exaggerated fiscal note from the Public Employees Benefits Program. Our public employee partners worked with NFA on behalf of AB188, but neither NSHE nor faculty senate representatives testified.

There is No Funding Formula

The “old” resident Weighted Student Credit Hour (WSCH) distribution formula was suspended by the Legislature in 2023. The new funding formula recommended by the interim Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding was rejected by the 2025 Legislature, with or without hold-harmless funding for UNLV and UNR. Legislators found decreases to UNLV and UNR to add funds for community colleges unpalatable, but also were unwilling to provide new funding to hold them harmless. The last time instructional funding was redistributed based on enrollment data was in the 2021 session using the 2019-2020 count year. WSCHs are still used for enrollment caseload adjustments and the Small Institution Funding, remnants of the old formula. Figure 3 shows the history of the dollar value per WSCH adjusted for inflation. The real value per WSCH has declined, meaning lower resources per course taught.

Figure 3. Dollar value of appropriations per Weighted Student Credit Hour (WSCH) from FY2024 to FY2027, in FY2025 dollars.

B+M+E Funding Mechanism

So how are budgets determined? With no funding formula for redistribution among the seven educational institutions, all NSHE budgets including the professional schools and other non-formula programs are funded through a Base + Maintenance + Enhancement process.

The Base budget is the current-year (FY2025) legislatively approved appropriations with adjustments for (the state-funded portion of) COLAs but excluding one-time appropriations.

Then there are “Maintenance” adjustments, including changes in WSCHs at each institution between the count year (2023-2024 this time) and the prior count year (2021-2022) totaling $22.8 million per year, the WSCH component of the Small Institution Factor, and changes in research space square footage at UNLV and UNR. Those are remnants of the old formula. There are also statewide Maintenance items, for changes in fringe benefit rates including PEBP and retirement contributions ($55.2 million for the biennium), for example, which are still funded at 100% from the General Fund.

Finally, there are proposed budget “Enhancements”. GovRec initially included Enhancements for (1) increased costs of utilities at $11.9 million per year statewide; (2) phased-in implementation of the new funding formula at 20% in FY2026 ($4.1 million ) and 40% in FY2027 ($8.8 million) including hold-harmless funding for UNLV and UNR; (3) funding the 12%+11% COLAs from 2023-25 up to 80% per budget account ($27 million/year); and (4) increasing the enrollment caseload adjustment per WSCH from $173.29 to $208.99 to account for the state-funded portion of COLAs for FY2025 ($4.5 million/year). Because Governor Lombardo’s initial budget had a structural deficit, against state law, the Governor’s Finance Office submitted amendments to shift the funding to address past COLAs, (3) and (4), from continuing appropriations to one-shot funding.

At the 5/5/2025 NSHE budget closing, the only Enhancement approved was the utilities funding, which releases program funding that had to be diverted to pay increased energy costs. There will be no implementation of the new formula, with or without hold-harmless provisions. The funding of past COLAs up to 80% per budget was funding through AB568 as a one-shot, but the adjustment of the WSCH caseload amounts for inflation in SB472 failed to pass on the final day of the legislature.

Table 2 compares state appropriations for the seven main instructional operating budgets. This includes the one-shot appropriations in AB568, SB498, and SB119 that are part of institutional operating budgets, for comparison with prior years including such appropriations.

Table 2. State Appropriated Revenue in State-Supported Instructional Operating Budgets
Inst.	FY2024 (actual)	FY2025 (budget)	FY2026 (appropriated)	Change FY2026 /FY2025	FY2027 (appropriated)	Change FY2027 /FY2026
UNLV	$233,991,397	$253,973,037	$292,498,010	15.2%	$288,384,659	-1.4%
UNR	$160,582,630	$173,121,548	$193,434,516	11.7%	$192,345,962	-0.6%
NSU	$32,863,186	$38,814,685	$41,814,624	7.7%	$40,550,038	-3.0%
CSN	$117,591,040	$125,133,833	$131,856,661	5.4%	$128,988,603	-2.2%
GBC	$17,101,283	$18,105,687	$19,151,905	5.8%	$19,110,767	-0.2%
TMCC	$39,918,718	$42,777,073	$50,339,778	17.7%	$49,485,194	-1.7%
WNC	$16,053,002	$19,333,255	$21,890,862	13.2%	$21,883,931	0.0%
Total	$618,101,256	$671,259,118	$750,986,355	11.9%	$740,749,153	-1.4%

An expanded version of Table 2 including student fees, tuition, and other non-state revenue is available.

Ramifications of No Formula

Because no enrollment-based formula is being applied to the main instructional budgets for the seven NSHE colleges and universities, funding per student or per credit hours will diverge as enrollments change over time. Figure 4 shows the state operating budgets per full-time-equivalent student for each of the institutions from FY2007 through FY2027. The resident WSCH formula was implemented in FY2014 and continued through FY2022. It was successful in bringing per-student funding in alignment for like institutions (the comprehensive universities, UNR & UNLV; the community colleges, CSN, GBC, TMCC & WNC; and the single “state college”, NSU). Unfortunately, that was accomplished by bringing per-student funding down to a lower common denominator. But since the WSCH formula was abandoned in 2023, the funding per student between similar institutions has started to diverge again.

Compared with either the old WSCH distribution formula or the new formula with a student-based component that was rejected, UNLV and UNR benefit at the expense of the community colleges. The solution in an increase in overall funding for a student-based component along with WSCHs.

Figure 4. State appropriation per average annual full-time-equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for the main instructional budgets from FY2007 to FY2027, for UNLV, UNR, and NSU (top) and the four community colleges (bottom).

Outlook

With no funding formula in place, a legislative mandate to increase student fees, and no COLAs in 2025-2027 for faculty, NSHE has significant budgetary challenges ahead, but the outcome of the 2025 legislative session was positive overall. NFA will continue to push for collective bargaining as a means to promote faculty recruitment and retention and guarantee employment rights.

***

Articles in this series:

Update 6/11/2025: Governor Lombardo signed AB567, AB568, and SB498 on June 9. SB119 and AB596 were signed on June 10. Corrections to bill numbers and dollar amounts.

Updated 6/13/2025 to add information about scheduled future student fee increases. Table 2 corrections with final bill signings. Added information about savings from the cancellation of faculty performance pay raises for FY2026 and FY2027.

Legislative Update: The Final Days

Kent Ervin — Fri, 30 May 2025 21:27:08 GMT

Your NFA Government Relations Team has been hard at work all session to advance the interests of NSHE professional employees. Our legislative and budget priorities and advocacy have been consistent.

We may be too busy in the final hours of the session for details, but we are updating the progress, or lack of progress, of bills and funding in our "End-of-Session Priorities" document. [6/13/2025: Document updated with final actions including vetoes.]

NSHE Budget Update

Kent Ervin — Thu, 08 May 2025 16:04:45 GMT

NSHE Budget Update and Explanation

[End-of-session Budget Report and Outlook now available]

The NSHE budget closings at the Legislature were held on May 5, 2025. The money committees made changes to the Governor’s recommended Executive Budget (GovRec) and set the NSHE operating budgets for the coming year, although there are some decisions still to be made. The difficult overall state budget situation is discussed in a separate article.

Bottom lines: NSHE budgets are largely static after considering inflation and enrollment growth and remain lower than before the Great Recession. No cost-of-living adjustments are in the budgets, but could be added later. The new instructional funding distribution formula recommended by the interim committee is not being implemented, which means that the needs identified for per-student funding for wrap-around services are not being addressed—more changes may be coming in the next session. There are still decisions to be made, including cost-of-living adjustments and appropriations for campus safety. NFA will continue advocating on behalf of our members through the end of the session.

Highlights of the NSHE Budget

Overall, NSHE state operating budgets are increasing in dollar amounts as shown in Table 1. As explained in more detail below, however, resources are flat or declining after considering inflation and enrollment growth.

Table 1. NSHE Total State Appropriations
Fiscal Year	State Appropriations	Year/Year Change
FY2024 (actual)	$816,736,844
FY2025 (budget)	$898,940,295	10.1%
FY2026 (May 5 budget closing)	$939,784,293	4.5%
FY2027 (May 5 budget closing)	$927,881,926	-1.3%
Sources: FY2024 NSHE Budget-to-Actual Report and FY2025 NSHE Operating Budget, including all state appropriations and state-funded COLAs. FY2026 and FY2027, NSHE budget closing on May 5 before any additional one-shot appropriations.

The overall appropriation increase of 3.2% by FY2027 over FY2025 will partially cover inflation (before potential one-shot appropriations and statewide COLAs), but provide no extra relief.

Figure 1. State appropriations and student revenue per student FTE for the combined instructional budgets of the seven NSHE colleges and universities, FY2007 to FY2027.

The legislature is funding the Small Institution Funding for GBC and WNC, augmented as recommended by the interim formula funding committee but phased in at 20% in FY2026 and 40% in FY2027.

Items Still to be Decided

The NFA continues to advocate for members on remaining budget issues.

Campus safety, one of NFA’s top budget priorities, has a $11 million one-shot appropriation in GovRec that is still to be considered. NSHE requested $38 million plus continuing funding of $7 million.

Governor Lombardo’s budget has zero cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for FY2026 and FY2027. COLAs could still be approved near the end of the session, but the budget outlook is dim. There is a possibility that the Legislature could address the 1.75% increase in employee retirement contributions, which, if left unaddressed, will result in a decrease in take-home pay for active employees on 7/1/2025, as described in a previous article on the history of COLA funding. NFA advocates for COLAs for state employees to cover inflation and the increased retirement contributions.

Budget enhancements to fund NSHE for the historic but underfunded 12%+11% COLAs in 2023-2025 up to 80% per budget can still be considered as one-shot appropriations per the Governor’s amended budget. However, legislative leadership has expressed skepticism about funding these continuing costs as one-shot appropriations. NFA will continue to push for action to address the budget cuts created by underfunded COLAs. For the instructional operating budgets, student fee and tuition increases of 2.7% in FY2026 and 5.2% in FY2027 are slated and will help fill the gap from the large COLA increases in FY2024 and FY2025 that were funded only for the portion of the budgets from the state general fund appropriations. (Institutional breakdowns are discussed below.)

The expansion of nursing instruction funded at $10 million/year in 2023 would need a renewed one-shot appropriation to continue.

There is No Funding Formula

The “old” resident Weighted Student Credit Hour (WSCH) distribution formula was suspended in 2023. The new funding formula recommended by the interim Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding was rejected by the Legislature, with or without hold-harmless funding for UNLV and UNR. Legislators found decreases to UNLV and UNR to add funds for community colleges unpalatable, but also were unwilling to provide new funding to hold them harmless. The last time instructional funding was redistributed based on enrollment data was in the 2021 session using the 2019-2020 count year. WSCHs are still used for enrollment caseload adjustments and the Small Institution Funding, remnants of the old formula. Figure 2 shows the history of the dollar value per WSCH adjusted for inflation. The real value per WSCH has declined, meaning lower resources per course taught.\

Figure 2. Dollar value of appropriations per Weighted Student Credit Hour (WSCH) from FY2024 to FY2027.

B+M+E Funding Mechanism

So how are budgets determined? With no funding formula for redistribution among the seven educational institutions, all NSHE budgets including the professional schools and other traditionally non-formula programs are funded through a Base + Maintenance + Enhancement process.

The Base budget is the current-year (FY2025) legislatively approved appropriations with adjustments for (the state-funded portion of) COLAs but excluding one-time appropriations.

Then there are “Maintenance” adjustments, including changes in WSCHs at each institution between the count year (2023-2024 this time) and the prior count year (2021-2022) totaling $22.8 million per year, the WSCH component of the Small Institution Factor, and changes in research space square footage at UNLV and UNR. Those are remnants of the old formula. There are also statewide Maintenance accitems, for changes in fringe benefit rates including PEBP and retirement contributions ($55.2 million for the biennium), for example, which are still funded at 100% from the General Fund.

Finally, there are proposed budget “Enhancements”. GovRec initially included Enhancements for (1) increased costs of utilities at $11.9 million per year statewide; (2) phased-in implementation of the new funding formula at 20% in FY2026 ($4.1 million ) and 40% in FY2027 ($8.8 million) including hold-harmless funding for UNLV and UNR; (3) funding the 12%+11% COLAs from 2023-25 up to 80% per budget account ($28.7 million/year); and (4) increasing the enrollment caseload adjustment per WSCH from $173.29 to $208.99 to account for the state-funded portion of COLAs for FY2025 ($4.7 million). Because Governor Lombardo’s initial budget had a structural deficit, against state law, the Governor’s Finance Office submitted amendments to shift the COLA funding, (3) and (4), from continuing appropriations to one-shot funding.

At the 5/5/2025 NSHE budget closing, the only Enhancement approved was the utilities funding, which will release program funding that had to be diverted to pay increased energy costs. There will be no implementation of the new formula, with or without hold-harmless provisions. The funding of past COLAs up to 80% could still be considered as one-shot appropriations.

Table 2 compares state appropriations for the seven main instructional operating budgets. Note that the FY2024 & FY2025 values include various one-time appropriations, such as pandemic enrollment recovery funds and the Nursing expansion, while any one-shots that might be approved this session are not yet included for FY2026 & FY2027.

Table 2. State Appropriations for Instructional Operating Budgets
	FY2024 (actual)	FY2025 (budget)	FY2026 (May 5 budget closing)	FY2026 /FY2025	FY2027 (May 5 budget closing)	FY2027 /FY2026
UNLV	$233,991,397	$253,973,037	$278,254,217	9.6%	$274,141,016	-1.5%
UNR	$160,582,630	$173,121,548	$181,186,466	4.7%	$180,025,789	-0.6%
NSU	$32,863,186	$38,814,685	$37,363,532	-3.7%	$36,095,000	-3.4%
CSN	$117,591,040	$125,133,833	$128,147,482	2.4%	$125,168,672	-2.3%
GBC	$17,101,283	$18,105,687	$18,469,845	2.0%	$18,423,338	-0.3%
TMCC	$39,918,718	$42,777,073	$49,388,135	15.5%	$48,512,158	-1.8%
WNC	$16,053,002	$19,333,255	$21,279,852	10.1%	$21,272,354	0.0%
Total	$618,101,256	$671,259,118	$714,089,529	6.4%	$703,638,327	-1.5%
Sources: FY2025 NSHE Budget-to-Actual Report and FY2025 NSHE Operating Budget, including all state appropriations. FY2026 and FY2027, NSHE budget closings on May 5 before any additional one-shot appropriations.

An expanded version of Table 2 including student fees, tuition, and other non-state revenue, along with data on the allocation of registration fees by institution, is available.

Ramifications of No Formula

Because no enrollment-based formula is being applied to the main instructional budgets for the seven NSHE colleges and universities, funding per student or per credit hours will diverge as enrollments change over time. Figure 3 shows the state operating budgets per full-time-equivalent student for each of the institutions from FY2007 through FY2027. The resident WSCH formula was implemented in FY2014 and continued through FY2022. It was successful in bringing per-student funding in alignment for like institutions (the comprehensive universities, UNR & UNLV; the community colleges, CSN, GBC, TMCC & WNC; and the single “state college”, NSU). Unfortunately, that was accomplished by bringing per-student funding down to a lower common denominator. But since the WSCH formula was abandoned in 2023, the funding per student for similar institutions has started to diverge again.

Figure 3. State appropriation per average annual full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment for the seven main instructional budgets from FY2007 to FY2027.

The Final Days

Starting May 12, the budget committees are expected to start considering bills that implement budget decisions and one-shot appropriations in GovRec. Other bills that have fiscal notes will be last in line, if heard at all before the regular session ends on June 2l. The further erosion of the state budget by federal policies, including cuts to Medicaid funding, may require a special session later in the year. Drastic changes in federal funding of state-administered programs could endanger funding for higher education.

Updated 5/9/2025 with dollar amounts for Maintenance and Enhancement budget items, and to correct the purpose of the WSCH dollar-amount increase to account for FY2025 state-funded COLAs (not up to 80%). Updated 5/12/2025 with link to expanded Table 2 and additional information on student registration fee allocations to operating budgets.

State Budget Update

Kent Ervin — Mon, 05 May 2025 00:10:07 GMT

State Budget Update after the May 1 Economic Forum Forecast

The Nevada Economic Forum issued its final General Fund revenue forecast for the 2025-2027 biennium on May 1. Expected General Fund revenue decreased by $191 million compared with the December 2024 forecast, but the total budget impact including FY2025 and the State Education Fund could be as much as $568 million. That’s out of a biennial budget of about $21 billion. This article provides some background and additional detail on the state budget situation. The NSHE budget closing is discussed in a separate article.

Figure 1 shows the history of Economic Forum forecasts compared with actual revenue. The Economic Forum underestimates future revenue most often, except they did not anticipate the recessions in 2008-2009 and 2020. This session is the first time since the 2007 session that the May forecast has been less optimistic than the December forecast, which means the legislature must reduce spending from the Governor’s Recommended Executive Budget (GovRec) from January, which was based on the December forecast.

Figure 1. Economic Forum revenue forecasts from FY2006 to FY2027. December forecasts for the next biennium (blue patterned columns), May forecasts of the next biennium (solid orange bars), and actual revenue (black line).

In absolute dollars, the available funds for 2025-2027 are still increasing over 2023-2025, by about 2.6% per year. However, as shown in Figure 2, when adjusted for inflation and population growth (estimated at 2.5% and 1.9%, respectively, for FY2025 to FY2027) the available real revenue per person is decreasing--it has never recovered to the levels before the Great Recession and is now dropping below pre-pandemic levels.

Figure 2. Economic Forum revenue forecasts from FY2006 to FY2027, adjusted for inflation and population growth. December (blue patterned columns) and May forecasts of the next biennium (solid orange bars), and actual revenue (black line). *FY2025-FY2027: inflation estimated at 2.5%, population growth at 1.9%.

The lower revenue forecast, as detailed by the Nevada Independent and Nevada Current, is mainly due to lower economic and tourist activity because of tariffs, federal funding reductions, and other actions of the Trump administration. The erratic policies coming out of Washington are making all forecasts highly uncertain.

The General Fund is not the only budget that must be balanced. The State Education Fund (SEF) receives revenues from a variety of dedicated taxes as well as appropriations from the General Fund. The State Education Fund was created in its present form in 2021-2023 and is not included in Economic Forum forecasts, but the Nevada Independent obtained the May 2023 forecast by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Comparing that forecast of non-General Fund revenue with the Pupil-Centered Funding Plan Account in GovRec, as shown in Table 1, suggests shortfalls of $183 million for FY2025 and $212 million for the 2025-2027 biennium (vs about $200 million and $160 million, respectively, as reported by the Nevada Independent).

Table 1. Pupil-Centered Funding Plan Account (GovRec vs May 1 Forecast)
	FY2024 Actual	FY2025 Projected	FY2026 Forecast	FY2027 Forecast	TOTAL
General Fund Appropriation	$1,187,446,261	$1,487,995,964	$1,605,397,182	$1,524,854,793
Other Revenues Dedicated to Education (per GovRec)	$4,251,063,621	$4,261,465,701	$4,321,863,115	$4,493,003,499
TOTAL	$5,438,509,882	$5,749,461,665	$5,927,260,297	$6,017,858,292

Other Revenues Dedicated to Education (May 1 LCB Forecast)	$4,251,063,621	$4,078,421,600	$4,217,315,000	$4,385,677,000
Change in Other Revenues	$0	-$183,044,101	-$104,548,115	-$107,326,499	-$394,918,715

The one brighter spot in the Economic Forum forecast was an increase in projected General Fund revenue of $17.9 million for FY2025, the current fiscal year. Excess revenue from FY2024 and FY2025 may be used for one-shot appropriations (much of it already allocated). Combining the forecast changes for the General Fund and State Education Fund for FY2025, FY2026, and FY2027 gives a reduction of as much as $568 million. For the 2025-2027 biennium, the forecasted reduction to the General Fund is from $12.433 billion to $12.242 billion (1.5%) and the reduction to the State Education Fund is from $8.814 billion to $8.603 billion (2.4%). Nevertheless, both are still projected to increase over actual revenue during the 2023-2025 biennium, but only by 1.7% and 3.3%, respectively.

The budget committees, Assembly Ways & Means and Senate Finance, have been anticipating shortfalls and have been trimming agency budgets from GovRec. It’s nearly impossible to keep a tally, but the Nevada Independent reported about $130 million in cuts as of the end of April. That includes a NSHE-related items $29 million from the Knowledge Fund. On May 1 during the capital improvements budget closing, reductions of a net $141 million from the General Fund were made, mainly by shifting maintenance items to General Obligation Bond funding. During the May 2 NSHE budget closing, the implementation of the new funding formula in GovRec was cancelled, saving $13 million. That gives a total of roughly $284 million in cuts so far, exceeding the $191 million needed for FY2026 and FY2027 for the General Fund alone. However, the K-12 education budget closings are on May 8 and 9 and general funds may be needed to compensate for the shortfalls in the State Education Fund.

The Governor’s recommended budget included large new outlays upwards of $500 million for various programs that have yet to be considered by legislative committees, including education, housing and economic development. Legislative leaders have their own ideas. Conversations will continue through the end of the session.

None of this discussion accounts for potential future federal cuts to Medicaid or other essential services or for cuts made by Trump/Musk/DOGE to various programs including Nevada Humanities, AmeriCorps, public broadcasting, and university research grants. There will likely be additional pressure on the state to provide lifelines to many deserving organizations.

Nevada Board of Regents vote against collective bargaining rights

State Board — Sat, 26 Apr 2025 03:16:15 GMT

At the April 24, 2024, special meeting of the Board of Regents, the Board voted 8-4 to oppose AB 191, which would enshrine the right to collectively bargain in state law for Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) faculty, graduate assistants, and other professional staff. NSHE professionals comprise the largest group of state public employees without collective bargaining rights in statute. To say NFA is disappointed in this outcome is an understatement as this signals that the majority on the Board are opposed to collective bargaining even as they noted “gaps” in current processes that leave workplace conflicts unresolved for both faculty and graduate assistants.

During over 1.5 hours of oral public comments and in written public comments, over 50 graduate assistants and faculty members spoke passionately for the need for collective bargaining to improve employment conditions for academic workers.

Amy Pason, Chair of the NFA Government Relations Committee, stated, “It is ironic that the Regents both decried that problems have gone on so long for both graduate assistants and faculty that we have been advocating for collective bargaining rights for four legislative sessions, but then for Regents to oppose the bill based on not having resources to adequately address workplace harassment and complaints.”

The Regents who voted to oppose AB 191 cited the high fiscal note created by NSHE, and that their fiduciary responsibility demanded them to oppose a bill that would cost the System money in an uncertain budget year. Interim Chancellor Charlton said in the meeting that she stands by the fiscal note even though NFA has documented and rebutted what we see as inflated and unnecessary costs.

Charlton noted that to be able to implement the provisions in AB 191, even if no new bargaining units formed immediately, NSHE would need additional lawyers specializing in labor law to be ready to negotiate any new contracts. NSHE says they need additional human resources personnel to be able to train supervisors on worker’s rights, to onboard new professionals and instruct them on their rights and procedures, and then to be able to address workplace complaints as, for units with bargaining agreements, AB 191 expands the scope of grievance and give access to formalized grievance procedures than what is currently provided for in NSHE policy.

Co-Vice Chair of the NFA Government Relations Committee, Ian M. Hartshorn stated, “This response from NSHE is precisely why we need collective bargaining in the first place. After dozens of public comments about the failure of existing systems and policies, their response was to argue workers should continue to use the same systems and policies.” He added, “NSHE’s lawyers believe that collective bargaining is too costly, we believe the status quo is. Collective bargaining is effective and necessary.”

NFA has noted that NSHE is likely to save money on costly litigation and pay outs from conflicts that escalate. They argue that collective bargaining agreements and access to a third-party arbiter when needed better address workplace grievances.

Kent Ervin, NFA Director of Government Relations, who has worked on NFA’s collective bargaining bill for the last four sessions, underscored that the current internal NSHE policy for collective bargaining applies only for a limited group of faculty to bargain under limited conditions. Ervin argued, “With collective bargaining for faculty only allowed through an internal policy of the Board of Regents, NSHE management and management lawyers control the interpretation and the ground rules for bargaining. That is a clear conflict of interest. ”

Although NSHE Deputy General Counsel Carrie Parker noted differences between AB191 and NSHE’s internal regulations at the meeting, NSHE has not submitted amendments to correct any deficiencies it perceives in AB191. The Board of Regents has now taken a position in opposition to AB191 without seeking amendment, even if the bill is revised to include a funding appropriation when it is heard by the Assembly Committee on Ways & Means.

NFA maintains that NSHE professionals deserve equal rights to other state public employees and only AB 191 can achieve that.

NFA urges Regents to support collective bargaining bill

Jim New — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 15:02:12 GMT

The NFA is urging members of the Board of Regents to support Assembly Bill 191 (AB191), the Collective Bargaining for NSHE Professionals bill, at their special meeting on April 24th. The bill seeks to give more than 7,200 education professionals in the Nevada System of Higher Education - the single largest group of public employees in Nevada without collective bargaining rights in state law - the same protections as their state coworkers.

On April 18th, NFA's Government Relations Committee sent the following letter to members of the Board of Regents, NSHE administrators, and student and faculty leaders:

Dear Chair Carvalho, Vice Chair Downs, and Regents:

AB191, the bill to establish collective bargaining procedures for NSHE professional employees in state law, will be discussed at the Board of Regents meeting on April 24, 2025.We urge you to take a position in Support of the billor else instruct the Chancellor to remain Neutral.

AB191 establishes the same processes for collective bargaining for NSHE professional employees as for other Nevada public employees and their management, including Classified staff at NSHE. AB191 does not add any new bargaining units or any immediate costs. It gives faculty legal protections that only the legislature can provide; for example, access to the state Government Employee–Management Relations Board for resolution of contract issues, which is faster and less expensive than litigation. The provisions in AB191 for arbitration of grievances as a final appeal would also provide savings over litigation.

For your review, the Nevada Faculty Alliance has provided the following information on AB191:

Fact Sheet on AB191, including studies showing that faculty unionization is associated with higher institutional efficiency and better student outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions on AB191, addressing issues raised at the March Board meeting and in the board packet for April 24.
Fiscal Impact Analysis, addressing NSHE’s fiscal note on AB 191 that requests 7 new attorneys and 13 other staff. These are highly exaggerated needs—the state has 12 bargaining units for 19,000 Classified employees but only has 2 attorneys and 4 other staff in its Labor Relations Unit to handle negotiations and contract administration.
Section-by-Section Description of AB191, with references to sections of NRS 288 that are mirrored in the bill.

NSHE already has collective bargaining units for faculty at CSN, NSU, TMCC, and WNC under the internal regulations in the Handbook, Title 4 Chapter 4 (T4C4). However, T4C4 last had a major update in 1990 and does not reflect actual current practice.

It is time that NSHE professionals have the same rights for collective bargaining as our Classified colleagues. Thank you for your consideration of AB191.

Best regards,

Dr. Kent M. Ervin
Director of Government Relations and Past President
Nevada Faculty Alliance
kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org
775-453-6837

NFA State Board Elections Underway

State Board — Fri, 18 Apr 2025 15:05:19 GMT

Voting for officers on the Nevada Faculty Alliance's State Board begins on April 18, 2025. All NFA members in good standing will receive a ballot via email from ElectionBuddy.com. Voting will remain open until May 2nd. The newly-elected officers will take office on June 1st and serve two-year terms.

Candidate statements are provided below.

Office: President
Candidate: Staci Walters, College of Southern Nevada

To all of my NSHE colleagues, I am honored to run for President of our Nevada Faculty Alliance. For nearly eight years, I’ve had the privilege of serving on the NFA State Board in several roles—Secretary, CSN-NFA Chapter President proxy, and State Collective Bargaining Chair—working in partnership with faculty statewide to strengthen our voice, defend our rights, and build a more empowered higher education community in Nevada.

At the College of Southern Nevada, I’ve served as CSN-NFA Vice President, Membership Chair, and Collective Bargaining Chair, and I’m currently Lead Negotiator on our third collective bargaining agreement. Through strong teamwork and member engagement, we’ve secured tangible wins—raising faculty salaries, protecting due process rights, and achieving significant salary increases for new hires. Over the past eight years, we’ve also grown our chapter’s membership by nearly 30%, showing the power we have when we organize together.

I’m running for NFA President because I believe the challenges we face—both here in Nevada and across the country—demand coordinated, statewide leadership rooted in collaboration and shared purpose. Academic and administrative faculty alike are experiencing growing pressure from shifting federal policies, including the proposed elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, sweeping changes to Title IX, and deep cuts to research funding. These attacks are part of a broader movement to undermine public higher education, weaken faculty voice, and destabilize our institutions.

We must be proactive and united in our response.

As NFA President, my goals include:

Growing statewide membership, with an emphasis on advocacy chapters at UNLV, UNR, GBC, and DRI, to build power and move more campuses toward collective bargaining rights.
Supporting local chapters through membership drives, organizing efforts, and training from our national affiliates, tailored to each chapter’s unique needs.
Expanding collective bargaining to more faculty across the state—because when we bargain together, we win together.
Advocating for academic freedom, fair compensation, and job security—especially as national forces threaten these core values.
Embedding transparency and accountability both within NSHE and within our own organization, so we can better serve all faculty.
Elevating the voices of both academic and administrative faculty, recognizing that all of us play a critical role in shaping the future of Nevada’s higher education system.

Now more than ever, we need to stand together—to defend what we’ve built, to fight for what we deserve, and to ensure that Nevada remains a place where faculty are respected, supported, and empowered.

I ask for your vote, and more importantly, for your partnership as we continue this vital work together.

Office: Vice President
Candidate: Andrew Lavengood, Nevada State University

I am currently finishing my term as Vice President of Membership & Organizing for NFA-NSU. During my past 2 years in this role, I successfully organized and led a collective bargaining drive, resulting in the formation of a collective bargaining unit here at Nevada State University on April 2nd, 2025. We won in a landslide, with 95% of voting faculty (which translates to 85% of all faculty) casting a "yes" vote. My goal is to bring this expertise and experience to the Vice President position on state board. I would like to refocus the state board's energy on organizing and membership, so that we can build our power from our members. It is important to do this in a grassroots manner, as I did at NSU. For this reason, I intend to meet with each of the chapters to hear your issues, understand your faculty, and help develop strategies for engaging with, organizing, and building your membership. I hope you will provide me with the opportunity to serve our faculty in this vital capacity.

Office: Secretary
Candidate: Joey Ray, University of Nevada, Reno

Hello, my name is Joey Ray, and I am a candidate for the secretary position for the NFA. I have been a member of the NFA for over eight years and am the current state NFA secretary. I also served as a member of the NFA board for the University of Nevada, Reno chapter, and am currently on the executive board as a representative from the College of Business. I also led the NFA website redesign a few years back and helped organize the database.

I have been at the University of Nevada, Reno as a lecturer since Fall 2016. I was an LOA for one semester, and have been a lecturer since Spring 2017. I currently teach human resource management and strategic human resource management. I have also taught organizational behavior, business communication, compensation, salary & benefits, business law, personal branding, and project management.

I have also worked in the private sector for over 20 years. I have worked for companies such as the Walt Disney World Company, Lowe’s Home Improvement, Premier Parks, Austin Wranglers, SFE International, Gallagher, and API, among others. I have worked in operations management, supply chain management, marketing, and mainly, human resources. I have also held a secretary position in many volunteer organizations and committees in the past as well.

At the university level, I am currently in the following committees: Athletics Committee, Department Curriculum, and Department Outreach. In addition, I am the club advisor for the Management and Human Resource Association (MHRA) student club on campus. My vision for the NFA going forward is an organization that continues to expand its reach among the different campuses to represent all the different types of employees. I would like to continue to see the NFA be strongly involved in the legislative process and continue to work to make sure that our voices are heard so the Nevada System of Higher Education is more faculty and staff friendly and focused. As the secretary, it will be my job to communicate all the legislative updates, get information to the members, take good meeting minutes, and all other duties as assigned. I will make sure to be an effective, timely, and accurate secretary.

At the direction of the board, I plan to communicate in a clear and concise manner the items that matter to our members. I also want to help continue to keep the NFA organized and orderly, and work towards broadening our influence in the great state of Nevada.

Thank you for your consideration.

Office: Treasurer
Candidate: Greta de Jong, University of Nevada, Reno

I am a professor and chair of the history department at UNR. I have been an NFA member since I was first hired as an assistant professor in 2002 and joined the Executive Board of the UNR chapter in 2019. For the past year I have served as Vice President of our chapter. With my fellow board members, I have worked to recruit new members, build support for collective bargaining, organize social and educational events, and develop a guide for faculty facing disciplinary proceedings. I believe higher education is a public good and an essential element in a healthy democracy. I am committed to NFA's mission and look forward to serving as state treasurer if elected.

Weaponization of Fiscal Notes: AB188 and AB191

Kent Ervin — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 02:57:30 GMT

Tales of the Legislature: Weaponization of Fiscal Notes

The NFA has proposed two bills – Assembly Bills 188 and 191 – to the Nevada Legislature. AB 188 proposes restoring retiree health benefits to post-2011 hires and retirees on the PEBP Medicare Exchange, while AB 191 seeks to establish collective bargaining rights for NSHE professionals, including faculty and graduate assistants. Both measures have encountered substantial cost estimates from the relevant agencies – costs that may be overinflated or designed to discourage legislative support.

What are Fiscal Notes?

When a bill is introduced at the Nevada Legislature, the Legislature’s fiscal staff requires that relevant government agencies provide a fiscal note showing the budgetary impact of the proposed legislation. Fiscal notes play an important role in the process as they provide legislators with information about potential costs. When a piece of legislation has a recognized cost, it needs to be funded to ultimately be successful. If a bill has a fiscal note, it will be referred to the budget committees, Assembly Ways & Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee, for consideration of an appropriation to fund the legislation.

Weaponization of Fiscal Notes

Fiscal notes can be misused in a variety of ways. For example, those seeking to kill a bill or extract concessions can attach unrealistically high dollar amounts. Agencies may use fiscal notes to request staffing increases denied in the normal budget process. Short deadlines for agencies’ fiscal notes also contribute to inflated estimates—it may be easier to calculate a worst-case scenario than to do a full analysis. Ongoing staffing shortages likely mean that some agencies struggle to carry out this analysis even if they want to.

Weaponized fiscal notes are especially problematic in sessions with a budget shortfall, when bills with fiscal notes often die in budget committees. If agencies submit exaggerated fiscal notes, there is no mechanism for an independent review and modification of fiscal notes other than a hearing in front of a budgetary committee. The bill’s sponsor and proponents then must attempt to negotiate away the fiscal notes, either by conversations with the agencies or by amending the bill to avoid the fiscal impact.

AB 188 - Restoration of State Retiree Health Benefits

State employees hired after 2011 will receive no health benefits when they retire, while earlier hires receive a contribution from the state toward Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) premiums or Medicare costs. As explained by the NFA’s fact sheet on AB 188, restoring benefits from the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) for state retirees would stabilize the retiree health fringe rate (currently around 2.50% of all state salaries), rather than letting it decrease in future decades as post-2011 hires begin to retire after the minimum 15 years of service. No savings from these cuts have yet been realized, and restoring these benefits would merely keep budgets in line with current costs.

PEBP attached a fiscal note of $1,024,975 in FY2027 and $2,486,075 in future biennia for AB 188. The request includes four new staff positions, a 12% increase from their currently funded 34 positions, even though PEBP projects an increased caseload of only 0.15% in FY2027 and perhaps 2.0% over 10 years. The amount of over one million dollars is unclear, since PEBP did not provide an itemization. While PEPB may need increased staffing, AB 188 does not add significantly to its caseload. Because the fiscal note does not itemize expenses, we cannot determine whether other projected costs are reasonable.

AB 191 - Collective Bargaining for NSHE Professional Employees

AB 191establishes collective bargaining in state law for Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) professionals, including faculty and graduate assistants. NSHE’s fiscal note on AB 191 includes $840,000 in FY2026, $1.7 million in FY2026, and $3.5 to $6.3 million in future biennia. These projections appear to be based on the assumption that all eligible employees – and some not eligible under AB 191 – would form bargaining units within the next two or three years. This is highly unlikely, since only four bargaining units have formed in the last 50 years – these four units represent 14% of all eligible employees, fewer than 1,000 of 7,200 eligible faculty.

NSHE’s fiscal note claims that the implementation of AB 191 would require 20 new staff, including seven labor attorneys. In contrast, the State’s Labor Relations Unit (LRU) for the 12 bargaining units, with 5000 bargaining unit members and represented by five employee organizations, has only two attorneys and four other employees to handle collective bargaining negotiations, contract administration, and litigation. NSHE’s staffing requests are highly exaggerated. There are 18,600 Classified employees (including NSHE) eligible for collective bargaining.

The current faculty bargaining units at NSHE (CSN, TMCC, and WNC) are handled by existing administrators and human resources, and since NSU's new bargaining unit has already formed under NSHE’s internal regulations for collective bargaining, AB 191 does not add to any future negotiation costs for these four bargaining units. In addition, only one new bargaining unit, for graduate assistants, would be likely in the next year if AB 191 is enacted.

NSHE’s projected high staffing needs and costs could represent:

An attempt to make AB 191 unaffordable and kill the bill;
An attempt to slow down the formation of new bargaining units even under the old rules citing budget constraints;
An expectation that NSHE will be defending against a great number of prohibited labor practices by NSHE institutions;
A desire to deploy a team of labor lawyers for anti-union activities; or
A lack of understanding of collective bargaining.

With its costly fiscal note, NSHE is approaching collective bargaining with an adversarial mindset. That is an unfortunate choice. Collective bargaining does not need to be adversarial, time intensive, or costly. Professional employees who seek to join together do so out of a desire to have a stronger voice in their workplace. Nevada’s higher education employers should embrace the opportunity this bill provides to strengthen relationships and improve collaboration. NSHE should only expect increased costs to defend themselves if they interfere with workers’ efforts to organize or if they refuse to recognize employee collective bargaining rights under the law. The employer can avoid the costs of defending themselves against prohibited practice charges by committing not to violate the law.

NFA’s summary of AB 191 cites studies that show that faculty unionization is actually associated with lower institutional costs and improved student outcomes.

Moving Forward

For both PEBP and NSHE, some modest additional costs and appropriations may be reasonable. NFA has been ready to discuss reasonable expectations (as we have in previous sessions) but neither agency has moved from their fiscal notes.

Update 4/30/2025: Corrected total number of state Classified employees to 18,600 employees eligible for collective bargaining (including 16000 in state agencies and 2600 at NSHE as of 8/2024), and added the number of employee organizations that are their exclusive representatives.

NSU faculty win historic collective bargaining vote

Jim New — Thu, 03 Apr 2025 02:52:47 GMT

NFA members celebrate the historic vote to establish collective bargaining rights for faculty at Nevada State University in Henderson.

Faculty at Nevada State University are celebrating today after winning the right to collectively bargain for a safe workplace, for faculty voice in decision-making through shared governance, and to address low and stagnant wages. The American Arbitration Association certified that an overwhelming majority of the roughly 120 faculty voted "yes" in the in-person election that took place April 1-2, by a vote of 104 to 8.

Nevada State University faculty have formed the fourth collective bargaining chapter of the Nevada Faculty Alliance, joining hundreds of colleagues who are members of the AFT and American Association of University Professors across the state, and more than 1.8 million members of the AFT across the United States. The AFT is the largest higher education union in the country. The AAUP represents faculty and other higher education professionals and has defended and advanced higher education since 1915.

Corey Fernandez, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology and Counseling, said, "This win is the result of countless conversations, collective courage and a faculty who care deeply about one another, our students and the mission of Nevada State University. We are so proud to have reached this point—and even more excited to begin the next chapter: negotiating a contract that protects what we love about NSU and ensures it remains a place where we can all thrive."

Despite challenging union election regulations imposed on public higher education workers in Nevada, faculty organizers persevered, winning an overwhelming majority of faculty support for their union. Having won their election, faculty members will now turn their attention to negotiating a strong first contract.

"This work could not have been done without the countless hours of organizing, research and outreach executed by faculty on our Collective Bargaining Organizing Committee. I have had the distinct pleasure of working with and leading some of the most incredible people at Nevada State over the past year and half, and it is so fulfilling to see all of that work come together," said Andrew Lavengood, lecturer of Mathematics in the Department of Data, Media and Design. "We look forward to negotiating with NSU administration directly for a fair, collaborative contract that protects faculty needs."

"Faculty understand that now more than ever we need to be united to advocate for ourselves, our students and our professions. The small college culture of collegiality that was the hallmark of this effort is the culture faculty were trying to preserve by voting for our union," said Pete Martini, president of NSU-NFA.

AAUP President Todd Wolfson said: "In joining together in a union, the faculty are laying the foundation to improve faculty working conditions and student learning conditions at Nevada State University. They are also part of the nationwide union movement at a time when our work to defend workers and higher education has never been more important. We welcome them!"

AFT President Randi Weingarten said: "Today's vote shows that the Nevada State University faculty want a real voice at work. Their perseverance is a testament to their commitment to the university and to fighting for the funding and resources they and their students need. While President Trump and Elon Musk attempt to ban federal employees' collective bargaining rights, gut federal services and attack the whole idea of the college promise, we stand with Nevada State University faculty in their fight for the right to collectively bargain for a safe workplace, a voice in decision-making and the compensation they deserve."

The Nevada Faculty Alliance at Nevada State University is affiliated with the Nevada Faculty Alliance, the American Association of University Professors and the AFT.

NFA Supports AB 188 to restore retiree health benefits

Kent Ervin — Tue, 01 Apr 2025 02:44:05 GMT

Assembly Bill 188: Restore Retiree Health Benefits for State Employees

AB 188 restores retiree health benefits for state employees hired after 2011 and for PEBP Medicare Exchange retirees.
State employees hired after the Great Recession deserve the same benefits as those hired in better economic years.
Robust retiree health benefits are needed to compete with other Nevada public employers, especially to retain mid-career employees, who carefully consider health care and retirement benefits.

Problems: Cuts to retiree health benefits are unfair to newer state employees and hurt retention

When state employees hired after 2011 retiree they will receive no retiree health benefits through the Public Employees Benefits Program (PEBP). Because none of these state employees have met the minimum of 15 years of service for the retiree benefit, , this has resulted in no cost savings for the State.
In 2011, retirees on Medicare were removed from PEBP coverage and required to buy supplemental coverage through a private exchange. Instead of secondary PEBP plan coverage, Medicare retirees only receive a contribution in their Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). The HRA contribution has not been increased since 2015 and has not kept up with cost increases for Medicare B premiums and Medigap insurance.
A retiree's ability to drop PEBP coverage (e.g., due to coverage from other employment or through a spouse) and rejoin was reduced to once in a lifetime.
Retiree HRA account balances are capped at $8,000, which means they have fewer funds for out-of-pocket costs or catastrophic health events.

Solutions: AB 188 reverses cuts to retiree health benefits for state employees

Restore retiree health benefits for employees hired after December 31, 2011. These employees would receive subsidies for PEBP health benefits upon retirement and after at least 15 years of service. [Sec. 3]
Encourage the Governor and Legislature to provide equitable subsidies to PEBP Medicare Exchange retirees. Require PEBP to calculate and report the cost of supplemental insurance to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to those for pre-Medicare PEBP retirees [Sec. 1].
Allow retirees to reinstate PEBP coverage aftermore than one gap [Sec. 4].
Prohibit PEBP from capping HRA balances for Medicare Exchange retirees [Sec. 3(7)].

Cost analysis: Minimal impact on fringe rate for retiree health benefits

Retiree health benefits are paid by a fringe-rate assessment on all state salaries, which averaged 2.50% since FY2010. Because the number of retirees relative to the total salary base will not change, the fringe rate should remain about the same with AB 188.

January 1, 2027, is the earliest that post-2011 state hires could retire with the minimum 15 years of service to receive a subsidy under AB 188. PEBP estimates 73 such retirees in FY2027, compared with a total PEBP state retiree population of 12,776. That would raise the fringe rate by only 0.01% (from 2.50% to 2.51%) for FY2027 (Fig. 1), which the Retired Employee Group Insurance Fund could absorb. PEBP predicts a total of about 1,000 additional retirees over 10–12 years, which could raise the fringe rate by 0.2%, but that may not consider the natural decrease of retirees hired before 2011. The cost of restoring retiree health benefits is very modest, and no general fund appropriation for 2025–2027 should be required. PEBP's fiscal note request for four new staff positions over its current 34 positions is not justified by a 0.15% projected increase in caseload in FY 2027 (73 out of 49,200 covered employees and retirees) or up to a 2.2% increase after 10 years (1000 out of 49,200).]

Removing the cap on HRA balances and allowing more than one reinstatement will have little fiscal impact.

AB 188 increases the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) accounting liability that must be reported (Fig. 2), but the Treasurer's Office has indicated that AB188 is unlikely to affect the state's credit ratings. PEBP has always been on a pay-as-you-go basis, and AB 188 will not change that.

Fig. 1. Historical fringe rate assessments for state retiree health benefits, FY2010-2027. The retiree health fringe rate has varied from 2.13% to 3.18% since FY2010, and per GovRec it will be 2.59% in FY2026 and 2.50% in FY2027. The average is 2.50% of state salaries, paid by the employing agency funding source and deposited into the Retired Employees' Group Insurance (REGI fund 1368). Transfers from the REGI fund to PEBP pay for retiree benefits. The projected increase in the fringe rate due to AB 188 is 0.01% in FY2027 and 0.2% or less long term, smaller than the year-to-year fluctuation from other sources.

Fig. 2. Reported Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) accounting liability for PEBP from FY2008 to 2024. The OPEB liability declined after the major cuts to retiree benefits in 2011, primarily moving Medicare retirees to the private insurance exchange. According to the fiscal note from PEPB, the partial restoration of retiree benefits in AB 188 would increase the OPEB future liability by $179 million, from $1.46 billion to $1.64 billion (upon enactment). The Office of the State Treasurer has indicated that the increase in the OPEB liability from AB 188 is unlikely to change the state's credit ratings. PEBP is on a pay-as-you-go-basis; no annual payments against the future liability are being made or contemplated.

[Updated 4/16/2025 using enrollment data from the PEPB Budget Closing on 4/15/2025.]

PEBP Premiums for 2025-26

Kent Ervin — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:23:18 GMT

At its meeting on March 30, 2025, the Public Employees' Benefits Program set rates for the FY2026 plan year beginning on 7/1/2025. Although the employee premium for the least-expensive High-Deductible Preferred Provider Plan (PPO) will not change, employee premiums for other plan options and dependent tiers will increase by up to 23%. The table below lists the new premiums.

Most plan benefits will remain the same. For the High-Deductible PPO, the deductible will increase from $1600/$3200 to $1650/$3300 (Employee-Only/Family) and the Health Savings Account (HSA) contribution will increase from $600 to $700 plus $200 per dependent up to three dependents.

PEBP EMPLOYEE PREMIUMS (per month)
High-Deductible PPO with HSA	FY25	FY26	Change
Employee Only	$55	$55	0%
Employee + Spouse	$272	$314	15%
Employee + Children	$136	$152	12%
Employee + Family	$352	$411	17%

State Contribution Percent Employee	92.3%	93.5%
State Contribution Percent Dependents	69.1%	69.0%

Zero-Deductible PPO with Copays	FY25	FY26
Employee Only	$86	$92	6%
Employee + Spouse	$331	$387	17%
Employee + Children	$178	$202	14%
Employee + Family	$424	$498	18%

State Contribution Percent Employee	88.6%	89.6%
State Contribution Percent Dependents	66.8%	66.1%

HMO/EPO Plans	FY25	FY26
Employee Only	$181	$220	21%
Employee + Spouse	$523	$643	23%
Employee + Children	$310	$379	22%
Employee + Family	$652	$802	23%

State Contribution Percent Employee	78.7%	78.3%
State Contribution Percent Dependents	59.2%	57.5%

Employer Contributions--all plans	FY25	FY26
Employee Only	$660	$794	20%
Employee + Spouse	$1,143	$1,370	20%
Employee + Children	$841	$1,010	20%
Employee + Family	$1,325	$1,585	20%

State or Agency Subsidy Per Employee	$759	$991	31%

Note that although the employee subsidy per employee (paid by the employee's funding source) is increasing by 31% from $759 per $991 month, PEBP's contributions toward individual rates are increasing only by 20%. The difference will apparently be used to replenish depleted mandatory reserves funds, although PEBP staff did not present any information on the speed at which reserves will be built back up.

FAQ on Assembly Bill 191

Kent Ervin — Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:07:03 GMT

Frequently Asked Questions on Assembly Bill 191

This FAQ on AB 191 addresses questions and corrects misperceptions of AB 191.

What is AB 191?

Assembly Bill 191 would establish regulations for collective bargaining for NSHE professional employees in Chapter 288 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, similar to those for local government employees and state Classified employees (including Classified staff at NSHE).

Where is AB 191 in the legislative process?

AB 191 had its first hearing in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on March 5, 2025. The next step is a work session to vote the bill out of committee. It is then expected to be re-referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways & Means for consideration of fiscal issues.

Update: AB 191 was passed by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and has been re-referred to Ways & Means for a fiscal hearing. It is exempt from deadlines.

Don’t NSHE faculty already have collective bargaining?

Since the mid-1970s, the Board of Regents has allowed collective bargaining for faculty under its own constitutional authority. However, Title 4 Chapter 4 (T4C4) of the NSHE Handbook has not had a major update since 1990 and it has not kept up with changes in collective bargaining statutes for other public employees in Nevada. It also does not match current practices for the existing faculty collective bargaining units at CSN, NSU, TMCC, and WNC. For example, T4C4 states there is a single bargaining unit for the community colleges, but de facto there are three separate negotiations and three collective bargaining agreements approved by the Board of Regents at the three community colleges with faculty bargaining units.

Couldn’t the Regents just update Title 4 Chapter 4 of the Handbook?

In principle, yes, but NFA has been seeking revisions to update and modernize T4C4 since 2022 to no avail–the proposals have not even been agendized for Board discussion. Regardless, only the Legislature can authorize important pieces of the provisions for collective bargaining and labor relations that other Nevada public employees have in NRS 288; for example, access to the state Employee-Management Relations Board for efficient resolution of disputes over contract provisions. T4C4 currently limits conflict resolution to fact finding and mediation while AB 191 also provides for arbitration. We see expanded conflict resolution options as positive. AB 191 creates a level playing field for negotiations between professional employee associations and management.

Would AB 191 expand the number of NSHE employees with collective bargaining agreements?

Not by itself. AB 191 provides the framework for organizing bargaining units, the first step toward negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. With AB 191, groups of professional employees with a shared community of interest could come together and ask for recognition and for NFA or another employee association to represent them.

Would AB 191 increase the number of NSHE employees with collective bargaining from 930 to 22000 (as implied by Deputy Counsel Carrie Parker at the March 7th Board meeting)?

No. The current number of NSHE employees eligible to form bargaining units includes 2500 Classified employees, 3200 full-time academic faculty, and about 4000 full-time non-managerial administrative faculty (total of about 9700 employees). Under AB 191, the additional eligible employee groups would include about 2400 graduate assistants, 550 postdocs and medical residents, 53 DRI technologists, and an unknown number of part-time instructors (LOAs) and hourly workers who work over 160 hours per year (more than one 3-credit course for LOAs). The 22000 number quoted by NSHE is an exaggeration–it appears to be the headcount of all NSHE employees other than Classified staff and Executives, including part-time and temporary workers who would be excluded by AB 191.

The number of members of the current faculty bargaining units at CSN, NSU, TMCC, and WNC is about 870. The new bargaining unit at NSU adds 126 academic faculty, for a total of under 1000. That is, 33 years after the first faculty bargaining unit formed at TMCC only 14% of the eligible 7200 faculty employees have chosen to form bargaining units by a majority vote.

By their nature, collective bargaining agreements are collective, group contracts, not individual faculty contracts where the workload would scale with the number of employees. So although 1000 faculty are members of bargaining units, there are only four CBAs to be negotiated and managed.

How would the number of NSHE employees with collective bargaining agreements increase with AB 191?

By itself, AB 191 does not increase the number of collective bargaining agreements from the current four at CSN, NSU, TMCC, and WNC, with a total of about 1000 faculty members in those bargaining units. New bargaining units would first have to be established under the rules of AB 191, then negotiations would ensue leading eventually to new agreements.

How many new bargaining units are likely to form under AB 191?

Beyond the four current faculty bargaining units at CSN, NSU, TMCC and WCN organized under the T4C4 rules, Graduate Assistants represented by the Nevada Graduate Student Workers-UAW union are seeking recognition. Graduate Assistants are asking NSHE to ‘count their cards’ showing their super majority. Organizing any units beyond those will be a deliberative and democratic process, often taking a few years.

Even in the unlikely scenario that all eligible professionals chose to organize, the total number of bargaining units would likely be fewer than a dozen bargaining units. Some employees are challenging to organize, some might not want to. The principle we hold is that all employees should have equal rights and equal terms. AB 191 rationalizes and simplifies the process not only for workers, but for NSHE, too.

Because Section 25 of AB 191 establishes a presumption that academic faculty bargaining units will be formed within each institution, there are four additional possible academic faculty units (DRI, GBC, UNLV, and UNR academic faculty). Other occupational groups such as Graduate Assistants would presumptively have a single bargaining unit statewide, but ultimately the membership of bargaining units results from consultation between NSHE and the professional organization seeking to be designated as an exclusive representative.

Can’t UNLV, UNR, and DRI help graduate assistants (GAs) without allowing them to collectively bargain?

The power imbalances and resulting mistreatment reported by graduate assistants are best addressed through collective bargaining, giving GAs input in their workplace policies. Only recently have institutions provided any due process for terminating GA positions; NSHE Handbook policy is mostly silent as it relates to GAs--there is no grievance process for them. Allowing GAs to collectively bargain ensures that everyone (GAs and their supervisors) know their rights and responsibilities and hold to them. A supermajority of GAs at UNLV, UNR, and DRI have requested recognition of their union for collective bargaining.

Do Nevada Revised Statutes currently allow NSHE to collectively bargaining with (a) faculty and (b) graduate assistants?

Yes. Under NRS 396.110 and 396.280 as well as its constitutional authority, the Board of Regents can and does collectively bargain with faculty employees, as provided in Title 4, Chapter 4 of the Board of Regents Handbook.

NRS 396.251 exempts NSHE from nearly all statutes related to personnel for student workers (which includes graduate assistants), postdoctoral scholars, and medical residents. That means NSHE is not bound by state personnel law and is free to recognize an association of graduate assistants and collectively bargain with them. Title 4 Chapter 4 would simply need to be revised by the Board of Regents to include graduate assistants as a bargaining unit.

However, only the Legislature can provide for certain aspects of collective bargaining; for example, access to the state Government Employee-Management Relations board by employees and governmental employers for resolution of issues regarding formation of bargaining units, negotiations, and contract compliance. AB191 provides the same rights and responsibilities for NSHE professional employees that other Nevada public employees have. AB191 would also ensure the rules of engagement for collective bargaining would not be entirely under the control of management, an apparent conflict of interest.

How does collective bargaining work for tenured or grant-funded faculty?

All academic faculty share most working conditions and employment policies, but with different contract termination provisions for tenured, tenure-track, non-tenured-track and grant-funded faculty members. A negotiated collective bargaining agreement can take those differences into account and provide appropriate due-process provisions for all. A collective bargaining agreement bolsters, rather than replaces, shared governance and peer review processes--which would remain in place for academic faculty. For public colleges and universities with faculty collective bargaining units, it is common for negotiated provisions about tenure procedures to be limited to permanent state-funded positions, for example.

Does AB 191 increase the compensation and benefits of professional employees? How would that be funded?

Not without mutual agreement in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Compensation and benefits are a topic of negotiation for CBAs, but any compensation approved that requires new state appropriations for implementation would be a budget request by NSHE through the regular state budget process. Such provisions would not go into effect unless and until the state funds are appropriated. The Governor is not required to include funding of collective bargaining agreements in the Executive Budget, and the Legislature is not required to approve them. However, NSHE and the employee association could to to the Governor and Legislature with a united message to implement a collective bargaining agreement.

Important cost-free policies and procedures can be negotiated in CBAs to improve working conditions and the efficiency of the colleges and universities. Studies show that institutions of higher education with faculty unionization have lower costs and better student outcomes. The current CBAs at CSN, TMCC, and WNC are available for review at https://nevadafacultyalliance.org/page-1464388 .

How much would AB 191 cost NSHE to implement?

NSHE’s fiscal note claims it would need to hire 20 new staff including seven new labor attorneys to implement AB 191, but at the three current bargaining units at CSN, TMCC, and WNC, negotiations have been handled by existing administrators and human resources staff. Since NSU's bargaining unit has already formed under T4C4, AB 191 does not add to the cost at NSU. In the Labor Relations Unit of the Office of the Attorney General, two attorneys handle collective bargaining negotiations and litigation for the 12 statewide bargaining units for Classified employees represented by five employee associations. NSHE's fiscal note for AB 191 is a gross exaggeration of any realistic needs. NFA has prepared a full analysis of the fiscal impact of AB 191, including a recommended appropriation for reasonable expense.

After CSN faculty negotiated their first CBA in 2019, the labor-related staff in CSN legal and human resources departments did not require an increase in positions–although the responsibilities of some positions may have shifted for different processes under the CBA.

The NFA supports appropriations to cover reasonable costs of implementation. AB 224 in 2023 included appropriations, but was vetoed by Governor. It would be reasonable for NSHE to add a labor attorney and a labor relations specialist at the system level to provide support for the institutions and to handle an additional bargaining unit for Graduate Assistants.

The only direct cost of AB 191 is the fee to support the EMRB. That fee is up to $10 per year per bargaining unit member, so the fee will be roughly up to $8700 per year until additional bargaining units are established. The actual EMRB assessment for State Classified employees is currently $4.25/year, well below the $10 statutory maximum. The EMRB fees would be offset by savings on resolution of bargaining unit, contract, or negotiation issues by the EMRB that would otherwise go to voluntary private arbitration or to litigation.

The costs of arbitrations for grievances will likewise be more than offset by savings from avoided litigation. While NSHE's fiscal note on AB 224 in 2023 projected 200 to 800 binding arbitrations for grievance appeals each fiscal year, the 2025 fiscal note indicates their are only 17 grievances last year statewide that escalated to a president or the chancellor. Even if all of those were appealed to an arbitrator, the cost at NSHE's (high) estimate of $5600 each in the fiscal note would be $95,200 split between NSHE and NFA. Much more is being spent by NSHE on litigation, both with internal general counsel and on outside counsel, that could be avoided through arbitration.

Does AB 191 require binding arbitration for all grievances?

No, that is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. AB 191 allows arbitration as the final level of appeal of a grievance that is not resolved at lower levels. Collective bargaining agreements negotiated under AB 191 would provide for binding resolution by an independent arbitrator of final appeals, but it would only apply to members of bargaining units with a collective bargaining agreement. Arbitration avoids expensive litigation, a cost savings to NSHE which regularly hires outside counsel to handle lawsuits over personnel issues. Collective bargaining agreements can provide better methods for resolving workplace disputes; for example, TMCC has been able to reduce the frequency of grievances through provisions for informal resolution in its collective bargaining agreement.

Does AB 191 expand what is grievable in comparison to the NSHE Handbook?

Yes, but only once a collective bargaining agreement is established for a particular employee group. The scope of grievances for faculty in Title 2 Chapter 5 is narrowly defined and does not encompass the standard definition of grievances NSHE classified employees in bargaining units currently have. There is no grievance policy in the Handbook for graduate assistants or other non-faculty professional employees. AB 191 provides the same foundation for all employees.

How many grievances will go to arbitration?

In 2023, NSHE claimed AB 224, the nearly identical predecessor of AB 191, would lead to hundreds of arbitrations over grievances. If that were the case, it would just show a dire need for collective bargaining to improve working conditions for professional employees at NSHE. In the fiscal note for AB 191, NSHE reports that last year there actually were only 17 grievances statewide that were denied by Presidents, the final level of decision under NSHE Code. Those would be eligible for appeal to arbitration under AB 191. To our information and belief, since collective bargaining agreements for Classified employees have been in place after 2021, only one grievance for a Classified employee at NSHE has gone to arbitration.

Does AB 191 allow NSHE professional employees to strike?

No, NRS 288 has strong prohibitions against strikes by public employees in Nevada, and AB 191 does not change that.

Does AB 191 change Nevada as a Right to Work state?

No. Right to Work means that employees are not required to join a union or pay dues to receive the benefits of collective bargaining. Employees cannot be forced to join a union as a requirement of employment. That will not change with AB 191.

What happens in case of an impasse in the negotiation of a collective bargaining unit?

Under T4C4, there is a mediation and advisory fact-finding process but management is not required to accept the recommendation of the independent fact-finder. That means negotiations can drag out for a long time–the first contract at CSN took years to negotiate. Under AB 191, which follows the same process as in NRS 288 for state Classified employees, an impasse first goes to mediation and then binding arbitration under strict timelines. The arbitrator is required to choose the more reasonable proposal from the two parties based on stated criteria, and is not allowed to modify the chosen proposal. That forces both parties to make final proposals that are reasonable, not ask for exaggerated provisions hoping the arbitrator will split the difference. The two parties can extend the times for negotiation, mediation, and arbitration only by mutual agreement.

Would AB 191 cover Unclassified or Nonclassified employees in state agencies outside of NSHE?

No. The definitions of “professional employee” and “state professional employer” in AB 191 effectively limit its applicability to NSHE.

Would the Labor Relations Unit in the state Division of Human Resource Management negotiate with professional employee associations on behalf of NSHE?

No. AB 191 both authorizes and requires NSHE to conduct its own labor relations and collective bargaining negotiations with its professional employee bargaining units. NSHE could choose to use the services of the DHRM or the Office of the Attorney General for labor relations, but those entities could charge NSHE for any such service.

Are the rights reserved to management restricted by AB 191?

AB 191 recognizes the principles of shared governance, which is a good thing. Academic freedom means that the determination of the “means and methods” of delivering education and research are the responsibility of teachers and scholars, not management. Personnel decisions in academia involve peer review. More expansive management rights for a governmental agency such as the DMV or Corrections, for example, for absolute control over staffing and services would not be appropriate for institutions of higher education.

Does AB 191 extend collective bargaining to “at will” employees such as Unclassified and Nonclassified employees in state government?

The Unclassified and Nonclassified employees in other state agencies are political appointees and upper management. As “managerial” or “confidential” employees, most if not all would be ineligible to collectively bargain under AB191 if the bill included those agencies among “state professional employers”, which it doesn’t.

NSHE suggested that graduate assistants are “at-will” as a means to justify their current exclusion from T4C4 and implied that NSHE might oppose AB 191 because it includes graduate assistants. However, in practice, having any due process for termination (as we have with most NSHE employees, including graduate assistants) demonstrates exceptions to a position where “at-will” means firing anyone at any time. Collective bargaining allows for termination procedures to be standardized and negotiated with recourse for violations of them.

For further information contact: Kent Ervin, kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org

Updated 3/28 with additional information about fiscal impact and effect on tenured or grant-funded faculty.

Updated 4/6/2025 to recognize the successful bargaining unit election at NSU.

Updated 4/18/2025 with current legislative status and other clarifications.

Updated 4/23/2025 with a discussion of whether current state law allows NSHE to voluntarily recognize and bargain with profession employee associations.

Updated 4/27/2025 to indicate that there are five employee associations representing the 12 state Classified bargaining units.

Ninth Circuit Court remands Jensen v Brown back to Nevada District Court in decisive reversal

Jim New — Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:26:45 GMT

On Monday, March 10th, The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision by a lower court to dismiss the case of Jensen v Brown, et al. and remanded it back to the US District Court of Nevada in Reno.

The case was brought by Dr. Lars Jensen, a tenured professor of Mathematics at Truckee Meadows Community College. Jensen alleges that he faced retaliation from multiple administrators after he voiced concerns about the college bypassing established shared governance procedures to impose weakened curriculum standards designed to make it easier for students to pass math courses. He used various methods to express these concerns including email communications and in a handout he distributed outside a mathematics summit organized by the college in 2020. After being denied the opportunity to speak during a question-and-answer session during the summit, he returned to his office, printed the handout, and distributed it to attendees during a break.

Professor Lars Jensen, PhD (KJBursey Photography)

The college pursued multiple disciplinary actions against Jensen following the summit including a formal reprimand for insubordination, and an unsatisfactory rating on his annual evaluation. The college also initiated proceedings to terminate Jensen for cause, a process in which Jensen ultimately prevailed.

Jensen subsequently filed a federal lawsuit pursuant to Section 1983, seeking to protect his constitutional rights. The case was dismissed by former Judge Larry Hicks, who cited sovereign immunity, a legal principle that generally prevents individuals from suing the government without the government's consent; and qualified immunity, a defense that protects public employees from civil liability when they injure you or your property while carrying out their official job duties. Jensen successfully appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court.

In February 2024, the Nevada Faculty Alliance joined the American Association of University Professor to file a joint amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court in support of Dr. Jensen. The brief maintained that the district court erred in its decision that Jensen’s right to such speech in the workplace was not established. It further cited Demers v. Austin which clearly established the right of faculty to engage in academic speech as part of their official duties. Afterwards, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) joined the appeal and and provided the attorney, Daniel Ortner, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel last November.

The appeals court decision not only reverses Hicks’ decision and remands the case back to the district court, it also gives Jensen the right to amend his original complaint to address technical deficiencies claimed by TMCC’s attorney.

MORE:
VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

NSHE COLA Funding

Kent Ervin — Mon, 10 Mar 2025 02:44:35 GMT

Governor Lombardo's Executive Budget includes funding to cover the continued cost the historic Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) provided to the faculty and Classified staff of NSHE colleges and universities in FY2024 (12%) and FY2025 (11%). In advance of the legislative hearing on NSHE budgets on March 11, 2025, the Nevada Faculty Alliance is publishing a white paper on the history of the funding and budgeting policy for NSHE COLAs:

History and Analysis of Funding and Budgeting for NSHE Cost of Living Adjustments

Without the supplemental state funding for continuation of the COLAs, students will pay higher fees, the current budget cuts and position vacancies will become permanent, and/or additional cuts will be necessary to cover one-time budget remediations.

UPDATE: Title 2 modifications rejected by Board of Regents

Jim New — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 23:09:07 GMT

UPDATE 3/7/2025:
The Nevada Board of Regents, swayed by input from faculty leaders, rejected the proposal to modify the Title 2 policies. The existing policy, which requires the final appeal of Chapter 6 proceedings that may result in faculty termination to be submitted to the full Board for final resolution.

ORIGINAL POST 2/6/2025:
A proposal to modify Title 2 policies in the Board of Regents Handbook, which alarmed many NSHE faculty members when it was introduced last December, will have its second reading and possible approval at the March 6-7 Board of Regents meeting at Nevada State University in Henderson. Chapter 6, and Chapter 8 for DRI professionals, outline faculty discipline policies, including termination for cause. The changes would grant the Chancellor final authority over faculty termination appeals, requiring consultation only with the Board's chair, excluding other Regents from the process.

Most faculty who responded to NFA's request for input last November were concerned that the change will make the process for faculty appeals even more opaque and tilt the balance in favor of the administration. Although appeals under the existing policy are heard in a closed hearing of Regents during one of their meetings, Nevada's open meeting laws require the agenda to list the appeal and the hearing. The new policy will likely bypass this, placing the decision in the hands of the Chancellor instead of 13 Regents.

The NFA issued a letter to the Board of Regents opposing the proposal and asserting that the changes would violate the long-standing doctrines from AAUP's 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The principles, and recent interpretations of them, establish that the governing board is responsible to review appeals and take the final action. By removing the Board from the process, the proposal diminishes due process and removes what little transparency exists because proceedings will no longer appear on Board agendas. Giving the authority exclusively to the Chancellor curtails the diversity of perspectives from the full Board and tips the balance in favor of the administration. At the December Board meeting, members asked about an alternative that would give faculty members the option to direct their appeals either directly to the Chancellor or to an Appeals Board consisting of the Chancellor and selected members of the Board.

The NFA urges all faculty members to contact their Regent and tell them to reject the current proposal to modify Title 2, Chapters 6 and 8 in the Handbook and consider other options. All avenues of due process must be exhausted in proceedings where an individual's career or an institution's reputation are at stake.

NSU-NFA one step closer to forming bargaining unit

Jim New — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 18:45:41 GMT

NSU Faculty Senate Chair David Cooper speaks in support of collective bargaining at the university

The Nevada Board of Regents, on Friday, March 7th, approved a petition from the Nevada State University chapter of the Nevada Faculty Alliance for recognition as an official bargaining agent for university faculty, paving the way for an organizing vote in April.

Despite Regents voicing concerns about the "antiquated language" in the policy governing collective bargaining - a concern that NFA shares - the vote was nearly unanimous with only Regent Goodman abstaining.

More than 70% of NSU faculty signed cards affirming their desire to move forward with a vote to organize a bargaining unit and 67% of the faculty body are already members of NFA. The vote in April will very likely be in favor of the bargaining unit.

If successful, NSU-NFA will be the fourth institution, and the first university, in the Nevada System of Higher Education with established collective bargaining rights for faculty. Once established, the chapter will have the right to notify the administration of their intent to enter negotiations in accordance with Board policy.

Student leader sets standard for leadership and compassion

Jim New — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 06:37:53 GMT

For a second year in a row, Kevin Osorio-Hernandez, a student leader at Nevada State University, has brought the raw emotions of his fellow students across the state into stark relief in his comments to the Nevada Board of Regents during their meeting on March 6th. Speaking as chair of the Nevada Student Alliance, he described the anxiety and confusion confronting students in the changing political landscape and pleaded with the Board to fight for the state's most vulnerable students while celebrating the richness that multiple cultures bring to the educational experience. He sets a standard that all individuals in the Nevada System of Higher Education should aspire to. No description will adequately capture his eloquence and courage, so we provide this link to video of his powerful and moving comments.

Osorio-Hernandez's remarks follow comments he made just over one year ago during the March 1, 2024, meeting of the Board of Regents where he called out a member of the Board for insensitive transphobic comments and asked him to "change his paradigm."

The Nevada Faculty Alliance salutes Mr. Osorio-Hernandez for demonstrating true leadership and speaking truth to power.

The cost of ideological interference

Jim New — Sun, 02 Mar 2025 18:55:11 GMT

The start of Spring Semester 2025 in Nevada will be remembered by faculty primarily for the confusion and anxiety caused by the disruptive executive orders targeting higher education from the newly installed presidential administration in Washington, DC.

Although the barrage of orders has now slowed, and our national affiliates, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have succeeded in temporarily derailing some of the attacks in the court, irreversible damage has already been done to academic programs and the students enrolled in them.

AFT recently released statistics on how proposed cuts to the Department of Education - if not the Department's outright elimination - may cost Nevadans. For NSHE and its students, those cuts could impact programs and services that add up to a staggering $13.2 billion in Nevada alone. Yes, that's billion, with a b.

$13 billion in federal student loans, supporting over 363,000 Nevadans pursuing education beyond a high school diploma, including first-generation college students.
$264 million in Pell grants, ensuring over 57,000 students can pursue a college degree regardless of income status.
$1.7 million to support students enrolled in Nevada’s five minority-serving institutions, such as a historically Black college or university, a Hispanic-serving institution, a tribal college or university, or an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution.
$20 million to help underrepresented students succeed—including those who are the first in their families to attend college, are from lower-income households or have disabilities.

These are just the higher education benefits received from the Department of Education. AFT calculates that K-12 is exposed for $320 million and workforce development programs offered at both K-12 and post-secondary levels add another $47 million and another $2 million for community programs that bolster education.

Those are just the numbers of what's at risk from the Department of Education. UNR estimates that proposed cuts in programs funded through the National Institutes of Health would eliminate more than $4 million per year in research infrastructure, while UNLV pegs its number at $2.5 million. DRI's impact may be as much as $1 million.

The list goes on and the damage will be real, especially for so many of our students who have invested time and money in pursuit of their chosen fields of study only to watch their aspirations shattered by malicious ideologues.

The NFA encourage all faculty members to actively resist these unprecedented ideological intrusions. We urge you join us in advocating to Congress and NSHE administrators for protections. Here are some suggestions:

Push Congress to overturn the executive orders by passing laws that will preserve vital programs and protect a student's right to learn without ideological disruptions.
Insist that campus and NSHE leaders avoid anticipatory obedience and refrain from implementing stricter policies than what is mandated.
Demand unambiguous guidance from campus administrations regarding the rights and responsibilities of faculty and students on immigration actions.
Share stories of how these actions have directly impacted your program and students in the NFA members' forum (log-in required).

Collective bargaining bill advances in legislature

State Board — Sat, 01 Mar 2025 20:39:56 GMT

Assembly Bill 191, which would establish collective bargaining for NSHE professionals in state law, is making steady progress through the 83rd session of the Nevada Legislature. Following the first hearing in the Assembly's Government Affairs Committee on Tuesday, March 4th, the bill will advance through a series of hearings before reaching the full Assembly.

With only slight updates, this measure is similar to AB224, the bill that passed with bipartisan support during the previous legislative session but was vetoed by the Governor at the end of the session in 2023. As with the previous session, this bill would codify the right of NSHE faculty (and graduate students) to collectively bargain, as well as provide us with access to resources like the Employee-Management Relations Board (EMRB) that other public employees, including classified staff at NSHE, enjoy.

NFA representatives, working with the bill sponsor, Assemblymember Natha Anderson, see this as a necessary step to ensure that NSHE faculty have a shared foundation and guarantee for what we can start to negotiate in collective bargaining. For institutions that already have collective bargaining agreements, passing this bill means that the next time they negotiate a new contract, they’ll be able to include a step to resolve grievance appeals through arbitration. The EMRB will also be available to resolve contract disputes. Faculty at institutions that don't already engage in collective bargaining will have a well-defined process if they choose to organize into a bargaining unit in the future.

In advocating for this bill again this session, NFA officers emphasize that faculty working conditions are student learning conditions, and that faculty, administrators, and students all benefit when faculty have an effective say in the policies and processes that guide our important educational work:

Having mutually agreed upon rules and expectations between faculty and management means better faculty retention;
Retention contributes to higher quality of education and focus on our students;
Faculty ability to speak for and advocate for ourselves and students without fear of retaliation;
Clear and consistent policies mean conflicts can be addressed efficiently and fairly–letting us focus our resources on education and research and not on navigating workplace grievances.

The Nevada Graduate Student Workers/UAW, who have organized graduate student assistants at UNR, UNLV, and DRI, have joined NFA's efforts. They’ve been part of updates to the bill, ensuring that graduate students employed by NSHE can form communities of interests for the sake of collective bargaining. Currently, the Board of Regents policy that allows collective bargaining–not substantially updated since 1990–does not include graduate students at all.

NFA's AB 191 Fact Sheet describes the provisions of the bill.

We encourage NFA members to reach out to their Assemblymember or Senator to let them know you are in support of AB 191.

FAQ on Collective Bargaining

Ian Hartshorn — Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:28:37 GMT

Collective Bargaining may be new to you, but it's not new to higher education, or the NFA. Below are the questions we get asked most frequently. If you have more questions, please direct them to your NFA Chapter!

What’s collective bargaining?

Collective bargaining is the process of workers coming together to negotiate a contract with their employers. A collectively bargained contract sets the terms of employment within the confines of the law. It can address issues like health and safety, pay, benefits, leave time, and how problems will be dealt with when they inevitably come up.

Collective bargaining isn’t something that happens to you…it’s something that happens WITH you, where your issues and concerns are brought together with those of your peers to address problems. To learn more, you can read here: https://aflcio.org/what-unions-do/empower-workers/collective-bargaining

Do I have a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)?

If you’re an academic or (non-managerial) administrative faculty member at TMCC, or academic faculty member at WNC or CSN, you are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. You’re represented by your campus NFA chapter. You can find current CBAs here: https://www.nevadafacultyalliance.org/page-1464388

Who is NFA?

NFA is the Nevada Faculty Alliance, it’s been the independent association of faculty since 1983. We are an organization AT the universities and colleges of the NSHE system but not OF them. That means NFA answers to no one but our members: not the Deans, not the Presidents, not the Regents, not the Governor. We advocate for faculty at all chapters, and bargain collectively for them at TMCC, WNC, and CSN. The NFA is the Nevada affiliate of the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers.

Ok, I’m on board, how do we get a collective bargaining agreement?

If you’re at TMCC, WNC, and CSN, you have a CBA. Get involved by attending an NFA meeting and volunteering!

If you’re at Nevada State University, there is a push for a CBA right now! Contact your NFA chapter to get involved and learn about next steps.

If you’re at GBC, UNLV, or UNR, you don’t currently have a CBA. We know from our internal polling that more than 75% of faculty are interested in pursuing a CBA on these campuses. Regardless of whether we pursue a CBA at present, the NFA is fighting for faculty on every campus, and we need you. One of the things we are working on is making it EASIER to form a CBA, and have that CBA be respected, if a majority of faculty want it. More details on that below.

Is it worth joining NFA if my campus doesn’t have a CBA yet?

Absolutely! NFA fights for faculty regardless of CBA status. We maintain an active presence at the legislature and give public comment at the Board of Regents. We fight for COLAs, higher ed budgets, better working conditions, protecting PERS and PEBP, and academic freedom across the state. Our legal defense services help faculty facing issues related to their jobs.

Perhaps most importantly at this moment is our affiliation to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). AAUP is at the forefront of fighting overreach from the current federal administration (and any future administration that wants to hamstring academic freedom). From the courts to the streets, AAUP is organized to stop the assault on academic research, with successes to show for it.

I'm at a campus without a CBA. How are my worker's rights protected?

That depends, on a lot. Different institutions have their own practices and places where policies live. Some academic units have bylaws with some policies, while other policies live in administrative manuals or other rule books (names of these things vary by campus). Depending on the structure of the institution, you might have department bylaws, college bylaws, university bylaws, AND all of the NSHE Board of Regents Code and Policy rules and regulations on top of other policies and requirements from your institution's administration. Depending on how frequently any of these are updated, they might conflict or need extra interpretation (typically by the President, Chancellor, or their (legal) designee).

We know that these processes can have varying impacts. We know that some grievance processes have failed faculty at some institutions. NFA works with faculty at EVERY campus, but without the protections of a contract, we can’t guarantee that we can be by your side (for instance in a disciplinary meeting). That would require a CBA to enforce what are called Weingarten Rights.

What’s the difference between forming a union and getting a collective bargaining agreement?

Forming a union is a right, protected by the US constitution, as well as domestic and international law. Unions are a vehicle for speech, peaceful assembly, and petition, all First Amendment rights. Public sector unions are recognized in Nevada law, and many public sector employees in Nevada enjoy collective bargaining rights (including teachers and law enforcement).

Forming a union is NOT the same as having a collective bargaining agreement, or contract, however. That requires both the workers and the employers to agree to terms. Currently, faculty in the NSHE system have a limited right to collectively bargain. It’s given to us by our employers, and has been in NSHE Policy since the 1970s (although the first bargaining unit to form was in the early 1990s at TMCC). This is the basis on which our three collective bargaining chapters have their contracts.

Most public sector workers in Nevada (most city, county, and state workers like firefighters and law enforcement and our Classified staff colleagues at NSHE) have their rights in statute (law). Not only is that a higher level of protection (management can’t pull the rug out from under them) but it also authorizes things that NSHE policy cannot. These workers can take issues to the Government Employee-Management Relations Board for final decisions. Under our current system, the final decision is with the Regents. Public sector workers can also use tools like arbitration if they reach an impasse with management. If faculty reach an impasse the decision goes to…you guessed it, our bosses!

That’s why the NFA is working to enshrine a right to collectively bargain in Nevada statute. Right now, our Collective Bargaining Bill is going before committees in the Nevada Legislature. If it passes and is signed by the Governor (big if, he vetoed it last time) professional, unclassified workers (basically, faculty, LOAs, and graduate assistants) would gain the right to collectively bargain in statute. Our rights would be more secure, with better outcomes both for chapters that already collectively bargain, and those who might want to in the future.

What about ‘Right to Work’ I thought that meant there are no unions in Nevada?

Not only does Nevada have unions, it has had a higher percentage of unionized workers than the US average for over 30 years! Nevada is a union state in many ways. Right to Work is a fairly narrow law. It states that workers can’t be compelled to pay union dues, or make union membership a requirement of employment. Often times, this means unions have to protect workers whether they pay their dues or not. Of course, we’d always rather workers see the value of their union and pay their dues willingly. Right to work laws have no impact on your right to gather together with your colleagues to make improvements in your workplace.

NFA Legislative Priorities 2025

Kent Ervin — Sat, 08 Feb 2025 02:12:52 GMT

The NFA will continue its decades-long advocacy at the Legislature in the 2025 session that began on February 3rd, as the independent voice for faculty and other professional employees of Nevada's public colleges and universities.

Here are our highest priorities as approved by the NFA State Board, first the legislative bills we are supporting followed by budget priorities:

Legislation

For Better Higher Education Management: Collective Bargaining Rights! (AB 191)

Provide collective bargaining rights for NSHE professionals. The 7,200 NSHE rank-and-file faculty are the largest group of public employees in Nevada without collective bargaining regulations in state law.
Three community colleges have organized to collectively bargain and graduate student workers have rallied support for unionizing.
Under the current system, management at NSHE dictates the terms of bargaining. NSHE employee associations should have the right to use the Employee-Management Board like other public employees in Nevada.
The ability to have a say in working conditions leads to better teaching, better student outcomes, and more effective shared governance. Faculty working conditions are student learning conditions!

For Better Higher Education Governance: Mandatory Board of Regents Training!

Require training for Regents on policy, budgets, open-meeting laws, nondiscrimination, student life, and shared governance to improve Regent knowledge and decision-making.
While voters retained the Board of Regents as the constitutional higher education governing body, training will promote effective governing and oversight.
Nevada requires training for K-12 Trustees. NSHE Regents should be equally responsible and accountable to citizens.

Benefits for State Employees Now AND When They Retire: Restoring Retiree Health Benefits! (AB 188)

Restore retiree health benefits for state employees hired after 2011 and make benefits for Medicare and non-Medicare retirees equitable.
Nevada state employees who were hired after the Great Recession deserve the same benefits as those hired in good economic years.
Retiree health benefits for state employees are needed to compete with other Nevada public employers. Reward state public service with retiree benefits.

Budget Priorities

Invest in Campus Safety

NFA supports NSHE’s ask for both one-time and ongoing funding for critical security to keep our campuses open and serving the public. We must update safety and security so that senseless violence may never again shatter our community. GovRec funding is 72% below what NSHE estimates is necessary.

New Funding Formula

NFA welcomes changes to the funding formula to support wrap-around services to students, with phased-in implementation to ensure no institution takes a budget cut in the transition.

Full Funding of Cost-of-Living Adjustments for State-Supported NSHE Budgets

Prior to 2019, NSHE COLAs were funded at 80% (as most other state agencies), but were funded at about 64% since then.
The cost that isn’t covered by the state is largely covered by student fees--lower state funding means shifting the burden to students or having fewer faculty and course sections to support their education.

5% + 3% Cost-of-Living Adjustments for State Employees

To maintain current take-home pay after the retirement contribution increase (1.75% on 7/1/2025) and inflation running over 2.5%, COLAs for state employees of 5% FY2026 and 3% in FY2027 are required.
The purchasing power of salaries for NSHE faculty continues to fall, which means losing top-quality faculty to other states that invest in higher education professionals.

Contact: Kent Ervin, NFA Director of Government Relations, Kent.Ervin@NevadaFacultyAlliance.org

NFA calls for stop-gap funding of "frozen" research

Jim New — Sat, 01 Feb 2025 16:39:26 GMT

The list of unjustified and damaging freezes imposed by the Trump Administration on research support from federal agencies continues to grow, with severe consequences for higher education. The Nevada Faculty Alliance urges NSHE institutions to pledge stop-gap funding to keep research ongoing in these vital programs affected by the administration's actions.

In addition to seeking pre-emptive injunctions, if current grants are disrupted by non-payment of pre-authorized expenditures, legal remedies for breach of contract should be pursued by NSHE and the Nevada Attorney General.

Following the freeze on the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the administration ordered the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to suspend funding activities that affect research going on across the country.

Not only are researchers stuck in limbo wondering about the future of programs that many of them have dedicated their entire careers to, but the economic impact to universities and their surrounding communities is potentially disastrous. In Nevada alone, the NSF funds up to $43 million in projects per year. NSHE's research universities and the Desert Research Institute are the recipients of the bulk of the money. This research develops technologies that help drive economic development and expands opportunities for students at all levels by sponsoring initiatives in STEM education for K-12 and college students.

Subjecting research to a political litmus test is a direct assault on the principles of Academic Freedom - the freedom to teach, the freedom to research, and the freedom to learn - that have made the American higher education system the world's gold standard. It will cripple work that benefits all Americans and will encourage our top researchers to look for opportunities outside of the United States, which would damage our standing in the world and devastate our economy. Most significantly, however, it is a betrayal of the thousands of students in Nevada and millions more nationwide who have invested substantial time and resources into their education, leaving them uncertain about the viability of their chosen fields.

The NFA stands with any researchers impacted by these decisions, and encourages campus administration, the NSHE regents, and state leaders to do all they can to encourage a timely resumption of vital NIH programs. We encourage education professionals to register their objections with the White House, and your representatives in Congress.

We urge all NFA members and students who might be impacted by any of the administration's funding suspensions, or who are aware of their effects on peers and students, to share their experiences and the extent of these impacts by submitting impact statements to their NFA Chapter Presidents. This information is vital for our NFA representatives to effectively communicate the adverse effects and repercussions of the NIH suspensions to our federal and state officials, as part of our ongoing advocacy efforts for our faculty and NSHE institutions. The NFA strongly opposes anticipatory obedience, such as self-identifying “DEI”-related grants prior to any specific agency direction.

NFA opposes ICE interventions on campus

Jim New — Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:23:51 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) is unwavering in its commitment to fostering an inclusive, welcoming, and safe environment for all members of our academic community. We strongly oppose any actions by federal agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that involve direct interventions or raids on our campuses. Such actions undermine the educational mission of our institution and foster an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

The presence of ICE agents on campus would create a chilling effect on students, faculty, and staff, preventing individuals from pursuing their educational goals without intimidation. This environment of fear directly contradicts our core values of academic freedom, inclusivity, and the free exchange of ideas. Moreover, such actions violate the principles outlined in the Board of Regents Handbook, including its non-discrimination code, which guarantees the right of all individuals, regardless of immigration status, to access education free from prejudice and fear.

We reaffirm our commitment to protecting the privacy and safety of all students, including those who may be undocumented. We will take all necessary measures to ensure that our campus remains a safe and supportive space for every member of our academic community.

Our campuses must remain environments where all students feel safe and respected. They must be able to learn free from harassment—whether from government agencies, administrators, campus employees, or fellow students. The NFA will vigorously defend the rights of faculty members to preserve such an environment.

Faculty Guidance on Compliance with FERPA and Handling Federal Agents on Campus

Faculty and staff are reminded of their obligations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which protects the privacy of student records, including information about a student's immigration status. Disclosure of any student's immigration status—whether documented or undocumented—is prohibited under FERPA and could result in legal consequences.

If a faculty member is approached by a federal officer requesting information about a student, they should contact the institution's General Counsel's office or University Police (Northern Command | Southern Command) for guidance. Should you receive a request for personally identifiable information or records, or if a federal immigration enforcement officer presents a warrant or subpoena, you must first confirm that you are authorized to release the requested information. Request the officer's name, identification number, and agency affiliation, and ask for a copy of any warrant or subpoena. Inform the officer that you are not obstructing their process, but you need to contact legal counsel for assistance.

ICE agents must have a valid search or arrest warrant to access non-public areas of campus (such as residence halls, classrooms, or faculty offices). Areas open to the public, however, are accessible to ICE agents without a warrant.

If an ICE agent requests entry into a non-public area, faculty members should politely ask the agent to wait while they contact legal counsel. Faculty are not required to permit ICE agents to enter non-public areas without a warrant. If confronted with a warrant or subpoena, faculty should refer the agents to the institution’s legal counsel office. Politely explain that, according to institutional policy, you are not authorized to provide the requested information and direct the agents to legal counsel.

If a faculty member observes ICE conducting enforcement activities on campus, they are free to document the incident—whether through video, notes, or other means—provided it does not interfere with the enforcement process or the educational environment. Documentation should respect the privacy of all students involved.

Executive Order on NIH Impacts NSHE Faculty

State Board — Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:04:52 GMT

Contributed by Ian Hartshorn, Ph.D., UNR-NFA

The Nevada Faculty Alliance notes with concern the decision of the new administration to freeze all meetings, travel, communications, and hiring within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) until approved by new political appointees. These actions have a chilling effect on vital academic research that not only serves to protect the health of the American people but generates significant economic benefit to our state.

The NIH is a part of the US Department of Health and Human Services and serves as the nation’s medical research agency. The agency has an annual budget of more than $47 billion dollars and runs multiple programs important to academic training and research across the country.

The Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) is the largest recipient of NIH Grants in Nevada. NIH awards exceed $30 million in the state, supporting 977 jobs and generating over $200 million in economic activity. A politicized slow-down of these vital funds will harm researchers, universities, and our state.

Early reports suggest that the Trump Administration may seek to use NIH funding as a bargaining chip for other desired reforms of the country’s higher education system. The NFA rejects further politicization of academic research. Grants from the NIH undergo a rigorous review process, a process now halted for political intervention. Grants should be funded by scientific merit, not by a political litmus test.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance calls on our Nevada Congressional delegation to exercise their responsibility of budget oversight, and our Senators’ constitutional obligation of advice and consent on presidential appointments to ensure that the new administration’s decisions align with the NIH mission and broader goals of academic integrity and freedom.

We urge all NFA members who might be impacted by the NIH activity suspensions, or who are aware of their effects on peers and students, to share their experiences and the extent of these impacts by submitting impact statements to their NFA Chapter Presidents. This information is vital for our NFA representatives to effectively communicate the adverse effects and repercussions of the NIH suspensions to our federal and state officials, as part of our ongoing advocacy efforts for our faculty and NSHE institutions.

Sources

https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-hits-nih-devastating-freezes-meetings-travel-communications-and-hiring

https://www.unitedformedicalresearch.org/nih-in-your-state/nevada

https://www.aaup.org/news/statement-aaup-president-todd-wolfson-national-institutes-health-freeze

PEBP HMO/EPO plan options may be eliminated

Kent Ervin — Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:48:47 GMT

###

UPDATE: The PEBP Board voted to retain the current HMO/EPO plan option and plan design, at least for FY2026. They also accepted the bid for the Southern HMO plan from Health Plan of Nevada, the incumbent provider, contingent on successful contract negotiation. Thanks to all members and other state employees who gave public comment!

###

At the Thursday, January 23, meeting of the Public Employees' Benefits Program Board, the Board will consider PEBP staff's recommendation to eliminate the HMO/EPO plan options. The southern-Nevada HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) option has been chosen by over 3000 state employees. The northern Nevada EPO (Exclusive Provider Organization) is option used by another 3000 employees. The HMO/EPO plan options provide certainty in copays for health services in exchange for higher monthly premiums, compared with the high-deductible and low-deductible plan options, that are borne entirely by the employee with no additional state contribution. NFA's written public comment opposing the elimination of the HMO/EPO is copied below.

To object to the elimination of the HMO/EPO, participants may provide public comment by telephone at 9:00 am on Thursday, Jan. 23, using the instructions in the agenda:

There are two agenda items designated for public comment. If you wish to provide verbal public comment during those agenda items, please follow the instructions below:

Option #1 Join the webinar as an attendee https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87092730987 This link is only for those who want to make public comment. If you are just listening to the webinar, please use the YouTube Link located in the “Video Conferencing” field above.

Option #2 Dial: (669) 900-6833. When prompted to provide your Meeting ID, please enter: 870 9273 0987 then press #. When prompted for a Participant ID, please enter #.

Participants that call in will be muted until it is time for public comment. A moderator will then unmute callers one at a time for public comment. To resolve any issues related to dialing in to provide public comment for this meeting, please call (775) 684-7016 or email jcrane@peb.nv.gov

NEVADA FACULTY ALLIANCE
840 S. Rancho Dr., Suite 4-571
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106

Date: January 20, 2025

To: PEBP Board Members

From: Kent Ervin, Director of Government Relations, Nevada Faculty Alliance

Subject: HMO/EPO plan options

We have reviewed the Segal presentation on “EPO and HMO Considerations”. We appreciate the response to some of the Board’s requests for additional information on the EPO and HMO plans and possible modification to the low-deductible PPO plan. Unfortunately, the presentation is extremely one-sided and biased. It argues for a certain outcome, the elimination of the HMO and EPO plan options, rather than providing balanced information for the Board’s consideration. Among the issues with the report:

The decline in EPO enrollment is provided, but the HMO enrollment trend –which is relatively stable—is missing (page 3).
Projecting high future cost trends for the HMO (much higher than the self-funded plans) without reference to the actual bids from the recent Request for Proposals (page 5).
Comparing the High-Deductible, Low-Deductible, and EPO plans but not the HMO plan or blended HMO/EPO plan (pages 8-11).
Comparing plan design with other states but not with other public employers in Nevada, with whom the State competes for employees (pages 13-19).
For the PPO 1 and PPO 2 options, no estimates of the total rate or employee premiums in comparison with the High-Deductible, current Low-Deductible, HMO, EPO, or blended HMO/EPO plans (pages 21-23). The “cost savings” appear to come mostly from decreased payments on participant claims and the high projected trend for the HMO.
· No estimates of total rates or employee premiums for Plan Year 2026, which should be possible for all options since the recent release of the Executive Budget with PEBP subsidies per employee (pages 24-25). What is the savings in total rate or employee premiums with the addition of a $500/$1000 deductible in PPO option 2 compared with PPO option 1 or the current Low-Deductible PPO?

The best solution is continuing the three current plan options for Plan Year 2026, with further study of plan design after open enrollment and after the legislative session.Alternatively, a decision should be deferred to the March rate-setting meeting with presentation of full rates and premiums for all options for the Board’s consideration.

My comments submitted on January 7, before the canceled board meeting on January 16 and release of the Segal report, are still valid and are repeated here:

As you consider plan design changes this month, the Nevada Faculty Alliance would like to emphasize the importance of the HMO/EPO plan option to many of our participants.

The HMO/EPO plan provides certainty in out-of-pocket costs, which some participants are willing to pay for through higher monthly premiums.
The southern HMO especially includes network providers who are essential to the health and well-being of their patients, including mental and behavioral health, and the productivity of employees. Disruptions to provider access must be avoided. Are providers within the various networks actually accepting new patients?
Because the employer contributions (state subsidies) are identical for all three plan options, PEBP has no extra costs to provide the HMO/EPO option other than administrative oversight.
Because the high-deductible plan, the low- (or zero-) deductible plan, and the EPO option are underwritten as a single risk pool, migration between the self-funded options should not affect overall costs or the viability of individual options.
We are not privy to the HMO Request For Proposals results, but actual competitive bids are more reliable than consultant projections. Ideally, a cost-effective statewide HMO with a broad network would be chosen.
Major plan design changes should be deferred to Plan Year 2027, after the legislative session and to see how enrollment trends stabilize several years after the introduction of the low-deductible middle plan option.

We surveyed all rank-and-file faculty at the seven NSHE colleges and universities in November, with a stellar 40% response rate (survey results on benefits questions). Our faculty rate lower out-of-pocket costs for health care as slightly more important than lower monthly premiums. While access to the low-deductible plan option is most popular (88% rate it as somewhat or very important), 65% of respondents say the availability of HMO/EPO is somewhat or very important.

Retain the HMO/EPO option. Thank you for your consideration.

###

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is the independent statewide association of professional employees of the colleges and universities of the Nevada System of Higher Education. The NFA is affiliated with the American Association of University Professors, which advocates for academic freedom, shared governance, and faculty rights, and the American Federation of Teachers/AFL-CIO, representing over 300,000 higher education professionals nationwide. The NFA works to empower our members to be wholly engaged in our mission to help students succeed.

Executive Budget: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Kent Ervin — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 17:27:11 GMT

Governor Lombardo’s recommended Executive Budget for FY2026 and FY2027, known as “GovRec”, was issued with his State of the State Address on January 15, 2025. The budget outlook for NSHE colleges and universities and NSHE employees is . . . mixed.

The Good

GovRec increases the overall NSHE budget from $2.48 billion in the 2023-2025 biennium to $2.86 billion for 2025-2027, a 15.1% increase for the biennium or 7.3% annualized. Student fees and other revenues are projected to increase more (18.0%) than state appropriations (13.8%). The fraction of the total NSHE budget funded by state appropriations will decrease from 69.1% to 68.4%. The increases primarily go to fund inflation in personnel costs and utilities and enrollment growth, not new programs, improved staffing ratios, or enhancements.

NSHE Overall Budget [1]
Year	General Fund Appropriations	Student Fees & Other Revenue	Total Revenue
FY 2024 actual	$816,736,844	$378,039,730	$1,194,776,574
FY 2025 budget	$898,940,295	$387,835,109	$1,286,775,404
FY 2026 GovRec	$979,845,771	$440,554,453	$1,420,400,224
FY 2027 GovRec	$972,202,485	$463,198,572	$1,435,401,057
Biennium-over-Biennium Change
2025-27 vs 2023-25	13.8%	18.0%	15.1%

For the main state-supported instructional budgets [2] of the seven NSHE colleges and universities, state appropriations increase 15.9% overall biennium-over-biennium, ranging from 7.3% at GBC to 25.8% at WNC. The variation among the institutions results from differential enrollment growth and the partial implementation of the new NSHE funding formula.

State Appropriations for NSHE Instructional Operating Budgets
Institution	FY24 actual	FY25 budget	FY26 GovRec	FY27 GovRec	Change 2023-25 to 2025-27
UNLV	$233,991,397	$253,973,037	$292,207,372	$288,094,171	18.9%
UNR	$160,582,630	$173,121,548	$192,367,866	$191,207,189	14.9%
NSU	$32,863,186	$38,814,685	$39,015,309	$38,960,218	8.8%
CSN	$117,591,040	$125,133,833	$133,786,731	$133,143,032	10.0%
GBC	$17,101,283	$18,105,687	$18,780,503	$18,996,114	7.3%
TMCC	$39,918,718	$42,777,073	$51,638,274	$51,415,387	24.6%
WNC	$16,053,002	$19,333,255	$22,148,208	$22,374,812	25.8%
TOTAL	$618,101,256	$671,259,118	$749,944,263	$744,190,923	15.9%

The recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding are partially implemented in GovRec, phased-in over the two years of the biennium. The enhancements for each institution are shown in the table below (including the additions to the Small Institution Factor for GBC and WNC). The two comprehensive universities are held harmless; otherwise, funding would shift from them to the community colleges. NSHE estimated that the full implementation of the new formula would cost $21.1 million per year. The formula implementation figures represent a phase-in with 20% implementation in year 1 and 40% in year 2 of the calculated amounts for the small institution factor update and the new funding distribution formula, except without offsets for UNLV and UNR [3].

Formula Funding Enhancements in GovRec
Institution	FY2026	FY2027
UNLV	$0	$0
UNR	$0	$0
NSU	$963,120	$2,177,813
CSN	$1,991,237	$4,326,348
GBC	$492,355	$1,047,741
TMCC	$626,826	$1,279,916
WNC	$472,048	$908,700
Total	$4,545,586	$9,740,518

Other mostly good items:

GovRec funds the already-awarded cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) of 12% in FY2024 and 11% in FY2025 at 80% for 2025-2027. The COLAs for NSHE were not fully funded by the 2023 legislature, with funding at only about 65%, versus the 80% funding level for most state agencies. NSHE had to come up with the balance through a combination of budget cuts, increased student fees, and a three-month delay for faculty COLAs in FY2025. GovRec adds the funding back at the 80%, although as an enhancement item not in the base budget.

The funding of enrollment growth measured by Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCH) is adjusted for the COLAs, increasing the per-WSCH amount from $173.29 to $208.99. In the past, the enrollment growth maintenance item was usually funded without an increase to the per-WSCH amount.

Modest funding for campus safety improvements is included in GovRec, with a one-time appropriation of $11 million. NSHE requested $38 million in one-time funding and $7 million per year in ongoing funding. GovRec thus underfunds campus safety and security improvements requested by NSHE by 72% and makes no provisions for continuing funds for the Southern and Northern Commands of University Police Services..

The nursing education expansion funded in 2023 was continued with one-time appropriations of $10 million per year.

The UNLV School of Medicine expansion funded with one-time appropriations in 2023 was continued as part of its base budget.

The budgets include increases for inflationary utilities costs and for fringe benefits including PEBP and retirement contributions.

The Bad

The Governor has not recommended any COLAs for state employees in FY2026 or FY2027. Because mandatory retirement plan contributions will increase by 1.75%, take-home pay will decrease. With inflation running at 2.5% or higher, COLAs of 5% in FY2026 and 3% in FY2027 are needed to avoid declines in real take-home salaries.

No NSHE capital improvement projects are included in GovRec, not even planning funds. Deferred maintenance is funded at only $15 million statewide, which is totally inadequate. In 2023, no NSHE building projects were funded but $50 million in one-time funds was allocated to deferred maintenance.

Graduate Medical Education is funded at $25 million per year, which should be a good thing but it is one-time funding, explicitly for 2025-2027 only, with non-state funds through the Governor’s new Public Health Authority and therefore does not provide for a sustainable increase in capacity.

The Public Employees’ Benefits Program is being moved into the new Public Health Authority along with Medicaid and the American Care Act Insurance Exchange. PEBP is an employee benefit program, not a public health program; it belongs with human resources and benefits. PEPB is currently a semi-autonomous agency under the state Department of Administration supervised by its own board appointed by the Governor.

Many one-time appropriations from the 2023 session were not continued in GovRec.

The Ugly

Upon release of the Governor’s Executive Budget, Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager expressed concern that the budget is not balanced: “It looks like ongoing expenditures are more than revenues. The budget that was brought to us actually has a structural deficit.” The statewide general fund total appropriations in GovRec is $12.769 billion for the biennium. In December 2024 the Nevada Economic Forum forecast revenue of $12.433 billion. That implies a deficit of $335.4 million for the biennium ($233.3 million in FY2026 and $102.1 million in FY2027). Because state law requires a balanced budget based on the Nevada Economic Forum forecast (the final forecast is in May 2025), the legislature will have to resolve this discrepancy. We will be interested to hear explanations from the Governor’s Finance Office at its presentation to the Legislative Commission Budget Committee on Tuesday, January 21.

Also ugly:

The work program budgets for FY2025 in GovRec, which are used as the base budgets for the next biennium, do not include the full 12%+11% COLAs already awarded to NSHE employees. Although GovRec includes the COLAs as an enhancement funded at 80%, other state agencies apparently have the actual salaries for employees including past COLAs automatically included in the base budgets.

GovRec funds PEBP claims assuming medical, prescription drug, and dental inflation will be 3.55% in FY2026 and 3.50% in FY2027, lower than the trend projection from PEBP’s actuary of 6.75% for medical and prescription drugs and 3.0% for dental. That virtually guarantees future deficits.

[1] “FY2024 actual” represents actual revenue received in fiscal year 2024 from the annual NSHE State Operating Budget Budget-to-Actual Comparison Report. “FY2025 budget” represents expected revenue for fiscal year 2025 from the annual NSHE State-Supported Operating Budget. “GovRec” is Governor Lombardo’s recommended budget in the 2025-2027 Executive Budget as proposed in January 2025 to the 2025 Legislature. All revenues in GovRec are matched by budgeted expenditures.

[2] State-Supported Operating Budgets include the main instructional budgets of the seven NSHE colleges and universities. There are a total of 31 state-supported NSHE programs that are separately budgeted by the State, including the educational institutions, professional schools, Desert Research Institute, System Office, statewide programs, and other entities, with restrictions against transferring funds between the separate budgets. There are also many Self-Supporting Budgets funded by student fees, user fees, sales, and other revenue, without any state funding.

[3] Phase-in information updated 1/20/2025 per information from NSHE. The new formula shifts from 100% WSCH (weighted student credit hours) to 75% WSCH, 10% student enrollment attributes, and 15% outcome-based factors. Additional information on the new funding formula.

Prepared by Kent Ervin, Director of Government Relations, Nevada Faculty Alliance. Corrections or amplifications are welcome. Contact: Kent.Ervin@NevadaFacultyAlliance.org, 775-453-6837.

NFA Advocates for 5% COLA in 2025 and 3% in 2026

Kent Ervin — Sun, 22 Dec 2024 19:05:56 GMT

Inflation and Retirement Contribution Increases Reduce Value of Take-Home Pay

Mandatory retirement contributions for state employees including NSHE faculty are slated to increase on July 1, 2025, by 1.75% for the employee and 1.75% for the employer. Inflation is running at 2.5 to 3.0%. Just to maintain the purchasing power of our current salaries, the Nevada Faculty Alliance is advocating for a 5% cost-of-living adjustment for 7/1/2025 and a 3% COLA for 7/1/2026 for all state employees. The COLAs for NSHE should be fully funded by the state to avoid further burdening students with increased registration fees.

At the December 17, 2024, meeting of the Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee, Kent Ervin submitted a statement on behalf of Nevada Faculty Alliance members regarding the Public Employees Retirement System and the contribution rate increase:

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) is the independent statewide association of professional employees at the colleges and universities of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE). All of our Classified colleagues and about 15% of NSHE academic and administrative faculty are members of the Nevada Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS). The other faculty members have a defined contribution retirement plan with contribution rates identical to PERS rates per statute.

First, kudos to PERS for its low-cost, disciplined investment approach. Its investment returns have exceeded peers, placing in the top decile over the past 5, 10, 20, and 40 years. PERS has just two investment professionals on state salaries with no bonuses, unlike some other state pension funds with investment staffs of 10s or 100s and millions paid out in performance bonuses. PERS’s overall expense ratio of 0.129% is one of the lowest in the nation.

The actuarial pre-funded ratio for PERS is stable at 75.6%. The more fiscally conservative assumptions adopted in 2022 to estimate future liabilities mean its financial strength actually has improved.

However, another consequence of those assumption changes, phased in over two biennia, is that contribution rates for Regular employees increased sharply by 2.00%+2.00% (Employee+Employer) on 7/1/2023 and will increase again by 1.75%+1.75% on 7/1/2025. For Police/Fire employees, the increases are 3.00%+3.00% on 7/1/2023 and 4.25%+4.25% on 7/1/2025. These contribution increases place a significant burden on the state budget and on the paychecks of state employees.

The Nevada PERS Board must accept the actuaries' recommendations, per statute and the constitution. The actuaries recommended assumption changes for PERS to be more fiscally conservative in 2021. After a two-biennium phase-in period, the higher contribution rates will be fully in effect as of July 2025.

The chart below shows employee contribution rates and employer actuarial contribution rates for the 26 state pension systems for employees who don’t pay into Social Security. Nevada PERS's total actuarial contribution rate ranks higher than 77% of the plans. That is probably not out of line given its mature population (lots of retirees) and fiscally conservative actuarial assumptions. However, Nevada PERS has the very highest pension contribution rate for state employees among the comparable pension systems. The employee contribution is set by statute at 50% of the total actuarial rate. The 19.25% (regular) or 30.0% (police/fire) employee contributions make already below-average wages even lower in take-home pay. This places Nevada state employees at a significant disadvantage compared with county and municipal employees and for NSHE faculty compared with higher education faculty in other states. Most states without social security limit employee contributions to about 10% or less.

Pension plan contribution rates for 2022 in states whose employees are not covered by Social Security. Data source: https://equable.org/pension-contributions-by-state-2022. Chart created by NFA.

With AB522 of 2023, the Legislature passed cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for state employees, 12% (offset by the 2% increase in retirement contributions) on 7/1/2023 and 11% on 7/1/2024 (delayed to 10/1/2024 for NSHE faculty). Those were historic adjustments, but still only partially offset years of state employee compensation lagging inflation. Comparing state COLAs to CPI Urban/West inflation from FY2009 through FY2025, state employee salaries have lost 8.2% in purchasing power. In addition, employee retirement contributions have increased from 10.5% to 19.5% over the same period. As shown in the chart below, real take-home pay for NSHE faculty has declined 16.4% since FY2009 after accounting for inflation, COLAs, retirement plan contributions, and state-funded merit raises. Without additional COLAs for 2025-2027, take-home pay for state employees will decline again.

To prevent real take-home pay for state employees from further deteriorating due to inflation and the retirement contribution rate increase, the Nevada Faculty Alliance advocates for a 5% cost-of-living adjustment for 7/1/2025 and a 3% COLA for 7/1/2026 for all state employees. The COLAs for NSHE should be fully funded by the state to avoid further burdening students with increased registration fees.

PEBP proposals are concerning for state employees

Kent Ervin — Sun, 22 Dec 2024 18:53:04 GMT

At the Public Employees' Benefits Program, a dozen-year record of generating excess reserves has ended with a deficit in the mandatory reserves of tens of millions of dollars, health care costs especially prescriptions drugs are rising more rapidly than state funding, and PEBP is threatening to eliminate the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO/EPO) plan option. The Governor's executive budget needs to replenish the reserves and maintain plan benefits without increasing employee premiums. In the meantime, legislative threats to PEBP are on the horizon.

At the December 17, 2024, meeting of the Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee, Kent Ervin submitted the following statement on behalf of Nevada Faculty Alliance members about the Public Employees' Benefits Program:

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) is the independent statewide association of professional employees at the colleges and universities of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE). Most NSHE employees participate in the Public Employees' Benefits Program (PEBP). Providing robust employee health care benefits is essential for recruitment and retention as well as keeping our colleagues healthy and productive in their jobs.

Here we address three major areas of concern about PEBP:

Proposed elimination of the Health Maintenance Organization/Exclusive Provider Organization (HMO/EPO) plan option.
Deficient cash balances to cover mandatory reserves in the self-funded plans.
Bills to diminish the authority of the PEBP Board

Proposed Elimination of the HMO/EPO Plan Option

At the September 2024 meeting of the PEBP Board, PEBP staff recommended the elimination of the HMO/EPO plan option. The HMO is a fully insured plan with a restricted provider network in Southern Nevada. The EPO is a self-funded plan with a similar premium and copay structure as the HMO that is available to participants in Northern Nevada. An HMO or HMO-like option has been available for decades along with the high-deductible health plan option with a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) network. HMO participants pay a higher monthly premium in exchange for a plan with predictable copays, zero deductible, and 0% coinsurance. The PEPB Board deferred a decision and requested additional information including the results of a Request for Proposals for the HMO contract. A decision is slated for January.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance firmly opposes the elimination of the HMO/EPO plan, for the following reasons:

Participants who choose to pay more in monthly premiums in exchange for freedom from high unpredictable out-of-pocket expenses should have that option.
Especially in southern Nevada, certain providers including behavioral health are available only in the HMO plan and not in the self-funded PPO plans. Patients with those providers would have to hunt for new providers—many of whom are not accepting new patients or do not accept the PEBP PPO plan.
The state employer contribution (aka state subsidy) is now the same across all three plan options, so it does not cost PEPB more for participants who choose the HMO/EPO plan.
Per the PEBP Duties, Policies, and Procedures manual as approved by the PEPB Board the EPO plan is underwritten together with the other self-funded plans in a single risk pool, so there is no overall savings by moving its participants into the other self-funded PPO plan options.

In 2021, after years of requests by participants, PEPB added a “middle” plan option, a low-deductible PPO plan with a modest deductible, copays, and coinsurance. There has been significant migration from the high-deductible plan into the low-deductible plan, while the migration out of the HMO/EPO has been relatively small. Since the introduction of the low-deductible plan, its deductible was reduced to $0. Also, a deductible and coinsurance on some services were added to the HMO/EPO plan—uncommon for HMOs. In addition to the Health Savings Account (HSA) contributions for the high-deductible plan, which is part of its “consumer-driven” plan design, similar contributions to a Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) were made for the other two plans although they are not eligible for an HSA. The original idea for three plan options has been muddied by these changes. Instead of eliminating the EPO/HMO, the design of the three plan options should be realigned to correspond to the original intent of a high-deductible plan with an HSA, a low-deductible plan with a modest deductible, and an HMO copay-only plan with zero deductible and zero coinsurance. As noted, the participants pay the full differential cost of the plan options based on the actuarial value, so the cost to PEBP is neutral with respect to plan option design differences.

PEBP Excess Reserves Are Now Negative

For over a decade after the introduction of the high-deductible plan and shifting retirees to the Medicare Exchange, PEPB generated cash reserves in excess of the mandatory reserve amounts for Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) claims that carry over to the next fiscal year, for the Catastrophic reserve (previously known as the rate-stabilization reserve), and the HRA reserve for individual account balances. These represented funds paid in by the employer and by employees that were designated to pay for health care claims but instead accumulated despite spend-down plans over the years. However, beginning with FY2023 the excess reserves have declined because of more aggressive spend-down plans by PEBP, allocation of reserve funds for various uses in the legislative budget process, and funding of PEPB at levels below the trends predicted by the actuaries.

The chart [below] shows the mandatory reserves (as provided in annual actuary letters and audited financial statements) versus the cash balance. As of the end of FY2024, the “excess reserve” dropped to a negative $28 million. Based on PEBP's budgeted work program cash balance projection, it will be a negative $66 million at the end of FY2025. The Governor's Executive Budget and the legislatively approved budget must provide sufficient funds to restore the mandatory reserves and to maintain plan benefits and employee premiums at current levels or better.

Bills to Restrict the Authority and Oversight of the PEPB Board

We note with concern that two pre-filed bills would diminish the authority and oversight of the PEBP Board.

AB22 would remove the PEBP Board from the process to review the results of Requests for Proposals and to approve vendor contracts.
SB32 would make the PEBP Quality Control Officer report to the PEPB Executive Officer instead of the Director of the Department of Administration.

These bills would reverse provisions enacted by SB502 of 2017. Although the two bills were filed “on behalf of the Public Employees' Benefits Program”, the PEBP Board was not consulted prior to their publication on NELIS (see November 2024 Board meeting transcript, pages 31-38). The NFA will be carefully monitoring these bills during the legislative session.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide background information and our input on PEBP.

###

2024 NSHE Employment and Salary Trends

Kent Ervin — Sun, 22 Dec 2024 18:20:17 GMT

The NFA obtains public employee data for NSHE faculty and classified staff through public records requests annually. New employment and salary data as of November 2024 are compared here with the prior year.[1]

Highlights:

Continuing employees benefited from the 11% COLA as of 7/1/2024 for Classified staff and 10/1/2024 for faculty. NFA pushed hard for approval by the Board of Regents of the 11% COLA for faculty.
There were no merit raises for academic or administrative faculty. Merit awards this year were waived by the Board of Regents when they approved the 11% COLA. Classified staff are eligible for up to nine annual 3%-5% step increases within a compensation grade. Classified employees in some collective bargaining units received higher COLAs.
Excluding clinical faculty and DRI [2], the number of academic faculty increased by 12 to 3181 (0.4%), the number of administrative faculty increased by 231 to 4139 (5.9%), and the number of classified staff decreased by 422 to 2446 (-14.3%). These represent filled positions as of 10/31/2024 versus 10/31/2023. There appears to be a pattern of replacing classified positions with administrative faculty positions.

The table below shows the total number of continuing employees systemwide with the same position title, continuing employees with a new position title, and new employees. [1]

Category	Total as of 10/31/2024	Continuing, same position title	Continuing, new position title	New employees	Percent Continuing
Academic Faculty	3520	2788	406	326	91%
Administrative Faculty	4192	2889	602	701	83%
Classified	2587	1900	260	427	83%
Total	10299	7577	1268	1454	85%

Linked tables report:
- Employee numbers and average salaries by rank and institution, for 11/2024, 11/2023, and year-over-year changes. [1,2]
- Top 100 salary increases for continuing employees from 11/2023 to 11/2024. [1,2]
- Top 100 salaries. [2]

For continuing employees with no change in position title, the average individual salary increase (including COLAs, step increases, and ad hoc adjustments) between 10/31/2023 and 10/31/2024 was 10.8% for academic faculty, 10.5% for administrative faculty, and 13.3% for classified staff. [1,2]
For continuing employees with a change in position (e.g., promotion in rank, job change, or new title), the average individual salary increase was 17.2% for academic faculty, 22.8% for administrative faculty, and 21.9% for classified staff. These percentages include individuals who switched to a different employee category. [1,2]
The number of executives (Executive and Administrative Faculty Range E) employed rose from 307 to 325, a 5.9% increase, representing net new positions and filled vacancies from the prior year. GBC added four executives, TMCC added three, UNLV added four, and the System added eight. UNR was down three executive positions, a result of vacancies as of 11/1/2024. [3]
SB375 of the 2023 session appropriated $10 million per year in one-time funds to expand nursing instruction programs. This funding is not reflected in large increases in full-time nursing faculty and staff between 11/2023 and 11/2024 (these data do not include part-time temporary instructors). At the UNR Orvis School of Nursing, a new dean was hired with a base salary of $395,000 and about a dozen continuing faculty received raises of 50% in addition to the 11% COLAs. NSHE is requesting the continuation of the SB375 funding for the next biennium.
Despite the historically large COLAs for faculty of 12% on 7/1/2023 and 11% on 10/1/2024, net take-home pay as funded by the legislature is still 16.4% below FY2009 after accounting for inflation, retirement contributions, COLAs and funded merit raises, as shown in the following chart.

Sources: NSHE Public Records Requests. Analysis by NFA 12/2024

[1] Continuing employees are identified by email addresses; individuals who changed their email address for any reason including a name change or change of institution are treated as new employees. Individuals who were terminated from faculty or classified positions but rehired on a Letter of Appointment or other category disappear from the Workday records obtained here. Because of these and other limitations of the public records, totals may not add up exactly compared with our 2023 summary report. NFA would welcome similar analyses by NSHE human resources personnel where individuals can be properly tracked through unique identifiers.

[2] Clinical faculty and DRI are excluded from comparisons because of their different ranks and compensation structures from the seven educational institutions, as well as the high prevalence of external funding.

[3] UNR’s General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs retired in October 2024. A new General Counsel was appointed in December 2024, without the Vice President title. As NFA previously pointed out, the previous General Counsel was promoted to Vice President without a full search and consultation with faculty as required by UNR Bylaws 3.6.3.

Previous Reports:

Social Security Fairness Act Enacted!

Kent Ervin — Sun, 22 Dec 2024 18:01:19 GMT

In the early hours of Saturday morning of December 21st, the U.S. Senate passed the Social Security Fairness Act, repealing the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset which reduced social security benefits for retirees who also worked for states and universities not participating in Social Security. That includes NSHE faculty and classified staff on PERS or the NSHE Retirement Plan who earned Social Security benefits from prior employment. When the Nevada Faculty Alliance met with congressional representatives in Washington this year, the Social Security Fairness Act was one of our top issues. The success in Congress was due to a strong national coalition of public employee advocates including our affiliate, the American Federation of Teachers.

Statement from Randi Weingarten, AFT President:

AFT members just helped secure a major victory for working Americans! The Senate passed the Social Security Fairness Act overnight, capping a decadeslong fight for retirement justice for educators, nurses, firefighters, first responders and other public employees.

Read about this important victory here!

From the start of his administration, President Joe Biden has acted decisively on retirement security. Now we hope he will sign this bill quickly, because so many of us know a teacher, firefighter, law enforcement officer, nurse or public worker who's paid into Social Security year after year, only to have their payments curbed by the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset when they retire.

After 40 years of advocacy and coalition-building by our members—and other workers and retirees across the nation—I'm thrilled that justice was finally done for the millions of Americans who have dedicated their lives to serving the public but would see their retirements throttled by a punitive and unnecessary loophole.

As you know, the WEP and GPO create real financial hardship for retired educators, firefighters, police officers and other public employees. For example, the WEP unfairly penalizes retirees who have spent careers in public service but who have also paid into Social Security at some point, whether while working in the private sector or while working in the public sector in states not affected by the WEP.

Educators covered by the WEP have seen their earned Social Security benefit reduced by 40-60 percent. They represent a substantial portion of the more than 2 million retired public employees and more than 6 million current public employees who are affected by the WEP.

Similarly, the GPO hurts hundreds of thousands of retired teachers, support staff and other public employees; current public employees will potentially triple that number. Under the GPO, a Social Security-penalized teacher receiving a public pension, whose spouse is collecting a Social Security benefit, is not entitled to that spousal benefit when the spouse dies before the teacher.

Under the GPO, the Social Security benefit is “offset” by the public pension. Any other surviving spouse is entitled to that Social Security death benefit, even if they are drawing from a substantial retirement account like a 401(k) or an IRA. This is deeply unfair, and it’s also cruel to continue when it's well-known that the GPO has a disproportionate impact on women, who are more likely to be impoverished as they get older.

The Senate joined the House and delivered on its promise to pass the Social Security Fairness Act so that every public employee can retire with dignity and grace.

This win is important because a fair and secure retirement is how we respect the workers who uplift our communities. It's also how we recruit and retain the next generation to help our country thrive.

I'm so grateful to the bill's sponsors—Reps. Abigail Spanberger and Garret Graves, and Sens. Sherrod Brown and Susan Collins—and to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer for shepherding this bill through the legislative process.

For our retirees and for our future, we, and the 118th Congress, have made a difference.

Congratulations to all the AFT members and supporters who worked to make this victory happen.

After fighting for so long for Social Security fairness, this win is a sweet way to start the holidays.

Thank you.

In unity,
Randi Weingarten
AFT President

2024 NFA Survey of NSHE Faculty

Kent Ervin — Tue, 03 Dec 2024 06:09:53 GMT

2024 NFA Survey of NSHE Faculty

The Nevada Faculty Alliance has surveyed academic and non-managerial administrative faculty at the seven NSHE colleges and universities about compensation and benefits, shared governance, academic freedom, institutional leadership, recruitment and retention, campus climate, and collective bargaining. The aggregate numerical results and a narrative with highlights are presented here.

The survey was conducted from November 9 to November 30, 2024, via SurveyMonkey with individual email invitations. A total of 6168 invitations were sent to all academic faculty and to administrative faculty ranges A to D; 2488 responded giving a 40% overall response rate. Ninety percent of those who started the survey completed it.

We would like to thank everyone who responded to the survey and provided written comments. Your input is incredibly valuable to us, and we will read and consider all of the comments. As always, we remain committed to working in solidarity with members of our faculty alliance to ensure that our voices are heard and our needs are met.

The detailed aggregate and institutional results are linked below:

2024 Summary Results - All Institutions with Comparisons and Statistics

Key highlights from the surveys include the following:

After our two large cost-of-living adjustments of 12% in July 2023 and 11% in October 2024, for which NFA fought strongly, faculty are feeling better about their overall compensation, with 62% saying they moderately or strongly agree that their overall compensation is satisfactory while 37% moderately or strongly disagree. That’s a reversal from two years ago when 64% of respondents reported dissatisfaction with their overall compensation. However, approximately half of the respondents believe their compensation is not appropriate compared with others in their field and stage of career nationally or compared with others hired before or after them at their own institution.

About 59% express moderate or strong satisfaction with health care benefits, an improvement from 49% two years ago. Since then, some PEBP benefits have been partially restored and NSHE has provided Long-Term Disability Insurance for faculty employees (a NFA priority). A strong majority of respondents (83%) are satisfied with retirement benefits. For NFA’s advocacy in the next legislative session, faculty prioritize across-the-board salary increases and lower out-of-pocket costs for health care.

Although majorities of faculty members say their institutional administrations and presidents promote a strong academic environment (64%) and protect academic freedom (54%), shared governance is called into question by faculty. Only 45% overall agree that their administration affirms the principles of shared governance through their decision-making. GBC at 75% and WNC at 68% stand out as positive cases, versus less than half at the other institutions and 38% at UNR. Only 55% of respondents overall (less than half at UNR) agree with the statement “Faculty committees largely determine educational policy, curriculum design, curriculum review, and academic standards”--areas where faculty should have primary authority under basic shared governance principles. Only 53% of respondents overall (less than half at GBC and UNR) agree that the recommendations of faculty committees largely determine the nature of the evaluation or tenure and promotion of individual faculty members. While 60% agree that faculty recommendations are decisive for faculty search outcomes, only 32% agree and 39% disagree that faculty recommendations decisively influence executive-level searches. Notably, only 45% overall believe their presidents or provosts are appropriately selecting capable executive administrators and deans. At UNR, 49% disagree with that statement.

The allocation of resources to departments and programs is another area of concern, with 43% disagreeing vs 39% agreeing that budget allocations reflect appropriate strategic goals and the missions of the institutions.

Faculty respondents generally report having a collegial work environment within their own departments or programs (74% overall), suggesting good working relationships with close colleagues. The work environments on campuses overall are rated positively at a lower rate (64%). There is variability across the seven institutions regarding how the campus climate has changed over the past two years, with majorities saying the climate has improved at CSN, GBC, and WNC and pluralities saying the climate has deteriorated at NSU, UNLV, and UNR. Tellingly, a substantial minority (36% overall) fear that they may face discipline or retaliation for expressing criticism of their department, program, or institution and 15% say they have personally experienced such retaliation.

Forty-two percent of respondents believe that the ability of their department or program to recruit high-quality new faculty has deteriorated over the past two years (versus 28% saying it has improved). The most-cited reason is low salary offers, followed by better competing offers. High housing and living expenses are cited more often at the northwest Nevada institutions (TMCC, UNR, and WNC).

About 44% of the faculty respondents have seriously considered leaving their institution in the past two years, a slight reduction from 50% in the 2022 survey. Low salaries are the most common reason followed by limited advancement opportunities and a lack of sense of belonging, then tension with supervisors or the upper administration and an unwelcoming campus climate. Sixteen percent of those who seriously considered leaving were recruited by or offered a position at another institution.

Asked about the political atmosphere for higher education in Nevada, 50% find it very or somewhat unfavorable versus 39% who find it very or somewhat favorable. Although higher education and academic freedom are under stronger attack in other states such as Texas and Florida, state funding of higher education in Nevada has been deficient and the Board of Regents has been dysfunctional over many years.

Finally, at the four institutions without faculty collective bargaining units (GBC, NSU, UNLV & UNR), a supermajority of 78% of respondents moderately or strongly support the formation of a bargaining unit to negotiate for improved compensation, benefits, and working conditions.

The survey responses will inform our advocacy efforts at the legislature for higher, fully-funded COLAs, for improvement of benefits, and for a bill to secure collective bargaining rights in state law.

This faculty survey is strongly indicative of differences in campus climate and shared governance among the seven institutions, but does not substitute for the need for comprehensive campus climate studies and faculty evaluations of administrators, which should be conducted by external consultants as part of the periodic presidential reviews by the Regents. Such studies could delve into the specific groups of faculty who feel the campus climate is unwelcoming or uncomfortable and why.

This survey includes several questions similar or identical to questions in the faculty surveys for the 2023-24 presidential evaluations of Presidents Sandoval and Whitfield. These questions are noted in the survey summary report. The response rates for the NFA survey at UNLV (43%, 974 responses) and UNR (38%, 850 responses) significantly exceeded the response rates for the presidential evaluation surveys for President Whitfield (16%, 491) and President Sandoval (19%, 456). The public evaluation committee reports quoted survey responses for only a few of the questions in the presidential evaluation surveys (five of 37 questions for Sandoval and nine of 40 questions for Whitfield).

Questions or feedback on the survey results may be directed to kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA Statement on the Passing of Regent Lois Tarkanian

State Board — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 23:07:47 GMT

The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance is saddened to learn of the death of Regent Lois Tarkanian. Dr. Tarkanian was a long-time advocate for education at all levels. She served with distinction on the NSHE Board of Regents since her election in 2016. The NFA appreciated her careful consideration of issues before the board and her support of students and faculty.

NFA State Board Endorses Question 1

State Board — Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:12:09 GMT

Update, 22 Oct 2024:

The Nevada Faculty Alliance endorses Question 1 and advises members to vote "Yes" on the ballot measure. Please see Information about Question 1 on the November Ballot for more information and a comprehensive analysis.

Original Post, 12 Sep 2024:

This November, Nevada voters will determine whether Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution will be amended to remove the Board of Regents. If Question 1 passes, the Board of Regents would still be the elected governing body of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) because the Board is established and its duties are specified in existing state laws as well as the Constitution. However, with the approval of Question 1, future Legislatures would be free to enact changes to those provisions and any state laws or regulations pertaining to NSHE.

As the NFA State Board, we greatly respect all our members’ decisions regarding Question 1 and do not seek to change members’ votes. We recognize that Question 1 comprises complex issues about the governance of higher education, especially with the lack of certainty about future legislative changes.

We have provided our members with information through forums with proponents and opponents of Question 1 and published members’ pro and con opinions and information about the ballot question. In our recent survey of NFA members on Question 1, 148 respondents were evenly divided, with 41% in support, 43% in opposition, and 16% undecided (margin of error 7%). Members were also divided on whether the NFA should remain neutral or take an official position.

Although we have previously been neutral on Question 1, guidance has been requested by many of our members and our labor movement allies, who have been looking to NFA’s expertise and experience with NSHE governance. As a result, on September 7, 2024, the State Board held a vigorous discussion about whether to take an official position or remain neutral on Question 1. This decision was made with the recognition that any formal position may cause political blowback but that not taking a position also has political implications. In our discussion, we determined that although Question 1 is flawed, it is the only available path for change. Therefore, the NFA State Board voted to endorse Question 1.

We based our decision on our decades-long observations of the Board of Regents and the legislature and also our relationships with Regents and legislators past and present. In endorsing Question 1, we also considered the following:

Inability to Reform: Few faculty or outside observers believe the Board of Regents as currently structured is working. After previous attempts to amend the Constitution to change to a hybrid appointed and elected board (2006) or remove the Board from the Constitution (2020) failed at the ballot box, the Board of Regents has not reformed itself or NSHE.

Low Bar to Serve as a Regent: The only qualification for running for Regent is being a district resident. Regents–including some who are currently serving–might not have experience in higher education, even as students. With the passage of Question 1, the legislature could impose minimum qualifications for Regents, ensure a balanced representation of faculty, students, and other stakeholders on the Board, or implement other useful reforms.

Racist, Transphobic, and Antisemitic Views: In just the past two years, at least four Regents have made offensive racist, transphobic, or antisemitic statements in public meetings or via social media. As stewards of the education of over 100,000 students, the Regents have a responsibility to respect students, not denigrate them. Despite discussing the problem for years, the board has failed to develop and implement a disciplinary process for those members who violate the Board of Regents’ own code of conduct.

Lack of Accountability: The Board has failed to hold the system administration and institutional presidents–or themselves–accountable. Despite the valiant efforts of some Regents to attend to the business of overseeing higher education, the Board spends much of its time arguing about process or with each other. The Board has been unable to hire or retain qualified chancellors, and large payouts have been given to departing executives.

Ideological Infiltration: Although there is a clear and present danger of political interference and attacks on academic freedom and shared governance by legislators and governors, low-information, down-ballot races promote the election of unqualified and anti-higher education candidates. The elected board is in danger of being taken over by such forces. It is easier for political actors who are antithetical to higher education to take over the Board of Regents than the state legislature.

There is indeed uncertainty and no guarantee regarding how future legislators and governors could change the governance of NSHE. Legislators with whom we have talked recognize that direct control by a biennial legislature is not feasible and intend to retain the Board of Regents as the governing body over Nevada’s public colleges and universities. Past legislative attempts to change the structure of NSHE (e.g., removing the community colleges from NSHE) have not gained traction. Legislative leadership is most interested in forcing NSHE to be fiscally transparent and accountable.

It is vital that faculty and student-serving NSHE professionals have a seat at the table in reforming the Board of Regents and NSHE. Although some current Regents attempt to marginalize the Nevada Faculty Alliance, we are recognized at the legislature as the independent voice of faculty and an accurate source of information about higher education. Our strength is our reputation and our voice at the legislature, as well as our coalitions with other public employee associations and the broader labor family. If Question 1 is approved by voters, NFA’s endorsement may help ensure that our voice for NSHE faculty and professionals will be heard by the legislators who will influence the future of higher education in Nevada. NFA’s bottom lines will include:

Protection of academic freedom and shared governance.
Retention of the Board of Regents as the statewide governing body and a centralized administrative structure for our universities and community colleges. This would not preclude separate institutional boards of trustees reporting to the Board of Regents or other measures for more effective oversight.
Safeguards to ensure that no single governor and no single legislature can appoint or control a majority of any governing board.
Professionalization of the Board of Regents through minimum qualifications, mandatory training, and a removal mechanism for malfeasance.

We recognize that not all our members will support our endorsement of Question 1. Regardless of the outcome, we encourage all our members to actively engage in efforts to reform higher education governance in our state.

As always, we welcome your feedback on this important issue.

Information about Question 1 on the November Ballot

Kent Ervin — Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:10:27 GMT

Update 10/1/2024:

This post provides factual information about Ballot Question 1 (removal of the Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution) and the ballot language. As of September 12, 2024, the Nevada Faculty Alliance State Board endorsed Question 1. Additional information has been provided:

Information on Ballot Question 1 Constitutional Amendment

If Question 1 is approved by a majority of voters in the 2024 General Election on November 5th, the provisions of the Nevada Constitution pertaining to higher education and the board of regents will be amended. Here we provide information about the amendment and the ballot language.

Question 1 was approved as Senate Joint Resolution 7 in the 2021 and 2023 legislative sessions. As a legislative ballot question, it only needs to be approved by the voters once to amend the constitution.

Text of the Constitutional Amendment

If Question 1 is approved by voters, Sections 4, 7, and 8 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution will be amended as shown below. The amendment removes the Board of Regents and its elections from the Constitution. It instead requires the legislature to provide by law for the governance of the state university, requires a biennial audit of public institutions of higher education, and amends the provisions for Land Grant funds to conform with the removal of the Board of Regents. Although the existing state laws establishing the Board of Regents and the election of its members would not change with the passage of Question 1, future legislatures could enact changes to those provisions and any other state laws or regulations pertaining to the Nevada System of Higher Education.

(insertions and [~~deletions]~~)

Section 4.

1. The Legislature shall provide by law for the establishment and governance of a State University which shall embrace departments for Agriculture, Mechanic Arts, and Mining [~~to be controlled by a Board of Regents whose duties shall be prescribed by Law.]~~ and other departments deemed appropriate for the State University.

2. The Legislature shall provide by law for biennial auditing of the State University and any other public institutions of higher education established by the Legislature in this State.

Section 7. [Repealed]

[The Governor, Secretary of State, and Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall for the first four years and until their successors are elected and qualified constitute a Board of Regents to control and manage the affairs of the University and the funds of the same under such regulations as may be provided by law. But the Legislature shall at its regular session next preceding the expiration of the term of office of said Board of Regents provide for the election of a new Board of Regents and define their duties.]

Section 8.

The [~~Board of Regents shall, from the~~ ~~interest accruing from the first funds which come under their~~ ~~control, immediately organize and maintain the said Mining~~ ~~department in such manner as to make it most effective and~~ ~~useful, Provided, that all the]~~ proceeds of the public lands donated by Act of Congress approved July [~~second AD.~~ ~~Eighteen hundred and sixty Two,]~~ 2, 1862, ch. 130, 12 Stat. 503, and thereafter amended by Act of Congress, for a college for the benefit of Agriculture [~~, the Mechanics]~~ and Mechanic Arts, [~~and]~~ including Military tactics , shall be invested by the [~~said Board of Regents]~~ State of Nevada in the manner required by law in a separate fund to be appropriated exclusively for the benefit of the first named departments to the State University as set forth in Section [~~Four above;]~~ 4 of this Article. And the Legislature shall provide that if through neglect or any other contingency, any portion of the fund so set apart [~~, shall be]~~ is lost or misappropriated, the State of Nevada shall replace said amount so lost or misappropriated in said fund so that the principal of said fund shall remain forever undiminished.

Condensation for Question 1

This is the language that will appear on the ballot, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau and approved by legislators on the interim Legislative Commission.*

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to remove certain provisions governing the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education and its administration of the State University and certain federal land grant funds and to provide additional legislative oversight of public institutions of higher education through regular independent audits, without repealing the current statutory election process or other existing statutory provisions relating to the Board of Regents.

Yes  No 

Sample Ballot Information

Sample ballots will contain additional detailed descriptions of the effect of Question 1. The sample ballot information was prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau and approved by legislators on the interim Legislative Commission.* The sections explaining Yes and No votes, arguments for and against passage, and the fiscal impact are excerpted here:

A “Yes” vote would amend the Nevada Constitution by: (1) removing provisions governing the election and duties of the Board of Regents and its control and management of the affairs and funds of the State University and requiring the Legislature to provide by law for the governance of the State University and for the auditing of public higher education institutions in Nevada; and (2) revising provisions governing the administration of certain funding derived under federal law and dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University.

A “No” vote would retain existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution governing the election and duties of the Board of Regents and its control and management of the affairs and funds of the State University and would not revise existing provisions governing the administration of certain funding derived under federal law and dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University.

ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE

Voting in favor of Question 1 will allow for additional legislative oversight and accountability of the Board of Regents to improve public higher education in Nevada. Question 1 would mandate that the Legislature provide for the governance of the State University, giving the Legislature the ability to change the policies and procedures of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) to be more responsive to the higher education needs of the State.

For years, the Legislature has received complaints about the Board’s policies and practices, and the Board has taken actions that have obstructed or undermined the Legislature’s investigation and review of NSHE. The Board’s actions have also led to controversies around the failure of the Board to hold NSHE and its colleges and universities to high standards of transparency and accountability and failed searches for Board leadership. Passage of Question 1 would enable the Legislature to address concerns surrounding the Board and its members by changing any of the Board’s policies and procedures.

In addition, taxpayers and students will ultimately benefit from greater legislative oversight of the Board’s financial decisions by reducing the potential for further fiscal mismanagement within NSHE. A recent audit of NSHE found that due to vague or insufficient Board policies and a lack of systemwide oversight, NSHE institutions engaged in questionable and inappropriate financial activities between 2018 and 2022, including moving state funds between accounts designated for different purposes, redirecting state funds to a different institution without legislative approval, taking action to avoid returning unused funds to the State as required by law, and spending student fees in ways that do not directly relate to the fees’ purposes or enhance the education of the students who pay them.

Question 1 will require an audit of NSHE every two years, improving accountability and transparency in the fiscal management of NSHE.

The framers of the Nevada Constitution never intended for the Board to have absolute control over the management of the State University. Granting constitutional powers to the Board was simply related to accessing federal land grant funding without requiring action by the Legislature. However, the Board has asserted in cases before the Nevada Supreme Court that its constitutional status gives it virtual autonomy and thus immunity from certain laws and policies enacted by the Legislature. Based on legislative testimony, there is an impression that the Board uses its constitutional status as a shield against additional legislative oversight and accountability and even conducts itself as a fourth branch of government though the Nevada Constitution specifies only the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of State government. Passage of Question 1 will prevent the Board from using its current constitutional status to protect NSHE from legislative scrutiny.

Improve our public higher education system by allowing for greater accountability, transparency and oversight of the system. Vote “Yes” on Question 1.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE

Proponents of Question 1 want voters to believe that the framers of the Nevada Constitution got it wrong, and that the Legislature’s involvement will somehow improve the transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of Nevada’s higher education system. Unfortunately, passage of this ballot question does not guarantee any of these promised benefits. Question 1 is nothing but the Legislature trying to gain more power and control, and it would only serve to add political pressures to a governance system that is serving this State well. Previous attempts to change higher education governance, including a similar 2020 ballot question to remove the constitutional status of the Board of Regents, have failed because Nevadans recognize the importance of keeping the system in the Nevada Constitution as originally drafted.

Academic freedom is under unprecedented attack around the country. The ability to independently pursue research that benefits the State or to retain expert faculty may be jeopardized with increased legislative influence in higher education. By removing the constitutional status of the Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution, Question 1 increases the potential for political interference over curriculum and academic standards in our public colleges and universities.

The Board of Regents is best equipped to establish policy for the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) because its sole focus is on higher education. The Board has governed our higher education system for over 150 years as the system has grown in size, prestige, and complexity, and in that time, outcomes have improved. It does not make sense to risk losing the Board’s independence, institutional knowledge, and expertise with no assurance of what the Legislature may put in its place. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Legislature, which meets only once every other year, would be more effective at establishing higher education policy than the elected Regents.

The Board is already subject to considerable legislative oversight and accountability. For example, the Legislature recently passed legislation to alter the Board’s composition from 13 to 9 members and reduce member terms from six to four years. The Board must also explain and justify its financial management decisions to the Legislature and the Legislature retains the ultimate power of the purse to determine the amount of state funding for higher education. Finally, the Legislature already has the ability to require audits of NSHE as evidenced by the Legislature’s recent audit of NSHE. Because the Legislature has demonstrated its ability to oversee the Board and hold it accountable, the constitutional requirement for audits and the removal of the constitutional status of the Board are not necessary.

The Board’s current status in the Nevada Constitution ensures that the Board remains elected, responsible to the voters, and responsive to constituents. Passage of Question 1 would allow the Legislature to change existing higher education policies and procedures and even allow the Legislature to make members of the Board appointed rather than elected.

Keep the status and election of the Board of Regents in the Nevada Constitution. Vote “No” on Question 1.

FISCAL NOTE

Financial Impact—Cannot Be Determined

If approved by the voters, Question 1 removes provisions governing the election and duties of the Board of Regents and its control and management of the affairs and funds of the State University from the Nevada Constitution and requires the Legislature to provide by law for the governance of the State University and for the auditing of public higher education institutions in Nevada.

Future actions, if any, taken by the Legislature regarding the governance of the State University cannot be predicted. Thus, the resulting financial impact upon State government, if any, cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty.

The provisions of Question 1 requiring the Legislature to provide for biennial auditing of the State University and other public institutions of higher education in Nevada will have a financial effect upon the State government. However, because it is unknown what factors the Legislature may use in determining the scope of each biennial audit, the resultant cost to the State to pay for these audits cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty.

Finally, this ballot question clarifies existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution relating to the administration of the federal land grant proceeds dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University under the federal Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. However, because the State of Nevada must administer those proceeds in the manner required by the federal law, this ballot question will not change the purpose or use of those proceeds under the federal law. Thus, there is no anticipated financial impact upon State government from these revisions if Question 1 is approved by the voters.

* The ballot question language and sample ballot language are taken from the Legislative Counsel Bureau's presentation to the Legislative Commission on June 18, 2024. The presentation included public comments on the initially proposed ballot language from the Nevada Faculty Alliance and others.

Update 10/15/2024: Removed paragraph regarding prior neutral stance on Question 1 by the NFA. Links to NFA's endorsement and pro and con articles are in the 10/1/2024 update at the top of the article.

General Election information for NSHE faculty and professional staff

State Board — Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:55:03 GMT

2024 General Election Information

General Election on November 5, 2024.

Early voting begins October 19th and ends November 1st. Mail Ballots must be postmarked by November 5th.

Information about candidates and ballot questions:

Board of Regents Candidate Questionnaires and Zoom Forums
Nevada Senate Candidate Questionnaires
Nevada Assembly Candidate Questionnaires
Ballot Question 1 (removal of the Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution)

NFA Endorsements for Federal and State Elections

About the Nevada Faculty Alliance's Political Action

The NFA Political Action Committee works to bring issues related to higher education in our state to legislators and leaders. We work hard to ensure that your voice is heard at the state legislature, the governor's office, as well as at the local and federal levels.

For questions concerning the PAC or governmental relations please contact:

Shantal Marshall, NFA Political Action Committee Chair: shantal.marshall@nevadafacultyalliance.org
Kent Ervin, NFA Director of Government Relations: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org

Collective bargaining policy update overdue

Jim New — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:45:41 GMT

Back in 1975, the Nevada Board of Regents first adopted policies that permitted collective bargaining in the State's higher education system. At the time, the policies reflected state laws for public employees. The last round of major revisions occurred in the early 1990s when changes were adopted to align the BOR policies with the same state laws that had evolved over time. Lawmakers have updated the state laws many times in the last three decades, but no such updates have occurred in the higher education policies, leaving them dramatically outdated.

About three years ago, the NFA submitted proposed changes designed to create parity between NSHE Professionals and other state employee groups, but multiple circumstances over time sidelined the process. This year, however.

Upon the advice of the Board of Regents chair, the Council of Faculty Senate Chairs, consisting of the senate chairs from all NSHE institutions, is currently reviewing our proposal. We hope the proposal will be taken up by the Board in the coming months, but we also know the likelihood of it passing increases dramatically if we have support from the Senate Chairs.

Although collective bargaining does not exist on every NSHE campus, the NFA proposal not only makes the NSHE policy consistent with state laws governing other employee groups, it clarifies how collective bargaining units are formed and strengthens bargaining policies. These changes provide better support to faculty in existing collective bargaining chapters and set a clear path forward for faculty who may, in the future, consider creating a collective bargaining unit on their campus.

The proposal would:

Create consistency between NSHE collective-bargaining procedures and state laws for other state public employees.
Remove anachronistic language specifying only one system bargaining unit and one community college bargaining unit, which conflicts with the actual practice that allowed approval of three community college bargaining units.
Allow for separate bargaining units on each campus for various categories of professional employees (i.e., academic faculty, non-managerial administrative faculty, lecturers, postdocs, medical residents, and graduate assistants).
Allow for a new bargaining unit to be formed by written authorizations from a majority of the professional employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
Resolve negotiation impasses promptly and aligns with state laws by adopting binding arbitration.
Require future collective bargaining agreements to include methods for resolving employee grievances, culminating in arbitration as a final appeal.

The proposal would not:

Affect any existing policies, rules, or procedures on campuses where faculty have not elected to form collective bargaining units, including both research universities.
Change existing collective bargaining agreements at CSN, TMCC, and WNC (until they are renegotiated).
Change Nevada’s status as a right-to-work state.
Require any employee to join a union or pay union dues.
Allow strikes or related work actions by NSHE employees.
Change anti-strike provisions for NSHE employees.
Create any new bargaining units, which are established only by the consent of a majority of the members of a proposed bargaining unit.
Change the employee association’s duty of fair representation for members of bargaining units who are not dues-paying members of the association.
Allow appeals of collective bargaining issues to the state Government Employee-Management Relations Board, as a statutory change would be required.

Collective bargaining does not supplant the role of the Faculty Senate. Instead, it supports and complements shared governance by addressing issues that are outside the mission of the Faculty Senate, amplifying the voice of the faculty.

Our proposal seeks parity with other public employee groups in Nevada, including our classified colleagues at NSHE. In the 34 years since the last revision to this policy, significant changes have occurred in state laws and labor standards. We seek to level that playing field for our members and professional colleagues.

NFA Endorsements for 2024 Elections

State Board — Tue, 08 Oct 2024 15:57:48 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance Political Action Committee is proud to make the following endorsements for the 2024 General Election. For information about candidates' positions on higher education issues, please see their responses to our questionnaires for candidates for the Board of Regents, Assembly, and Senate. We have also provided information on Ballot Question 1

General Election on November 5, 2024.
Early voting begins October 19 and ends November 1, 2024
Find your District
Check your voter registration
Support our political action through a donation to the NFA-PAC

Federal Offices
President / Vice President		Kamala Harris / Tim Walz
U.S. Senator		Jacky Rosen
Congress District 1		Dina Titus
Congress District 2		Greg Kidd
Congress District 3		Susie Lee
Congress District 4		Steven Horsford
Board of Regents
RD 1	Carlos David Fernandez	RD 9	Carol Del Carlo
RD 4	Tonia Holmes-Sutton	RD 12	Amy Carvalho
Nevada Senate
SD 1	Michelee "Shelly" Crawford	SD 7	Roberta Lange
SD 3	Rochelle Nguyen	SD 11	Dallas Harris
SD 4	Dina Neal	SD 15	Angie Taylor
SD 5	Jennifer Atlas	SD 18	John Steinbeck
SD 6	Nicole Cannizzaro
Nevada Assembly
AD 1	Daniele Monroe-Moreno	AD 20	David Orentlicher
AD 2	Ron Nelson	AD 21	Elaine Marzola
AD 3	Selena Torres	AD 24	Erica Roth
AD 4	Ryan Hampton	AD 25	Selena La Rue Hatch
AD 5	Brittney Miller	AD 26	Diane Sullivan
AD 6	Jovan Jackson	AD 27	Heather Goulding
AD 7	Tanya Flanagan	AD 28	Reuben D'Silva
AD 8	Duy Nuguyen	AD 29	Joe Dalia
AD 9	Steve Yeager	AD 30	Natha Anderson
AD 10	Venise Karris	AD 34	Hanadi Nadeem
AD 11	Cinthia Moore	AD 35	Sharifa Wahab
AD 12	Max Carter II	AD 36	Marlene Drake
AD 13	Brian Hibbetts	AD 37	Shea Backus
AD 14	Erica Mosca	AD 38	Gregory Koenig
AD 15	Howard Watts III	AD 39	Erich Obermayr
AD 16	Cecelia Gonzalez	AD 40	Katherine Ramsey
AD 17	Linda Hunt	AD 41	Sandra Jauregui
AD 18	Venicia Considine	AD 42	Tracy Brown-May
Nevada Board of Education
ED 1	Tricia Braxton	ED 2	Paul Davis
Ballot Question 1
Ballot Question 1 (Removal of the Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution) - YES Additional Information on Question 1

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (www.nevadafacultyalliance.org) is an affiliate of the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers/AFl-CIO. Our mission is to advance academic freedom, enhance shared governance, and promote the economic security of the professional employees of Nevada’s public colleges and universities. The NFA Political Action Committee is proud to make these endorsements of candidates who support our shared interests at the state and national level. We will be encouraging all winning candidates to support our efforts to address issues related to higher education in Nevada.

Updated10/1/2024.

Fact Checking "Yes On Question 1" Claims

Kent Ervin — Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:08:50 GMT

Fact Checking the Nevadans for Quality Higher Education on Question 1 Claims

The Nevada Faculty Alliance has endorsed Question 1 for reasons outlined in a statement by the NFA State Board. The NFA believes that voters should judge the merits of Question 1 based on facts and not on exaggerated promises or dire predictions. Here we provide fact checks on the arguments provided by the Nevadans for Higher Quality Education and Yes On 1, political action committees that spent a combined $1.36 million to promote the similar Question 1 ballot measure in 2020, which failed by 0.3% margin with no organized opposition, and has reported raising $40,000 in contributions through July 15 for the 2024 ballot question. The top donors to the PACs are the Council for a Better Nevada, the Engelstad Foundation, and the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce.

Quoting the YesOn1Nv.org website as accessed on 9/15/2024

NFA fact checks and explanations in red.

What does YES on 1 do if passed?

YES on 1 will be on the Nevada 2024 ballot.

TRUE.

It preserves the election of the Board of Regents and does not change any of their functions or duties. It simply removes the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents from the State Constitution […]

MISLEADING. The constitutional amendment explicitly removes the requirement that regents must be elected from the Nevada Constitution, which allows future legislatures to enact changes in how regents are selected. With passage of Question 1, the duties, functions, and even the existence of a governing board over all public colleges and universities could be changed in the future. Allowing changes is the point of the amendment, not preservation of the status quo. Existing state laws that follow the current constitutional requirements will preserve the Board of Regents and its duties only until the legislature approves changes in a bill that the governor signs.

[…] and implements an independent audit of their $2.1 billion taxpayer budget to increase transparency and accountability.

INACCURATE. Question 1 requires a biennial audit of public colleges and universities, but does not specify that the audit must be “independent” rather than an internal audit or a legislative audit. The scope and form of the audits will be up to legislative action. The total state appropriation of taxpayer funds for NSHE for fiscal year 2024 is $850,048,084. Adding student fees and tuition and miscellaneous revenue brings the total state-supported operating budgets to $1,288,835,710 for FY2024, including the instructional budgets, professional schools, and non-instructional programs.

This measure will save Nevada taxpayer dollars and put students first.

UNKNOWN. The use of taypayer dollars is up to each future legislature. In fiscal year 2023, the total of state funding and student fees per student for Nevada’s colleges and universities ranked 50^th out of 50 states. Although there are potential areas for saving taxpayer dollars, putting students first requires a higher investment.

Does YES on 1 keep the election of the Board of Regents?

YES. All of the powers, duties, and elections of the Board of Regents are preserved in NRS 396.020 and 396.040.

REQUIRES CONTEXT. Without the Board of Regents powers, duties, and elections specified in the Constitution if Question 1 passes, future legislatures may change Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). NRS 396.020 merely specifies the colleges and universities of the Nevada System of Higher Education are “administered under the direction of the Board of Regents”. NRS 396.040 currently specifies that the Board of Regents will have 13 elected members, but the 2023 legislature changed that to 9 members after 2028. The statutory powers of the board are actually specified in NRS 396.110: “The Board of Regents may prescribe rules for: (a) Its own government; and (b) The government of the System.” These state laws could be changed after the passage of Question 1 because the powers and duties of the Board of Regents would no longer be specified in the Constitution.

Will YES on 1 cost any money?

Nope. There is no fiscal note attached to the ballot question. This is because all YES on 1 does is modernize Nevada’s governance structure over higher education to the same standard of every other taxpayer-funded agency.

FALSE. Question 1 requires a biennial audit of NSHE, which will have a fiscal impact. Although the official ballot explanation says the dollar amount cannot not be determined because the scope of audits is to be determined by future legislatures, the fiscal impact for a legislative audit of NSHE proposed in 2021 would have cost $699,000 in travel and overtime costs for the legislative audit division alone, not counting regular staff time for either legislative or NSHE staff.

As indicated in the previous question, Question 1 does not immediately change the governance structure for higher educaition Nevada. It would be ridiculous to think that the governance and oversight of our seven public colleges and universities with over 100,000 students, 15,000 employees and hundreds of education programs could or should be the same as every other state agency, the Division of Motor Vehicles for example. If the governance structure of NSHE is changed in the future, it could cost more money--for example if the system is broken up with separate boards of trustees for different institutions as has been proposed in past legislative bills.

How will YES on 1 strengthen Nevada’s Higher Education System?

In the past few decades, Nevada has benefitted from being one of the fastest-growing states; however, our state has struggled to adapt its governance and infrastructure to best meet the needs of an expanding and diversifying Western state.

Nevada is the only state where a single elected board governs all universities, colleges, and community colleges. Other states long ago modernized their governance of higher education to reflect the differing missions of their colleges and universities and the evolving needs of their states.

MISLEADING. Nevada’s governance of higher education is not nearly as unique as this makes it appear. According to data from the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities and state constitutions, twenty-two other states have governing boards of trustees over higher education institutions enshrined in their constitutions. Three other states (Colorado, Michigan, and Nebraska) have governing boards with elected members. Thirty-four other states have governing boards that oversee both 2-year and 4-year colleges. Smaller states more often have a single governing board; for example, Hawai’i has a single board that governs its three universities and seven community colleges, Montana has a single board that governs the state’s 16 colleges and universities, and North Dakota has a single board over six universities and five community colleges. Over 40 states have system boards that govern multiple colleges or universities. Twenty-four states have institutional or system boards but also statewide coordinating commissions with varying policy-making powers. Whereas Nevada funds and governs community colleges at the state level, in many states they are funded primarily through county or city taxes with local control. There is no single structural form that is considered “modern” or best practice for the governance of state institutions of higher education.

How will YES on 1 help our students and Nevada’s economy?

Nevada has remained tethered to an outdated higher education structure. Our inability to be nimble and meet the needs of the community has led to a loss of confidence in higher education by our community including business, philanthropic, and community leaders. This means less resources for our students, which imperils both the access to higher education and the capacity of our State’s higher education institutions to serve students, from universities to community colleges, to develop and diversify Nevada’s economy and workforce.

EXAGGERATED. Although the legislature has expressed its lack of confidence in NSHE and the Board of Regents by proposing Question 1, our colleges and universities have strong community support.

The inability to attract and keep top-rated leadership has burdened the State with millions in extravagant salaries for chancellors, university presidents, and other executives, who only stay for a few years and leave with millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded severance packages.

TRUE. In the meantime, faculty salaries are well below average of peer institutions and have not kept up with inflation.

Will YES on 1 mean more money for universities, colleges, faculty, and students?

Yes, because it will help us save taxpayer dollars and reduce wasteful spending. NSHE and the Board of Regents are publicly funded by the state’s budget through taxpayer dollars, yet they go unchecked and are out of control. The Board of Regents have squandered millions of taxpayer dollars on their own pet projects – wasting money and putting the burden on the citizens of Nevada and on the backs of our students.

REQUIRES CONTEXT. Only part of NSHE’s budgets are publicly funded through the state. The so-called self-supporting budgets are funded in part or entirely through student or user fees or external sales or grant revenue. Examples include residence halls, food services, parking garages, and intercollegiate athletics. Those funds generally cannot be spent on instructional operations. The Yes On Question 1 proponents have not identified what specific spending or programs should be eliminated to save taxpayer dollars. The use of taxpayer dollars is controlled by the legislature regardless of Question 1.In fiscal year 2023, the total of state funding and student fee & tuition revenue per student for Nevada’s colleges and universities ranked 50^th out of 50 states. Although there are potential areas for saving taxpayer dollars, improving higher education without raising fees and tuition on the backs of our students will require a higher investment from the state.

Not to mention their $30 million-dollar budget is larger than any other state’s and is more than they give most of our colleges.

INACCURATE. The general fund operating budget for the System Administration, which includes the Board of Regents, Chancellor and Chancellor’s staff, was $5.58 million in fiscal year 2024 (excluding one-shot program appropriations funneled through the system office). With a total staff of 27, this is not out of line with statewide higher education administrations in other states. The $30 million dollar amount apparently includes the System Computing Services’ budget of $28.6 million in FY2024. Although funded by the legislature through NSHE, SCS operates statewide computer networks for other state agencies and local government entities; its budget is not comparable to the higher education administrations for other states. Among the seven colleges and universities of NSHE, only Western Nevada College and Great Basin College have total budgets less than $30 million.

NOTE: The data cited here are obtained from public sources. Corrections or clarifications from authoritative sources are welcome. Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org

Updated 9/17/2024 to include question on the fiscal impact.

Regents’ discussion of Title IX revisions rife with transphobia

Kent Ervin — Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:16:02 GMT

Update: 9/17/2024 The Nevada Faculty Alliance, faculty-led councils, and community groups have collaborated on a joint statement to oppose any efforts to weaken diversity, equity, and inclusion services or instruction in NSHE institutions.

At the August 23, 2024, special meeting of the Board of Regents, system staff reviewed emergency changes to the Board of Regents Handbook to comply with revised federal Title IX regulations that went into effect on August 1, 2024. As detailed in an AAUP statement, the new regulations broaden the definition of a hostile environment and clarify that sex-based discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The current revisions do not apply to participation in Athletics, which will be addressed in later federal action on Title IX.

We know from recent surveys that many students are subject to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and other forms of power-based violence. Were Regents interested in whether the revised Title IX rules would better protect those students? Not that one could tell from the discussion.

In the Regents’ discussion about whether to accept the new rules or lose federal funding for our colleges and universities, Regent Stephanie Goodman voiced her concerns about transgender individuals using restrooms and locker rooms matching their gender identity, and the use of gender-aligning pronouns (55:38). Regent Patrick Boylan repeated an offensive description of transgender women (59:02) (similar remarks resulted in NFA’s call for his resignation in March 2024).

Before the vote on the handbook revisions, Goodman stated she would not vote in favor because she is concerned about “protecting girls and women” (1:14:06) and Boylan restated his concerns (1:21:08) about the safety of female athletes. Regent Susan Brager and Regent Carol Del Carlo agreed (1:15:15) with Goodman’s concern about protecting woman in sports and asked for an agenda item. Goodman abstained from the vote, McMichael voted no without explanation, and the other regents voted yes.

Later in the meeting, Regent Shelly Cruz-Crawford noted (4:35:31) the disparate treatment of Regent Donald McMichael, who was removed from his position on the IDEA Committee for antisemitic statements, versus Boylan, who was not removed from the Audit, Compliance, and Title IX Committee for his transphobic statements.

Kent Ervin, NFA’s Director of Government Relations, gave a passionate closing public comment (5:32:17) challenging Regents for being concerned about nonexistent problems with restrooms and locker rooms when they do not even collect statistics about sexual assaults, harassment, and other power-based violence nor about grievances and disciplinary actions at the various institutions. Without those data–which the NFA has requested multiple times–the Board of Regents cannot identify or correct the real systemic issues affecting students, faculty, and staff at our colleges and universities. A legislative solution may be required.

The NFA calls for the Board of Regents to enforce its own anti-discrimination resolution of September 2022 by formally censuring its members who make racist, transphobic, antisemitic, or other discriminatory and offensive statements and by removing those members from the IDEA Committee and Title IX Committee. We appreciate that Chair Amy Carvalho and Vice Chair Jeffrey Downs made a statement in March 2024 affirming the anti-discrimination resolution after the previous transphobic remarks by Boylan, but stronger action is clearly needed.

Defending tenure in higher education

State Board — Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:23:18 GMT

Submitted by Greta De Jong, UNR-NFA Acting President

At the conclusion of the NSHE Board of Regents meeting on September 6, Regent Byron Brooks proposed discussion of “a policy regarding post-tenure review that’s linked to effective teaching and revision for policy regarding the termination of tenured faculty” as agenda items for future meetings. It is possible that Regent Brooks is not aware of the processes that already exist for terminating the employment of faculty who fail to do their jobs. However, given the attacks on higher education that are taking place nationwide, NSHE faculty should prepare to defend ourselves against misguided assumptions and policies that undermine tenure.

Many people believe tenure means faculty members can’t be fired, giving them privileges that are not granted to employees in other professions and removing any accountability for bad behavior. This is not an accurate perception of how tenure works. Tenured faculty can be fired for unsatisfactory performance, for financial reasons, and because of changes in an institution’s mission or curriculum, just as in other professions.

The purpose of tenure is to not to shield lazy professors from the consequences that would normally result from substandard performance. It is to encourage the production of new knowledge by allowing faculty to research and teach about topics they choose to investigate without fear of being fired if their findings upset people who may disagree with them. Tenure protects the dissemination of ideas from across the political spectrum and ensures intellectual and ideological diversity on college campuses and in public discourse.

Professors derive both personal and professional satisfaction from the pursuit of knowledge and sharing their findings with students and the community. For most of us, this is a lifelong mission, not something that anyone expects or wants to end after achieving tenure. Moreover, there already is post–tenure review for faculty at NSHE institutions, as set out in Title 2, Chapter 5.13 of the Board of Regents Handbook. All tenured faculty are evaluated annually and an overall rating of Unsatisfactory two years in a row is cause for termination of employment.

Attempts to undermine tenure and political interference in teaching at public universities in states like Florida and Indiana have led to an exodus of faculty from those institutions. Regents and other elected officials should not further demoralize NSHE faculty by making them feel that their academic freedom is being threatened, which will cause more of them to consider retiring or leaving. It will be difficult to recruit new faculty to replace them without strong protections for tenure and the right to research and teach on topics of their choice.

All faculty, regardless of tenure status, must be able to pursue new knowledge in their areas of expertise without fear of reprisals. At the same time, tenure and academic freedom are not shields for making research claims that lack evidence or using class time to express political views that are unrelated to the subject matter. The process for awarding tenure, which includes rigorous peer review by external readers, ensures that professors adhere to standards for scholarship established in their fields. The American Association of University Professors’ Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure states: “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”

Nationwide, tenure has already been weakened by the decline in the number of faculty positions that are even eligible for it. As tenured professors leave or retire, institutions often replace them with part-time or contingent faculty who lack the protections that tenure provides. The precarious employment position of these faculty incentivizes them to engage in self-censorship, make their courses less rigorous, and inflate grades to appease students and administrators who care more about graduation rates than what students are actually learning.

These practices lower academic standards and leave students ill-prepared to join the workforce or participate as informed, responsible citizens in our democracy. The American Federation of Teachers recommends in its Real Solutions for Higher Education expanding tenured faculty positions to counterbalance these trends and improve teaching effectiveness. Nevadans who truly care about quality teaching and learning should be promoting and enhancing access to tenure, not trying to undermine it.

NFA Endorsements for Regents

Kent Ervin — Sun, 25 Aug 2024 04:46:41 GMT

Nevada Faculty Alliance Announces Endorsements for the Board of Regents

UPDATED 08/24/2024: Added endorsement for Tonia Holmes-Sutton and updated for general election dates.

The NFA Political Action Committee has vetted candidates for the Board of Regents office in the 2024 General Election through questionnaires, interviews, and other research. The NFA-PAC endorses candidates who share our values and who support higher education as a common good, college and university affordability, academic freedom, and faculty rights including collective bargaining.

The NFA-PAC is pleased to announce endorsements for Carlos David Fernandez (Regent District 1), Tonia Holmes-Sutton (Regent District 4), Carol Del Carlo (Regent District 9), and Amy Carvalho (Regent District 12). Additional candidate information is linked in the table below.

General Election on November 5, 2024. Early voting begins October 19 and ends November 1, 2024
Find your Regent District
Check your voter registration
Support our political action through a donation to the NFA-PAC

Regent District	NFA Endorsed Candidate	Candidate Information
District 1 - northern Clark County	Carlos David Fernandez	Candidate Questionnaire Candidate Forum Candidate Website
District 4 – northeastern Clark County	Tonia Holmes-Sutton	Candidate questionnaire and forum Candidate Questionnaire Candidate Forum Candidate Website
District 9 – Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Storey and southern Washoe Counties	Carol Del Carlo (incumbent, won >50% in primary, elected without appearing on the general election ballot)	Candidate Questionnaire Candidate Forum Candidate Website
District 12 – southeastern Clark County	Amy Carvalho (incumbent)	Candidate Questionnaire Candidate Forum Candidate Website

***

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (www.nevadafacultyalliance.org) is an affiliate of the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers/AFl-CIO. Our mission is to advance academic freedom, enhance shared governance, and promote the economic security of professional employees at the colleges and universities of the Nevada System of Higher Education. The NFA works to empower our members to be fully engaged in our mission to help students succeed.

The NFA Political Action Committee, which is comprised of NFA members in northern and southern Nevada, is proud to make these political endorsements. We will be encouraging the winning candidates to fight with us to improve higher education in Nevada.

OPINION: Vote no on Question 1

State Board — Thu, 15 Aug 2024 01:51:17 GMT

NOTE: The following is an opinion piece contributed by member Amy Pason in opposition of Question 1, the ballot initiative to remove the Nevada Board of Regents from the State Constitution, vesting more oversight of the Board in the governor and legislature.

Amy Pason (2020-22 UNR Faculty Senate Chair; 2021-22 Chair of NSHE Faculty Senate Chairs Council)

I'm a rhetorician, which means I've spent years teaching persuasive speaking and debate where I emphasize to my students that you need to show evidence to your claims—not just deliver ideas with passion and emotion. I've followed Question 1 from its iterations in the 2019 session to reviewing the ballot language for this upcoming election, and I have yet to hear a compelling argument about how a Constitutional change will improve higher education or even a clear answer on what state legislators envision post-removing the Regents from the Constitution. Until we understand what this change means for the future of higher education, we should vote No.

My time working with the NSHE as Faculty Senate Chair and my interactions with legislators have made me skeptical of trusting proposals without clearly stated outcomes or transparent motives. As proponents of Question 1 state, technically, nothing would immediately change with a "Yes" vote, but the "what happens next" questions are important to answer—what are we voting for?

For context, when I first stepped into my role as Faculty Senate Chair in summer 2020, the State Legislature was in a special session debating AB 3. Citing that NSHE didn't have as deep of operating cuts as other state agencies, the Assembly was aiming for a $50M cut to NSHE taken out of the base operating budget. It was through negotiations with then Chancellor Thom Reilly (who involved Presidents and kept new Senate Chairs informed at each step), NSHE was able to walk away with only $25M in cuts, proportionally distributed across the System. I had been told that NSHE was always the budget balancer in legislative sessions (in terms of cuts), and actions such as AB498/2023 (vetoed after session) that specifically amended out non-PERS NSHE faculty from the benefit of shifting retirement contributions to the employer supports that claim.

Following the 2020 cuts, some of us believed the Assembly intended to "shakedown" NSHE for hidden money assumed institutions were sitting on, distrust apparently between legislators and NSHE. It was telling that when current legislators were confronted with this moment during the February 23, 2024 Zoom with NFA, legislators were confused by why some NFA members didn't trust their intentions for faculty. This is the same line of argument I heard on a different NFA Zoom in the summer of 2020 with campaigners for the "Yes on 1" argued faculty should trust elected legislators' intentions more than we should trust elected Regents, and further noted that if faculty did not vote Yes, the Legislature would have no choice but to "punish NSHE" with more budget cuts to hold Regents accountable. These campaigners also assumed that since there was no money backing a "no" campaign that "Yes" was a popular and wanted change to the state constitution. If this was meant to be a convincing argument, it wasn't.

To support my "no" position, let me rebut what I see the problem, solution, and justification for the "yes" side supposes.

There is no doubt that legislators and media have called attention to the dysfunction of NSHE, including Regents generating negative headlines for creating hostile work environments, discriminatory statements made during meetings, and the inability to hire (or retain) a Chancellor. The problem that seemingly birthed legislation for removing the Regents from the Constitution stems from former Chancellor Dan Klaich misleading legislators nearly a decade ago. I will concede that our System has problems, that not every elected Regent is an effective (or ethical) leader, and that there is much to be improved in terms of shared governance. The same could be said for our elected state legislators who seem to be more interested in giving money to athletic stadiums and fighting veto power as the highest stakes for this election.

If we concede there are problems to be addressed, is the solution of removing "Board of Regents" as the named entity that provides governance and management of the State University the best option? If the problem really was past bad actors and relationships with legislators who have left, then is amending the Constitution needed at all? If we are worried about future bad actors, wouldn't an easier solution be to elect/hire better leaders? Certainly, we can be optimistic by the recent election of faculty member Regent Downs to the Board as well as current candidates for Board positions having higher education experience. It could also be argued the Legislature has taken steps to improve the election of Regents by reducing their number and term—allowing "bad actors" to be voted out in less time (AB 118). We have already seen the Legislature hold NSHE fiscally accountable through auditing and the recent higher education funding task force.

Proponents of the Constitutional change might say this is a preventative measure: that "The Board of Regents has, at various times, relied on its constitutional status…as a defensive shield and cloak against the people's check of accountability." However, in the same 2019 resolution language for AJR5 (the language is mostly identical to SJR7 in 2021), proponents admit that the Nevada Supreme Court has rejected the broad autonomy of Regents, while recognizing there are some limits to what the Legislature can legislate on regarding higher education (potentially areas of curriculum, tenure, and faculty governance). Why again do we need to change the Constitution?

In terms of justifying why amending the Constitution is best, I've yet to hear a convincing argument. Proponents don't explain how education of students or working conditions of faculty will improve. Claims of how changing the Constitution will "modernize" higher education seem to relate only to how only three other states have constitutional provisions for elected Boards (not to mention 21 other states that constitutionally provide for other Board compositions). "Modernize" is a slogan with no substance.

When directly asked what legislators might intend with their more explicit power to "exercise the full extent of its legislative power…[with] more options and greater flexibility to review, reform and improve all other institutions," legislators on the February NFA Zoom said there was no plan or specifics for what might be changed. However, faculty need only look at bills presented in previous sessions to have some idea of possible outcomes: breaking up the System to have individual governing Boards for each institution, changing Board composition to include appointed members, and changing the Chancellor into a Director position.

Removing the Board as the named entity in the Constitution also raises more questions: does this allow that the Legislature do more to legislate on curriculum, tenure, or other institutional policies (that are otherwise the domain of faculty or NSHE policy)? Would working with legislators biennially on policy be better than faculty's more direct relationship with Regents through our shared governance processes? When concerns were raised on bills such as breaking up the System, in the February NFA Zoom, lawmakers sponsoring these bills deflected any negatives of these proposals and told us that it is our job as faculty to propose our own bills or be ready to give public comment if we dislike their proposals, implying that more bad bills were inevitable.

To my knowledge, faculty, Presidents, Regents, or education accrediting agencies were not part of drafting the bills that eventually became Question 1. Lobbyists, not faculty, were called to present the bill in committee (although faculty on both sides of the issue presented public comment). I can only speculate on who benefits most from these proposals or at whose urging legislators are sponsoring such bills for. Perhaps some donors see the Legislature as a better partner than our current Board and Presidents. In the spirit of shared governance, wouldn't it be better to vote "Yes" on proposals that have had faculty input and were based on problems and solutions identified by faculty?

In sum, I'm a "No" on Question 1 as I don't see amending the Constitution as a fix for improving higher education. Regardless of how this vote turns out, this is a call for all of us involved in NFA to stay engaged and organize for the higher education system we know is best.

OPINION: NFA should endorse Question 1

State Board — Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:09:06 GMT

NOTE: The following is an opinion piece contributed by member Scott Huber in support of Question 1, the ballot initiative to remove the Nevada Board of Regents from the State Constitution, vesting more oversight of the Board in the governor and legislature.

I support the passage of the new Question 1 during the 2024 election and believe the Nevada Faculty Alliance should endorse this ballot measure. From my perspective, there is little doubt that the Nevada System of Higher Education is a troubled organization that needs oversight and reform. The treatment of previous Chancellors and the selection of new Chancellors has been alarming, current and past Regents have engaged in comments and behaviors that are completely contrary to the standards of a system for which they are elected to uphold, and decisions that directly affect the ability of institutions to meet their responsibility to their students are very often compromised for political agendas that serves the needs of the few at the expense of the many.

The reasons for this state of affairs are not surprising. Under the Nevada Constitution, the Nevada legislature is charged with funding higher education. Beyond that responsibility, legislators do not know whether those funds are being used appropriately or fairly. The Regents, the various Chancellors, and the System’s political operatives, repeatedly state that the organization is accountable and transparent. I believe the evidence for that statement is contrary to the facts. The System practice is to be selectively accountable and selectively transparent to the legislative branch and the public at large. This practice serves the political needs of NSHE, not the needs of the students or the state of Nevada.

Beware. Those who oppose the new Question 1 call it a power grab by the legislature. They have already declared academia will be compromised by its passage. They claim that legislators can and will force faculty to teach politically correct topics. They say Regents will lose the ability to be elected by their constituents.

From my perspective, legislators have no such objectives in mind. The legislative branch wants actual accountability and transparency because it is weary of being misled by the System officers. They are weary of being told one thing when the facts prove otherwise. They are tired of a System that views itself as a separate branch of government, behaving as though absolute immunity is their constitutional right.

In my view the sole purpose of the new Question 1 is to enhance professionalism and credibility within the Nevada System of Higher Education. This is precisely the level of accountability practiced at all other levels of state government. As currently written in the Nevada Constitution, the System enjoys an autonomy unlike any other. This statutory protection has permitted NSHE to grow hidden, self-serving and recalcitrant. Neither our students nor the state of Nevada are well served by this governance structure.

This much I believe is clear: History has shown that transparency, true accountability and reform of the Nevada System of Higher Education will not occur unless the protection afforded the System within the Nevada Constitution is repealed. Passage of Question 1 in November will create an opportunity, and a responsibility, for faculty leadership to engage with legislators to see that all of us get it right. Our students and the state of Nevada deserve nothing less.

Funding Formula 9: Comments on the Committee Recommendations

Kent Ervin — Tue, 06 Aug 2024 22:15:00 GMT

NSHE Funding Formula 9: Comments on the Final Recommendations of the NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding

The NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding was authorized by AB493/2023, which provided a $2,000,000 appropriation for a study of the funding formula for NSHE. The Committee was convened by Interim Chancellor Patty Charlton and started meeting in November 2023 and finished its work on June 25, 2024. The Nevada Faculty Alliance actively engaged with the committee by providing information, analysis, and recommendations, as documented in this series of articles.

If the recommendations of the committee are fully implemented with no additional funding, there will be winners and losers—ranging from a gain of $7.6 million in state funding for CSN to a $5.8 million reduction for UNLV. In this article, we recap how the committee arrived at its decision and describe the major impacts on institutional budgets.

UPDATE [added 3/10/2025]: The final budget numbers presented by NSHE (page 24) at the pre-session budget hearings indicate larger redistributions of funding from UNLV ($9.8 million/year) and UNR ($11.0 million/year).

Public higher education in Nevada is underfunded overall, with total revenue per student FTE dead last among the 50 states. Nevertheless, the committee was charged with developing a new funding formula for the seven colleges and universities of NSHE without any new funding. That created a situation where the only possible way to increase funding for some institutions was to reduce funding for others, creating winners and losers. Although it was generally recognized that more support is needed for wrap-around services for at-risk and part-time students, adding a formula component based on student counts would necessarily reduce the component based on weighted student credit hours, which was designed to match the cost of instruction by level and discipline.

At its final work session meeting on June 25th (meeting video), the committee was tasked with making decisions on options provided by NSHE and its consultant, HCM Strategists. After decisions on various smaller decision points, the main decision was the percentage formula allocations to resident completed Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCH,100% of the state appropriation distribution formula since 2014), Student-Based Funding (SBF, a combination of student headcounts and unweighted student credit hours, with extra counting for underrepresented minority students and Pell-eligible students), and Outcomes-Based funding (OBF, using a relative growth model as a replacement for the 20% Performance Pool carveout in the current formula). Using the consultant’s recommended allocation of 40%/40%/20% (WSCH/SBF/OBF) produced the following projected outcome:

Table 1. Impact of initially considered 40%/40%/20% WSCH/SBF/OBF funding model

This scenario would have resulted in severe budget cuts for the two comprehensive universities while significantly increasing funding for the community colleges. The committee members then looked for ways to mitigate the negative impacts. Throughout the committee’s deliberations over the past year, NFA and members of the committee indicated the need for new appropriations to fund formula enhancements or at least to provide hold-harmless funding. NFA’s recommendation for the percentage allocation was 75%/20%/5%, phased in over two biennia with new funding for the Outcomes-Based Funding component and hold-harmless funding for two biennia. Upon questioning from the committee, HCM Strategists admitted that their recommendations for the allocations percentages were arbitrary and not based on costs of providing the services or other quantifiable factors. That means the whole exercise was ultimately about shifting funding between institutions, i.e., selecting winners and losers.

In a key exchange during the committee’s deliberations on July 25th (video excerpt), member Betsy Fretwell cited the state revenue surplus according to the Economic Forum and suggested that $15 to $25 million in state hold-harmless funding was a reasonable request, seconded by Regent Stephanie Goodman. In response, Senator Marilyn Dondero Loop talked about all of the many budget needs of the states including pre-K to 12 education and stated that new funding for higher education from the Legislature could not be counted upon. Finally, Regent Carol Del Carlo pointed out that the only other source of funding is student fees and tuition, which the Board of Regents already indexes to inflation and raised by 5% last year to help cover cost-of-living increases that were mandated by the legislature but not fully funded.

Following that discussion, the committee moved on to adjusting the proposal to reduce the negative impact on the universities, which also reduces the positive impacts on community colleges. They added non-resident students to the student-based funding component (which helps the universities that attract more out-of-state students) and ultimately changed the recommended percentage allocations to 75%/10%/15%. We emphasize that this is based on no additional funding; the modeling uses FY2025 appropriations and caseload and performance statistics, which will differ for the actual budget for 2025-2027. In addition, the committee recommended a maximum 3% reduction in any institution’s state appropriation for the first year of the new formula, which means UNR’s decrease would be slightly mediated and the difference spread proportionally among the other institutions.

Table 2: Impact of the final recommended 75%/10%/15% WSCH/SBF/OBF funding model

Breaking the recommended new formula down further, since the student-based funding component is half headcount and half unweighted student credit hours:

75% resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (100% in current formula)
5% resident and non-resident student headcounts, multiply counting underrepresented minority students and Pell-eligible students
5% resident and non-resident unweighted student credit hours, multiply counting underrepresented minority students and Pell-eligible students
15% Outcomes-Based Funding using the relative growth model

Another way to think about the 5% allocated to unweighted student credit hours is that it dilutes the weighting factors in the WSCH component, more so for institutions with more underrepresented minority and Pell-eligible students.

The relative growth model for Outcomes-Based Funding is based on the percentage growth in performance metrics for each institution relative to the prior year (reset each year), meaning that the institutions compete against each other for 15% of the state appropriations by maximizing annual growth in those metrics. The current Performance Pool metrics are targets that the institution must meet to receive its 20% budget carve-out. Those metrics are not necessarily appropriate for relative growth in outcomes because many are correlated with absolute enrollments and number of awards. The modeling used to calculate the Outcomes-Based Funding component largely followed the current WSCH-based allocations for the institutions, but that could change in the future as new metrics are set by the institutions as they compete against each other for this funding. The 15% allocation to OBF is therefore a wildcard that could cause budget volatility in the future.

The formula factors for each institution will be based on the higher of a 3-year average or the most recent year, rather than the single count year in the current formula. The committee also modestly increased the allocation for the Small Institution Factor, which benefits GBC and WNC. They recommended that a NSHE committee be formed to regularly review and update formula factors, including addressing other higher-needs students beyond underrepresented minorities and Pell-eligible students (for which data is available now), adjustments to weighting factors for the WSCH allocations, and any other formula issues. That could make the formula allocation a continual discussion.

The Small Institution Factor, which benefits Great Basin College and Western Nevada College, was increased from $30 to $40 per WSCH and the cap increased from 100,000 to 125,000. The effects are included in Table 2.

NFA's engagement and recommendations had a strong influence on the committee’s discussions, as acknowledged by the chair, Justice James Hardesty. A driving factor for the final recommendations was the committee’s reluctance to impose large reductions for the two research universities. The committee reduced the percentage allocated to Student-Based Funding (to 10%, versus 40% in the consultant’s recommendation and 20% in NFA’s recommendation). The result is a more modest proposal that still shifts funding from the universities to the community colleges. While NFA applauds increasing funding for the community colleges, including taking into account the services required to support their higher populations of part-time and at-risk students, we maintain that a new formula that merely redistributes existing funding is a failure.

The next step for the Committee is issuing its final report, which will go to the Legislature, Governor, and Board of Regents for consideration in the budget process for the 2025 session. NSHE’s budget request is due to the Governor at the end of August. The Governor and Legislature will make their own decisions regarding the Committee’s recommendations, which are advisory. NFA will be advocating for any implementation of the formula recommendations to be accompanied by new funding for the new student-based and outcomes-based formula components and, at a minimum, hold-harmless funding for at least two biennia.

The Committee, in part constrained by the charges given to it, did not take up the recommendations from NFA for a more fundamental change to the funding mechanism for NSHE. That would entail a transformation from a distribution formula to a true funding formula, where institutions are fully funded based on formula factors including inflation adjustments–rather than competing against each other for a fixed total appropriation, i.e., merely reslicing the funding pie. That is a missed opportunity for a win-win outcome.

In recognition that they did not have all of the information they needed to make their decisions, the Committee recommended that the remainder of the AB493 appropriation be used for an Adequacy and Equity Study of NSHE funding. If that use of the funds is approved by the State, NSHE will start that study in the coming months.

Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to chair Justice Hardesty and the members of the Committee for their dedication to improving higher education in Nevada, hard work, and consideration. They were given a difficult, if not impossible, task and forced to make decisions without all of the information that they felt they needed. Nevertheless, with NFA’s help, they managed to come to reasonable conclusions within the constraints imposed.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

Updated 8/9/2024 to include changes to the Small Institution Factor and link to the full meeting video. Edited 8/31/2024 to clarify that the current formula is based 100% on resident completed weighted student credit hours (WSCH).

Report from the AFT Convention in Houston: the AFT Endorses Kamala Harris for President

State Board — Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:49:11 GMT

Report submitted by Doug Unger, UNLV-NFA, Chair of the NFA Government Affairs Committee

What’s in a big union convention? Plenty – especially this year, when The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) met in rainy, steamy Houston, TX, this past July 22nd-25th. The AAUP (the NFA’s national organization) affiliated with the AFT two years ago. In so doing, the NFA gained the supporting power of this 1.8 Million strong union of K-12 teachers, healthcare workers (including nurses), and more than 300,000 Higher Education faculty and professionals. We gained solidarity and a voice with the AFL-CIO and the 120 + unions it represents in the Nevada Labor Coalition, one of the most influential political forces in our state.

There’s power in numbers. When the AFT speaks, politicians must listen. Under the leadership of AFT’s President, Randi Weingarten (reelected in Houston for her 16th & 17th years of service), the AFT passed resolutions and set policies to guide advocacy along thirteen action pathways, among which are: Educational Issues, Healthcare Access/Quality, Human Rights, Women’s Rights, International Relations, Labor and the Economy, Organizing and Collective Bargaining, and more, including Higher Education. Amid the buzz and noise of milling factions, more than 3,000 elected delegates and representatives contributed, argued, hashed out language, then came together in floor session after floor session in an energized body to vote to set these new policies. Relevant to Higher Education nationally and to our NFA, the following resolutions were presented, and passed:

Resolution #16 – Real Solutions for Higher Education – general resolutions to fight back against national attacks on Higher Education; to advocate for funding for Higher Ed; and to work against the trend to hire untenured or adjunct positions to replace tenured faculty at colleges and universities (the resolution lays a groundwork for fighting back).

Resolution #18 – In Support of Affirmative Action And Equal Opportunity In Response To The June 2023 Supreme Court Ban on the Use of Affirmative Action in College Admissions – a resolution to keep supporting Affirmative Action initiatives for Higher Ed admissions.

Resolution #19 – AFT Policy Toward Dual Credit – a resolution to set and enforce standards for credentials of instructors for dual credit courses as well as students who attend these courses; the general policy document that lays out desired requirements for dual credit courses. (Many of our NFA members have pushed for a similar policy in Nevada, and methinks this resolution can serve a template for future NSHE and state advocacy).

Note: a 4th Resolution #17 – a Neurodiversity Initiative – to recommend policies for improved recognition, support and inclusion of neuro-diverse students, will remain in drafting stages for the AFT Executive Committee then resubmitted to the Higher Education Committee.

Among other noteworthy AFT resolutions that passed: Fighting The Harmful Impacts Of Private Equity On Our Economy, Public Pension Funds And Healthcare System; also Workers’ Rights And Ethical Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Healthcare. As well, the AFT passed a resolution to oppose any legislation or executive decisions that would implement the draconian policies of Project 2025. After much loud, contentious disagreement (that the language is not strong enough in support of the Palestinian cause), two resolutions passed that declare AFT positions on the Israel-Gaza war (by what I estimate were about 60-40 “voice” votes): Calling for a Bilateral Cease-Fire in Gaza and Promoting a Two-State Solution and an End to the Weaponization of Hate ; and For An End To The War In Gaza And Lasting Peace, Security And Self-Determination For Israel And Palestine . Agree or not, these resolutions might provide faculty and professionals with some effective language in response to the ongoing tragedy. Noteworthy to our members also should be the AFT resolution to organize for the upcoming elections— Organizing for the 2024 Elections. In my opinion, this commitment is essential for all NFA members to make for the benefit of our collective futures.

Regarding the upcoming elections, I met with AFT political organizer for Nevada, Joe Dennison. We spoke about crucial Assembly and Senate districts where GOTV efforts can help to achieve NFA goals. The AFT is committed to bussing volunteers to Nevada in September (union members mainly from California) to help us walk neighborhoods, knock on doors, and with phone banking. I also met with AFT’s National Director of Political Mobilization, John Ost. Nevada is one of AFT’s priorities. He outlined communications pathways both for reporting and for the NFA to request additional resources.

The AFT is all in for this upcoming election. The convention kicked off with legendary Dolores Huerta of the United Farmworkers reminding us what’s at stake; and toward the close, Shawn Fain, iconic leader of the United Auto Workers, pumped up political engagement. Late on Monday, July 22nd, President Weingarten brought a surprise to the floor: following President Biden’s first announcement that he would drop out of the race, the AFT voted to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for President of the United States, the first and biggest union in the nation to do so. Rationale: Kamala Harris best represents the interests of workers in education, healthcare, and public service, and she speaks for the humane values we embrace.

News broke among the delegates of a second surprise late Wednesday—the Vice President would address our AFT convention with her second, most in-depth speech to launch her campaign. Her Thursday morning speech proved her to be clear, sharp with major points, effective in expressing our shared values—here’s a link to this magnificent speech. My favorite moments are when Kamala Harris laughs. It’s a laugh all hers, followed by a smile that’s as refreshing a summer swim after a political season so rife with discord, divisiveness and anxiety (and think about how few politicians show us a genuine, authentic laughter or smile—Trump does not, never has, except to express his cynicism or mocking derision). It just may be that Kamala Harris has a lot to laugh and smile about. And if we get out and do our parts for the November election, we will, too.

NSHE Funding Funding 8: Work Session Recommendations

Kent Ervin — Tue, 23 Jul 2024 03:29:48 GMT

NFA Positions on Work Session Recommendations

NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding, Work Session Meeting on 7/25/2024

9:30 am in person at the Las Vegas or Reno system offices. To provide public comment or testimony by telephone, dial 669-900-9128, Meeting ID: 910 0378 4066, Passcode: 777777. To provide written public comment, use the online public comment form (2000-character limit).

At its work session on Thursday, July 25, the NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding will finalize recommendations for the NSHE funding formula. In response to Chair Hardesty’s request at the May 30th meeting and after reaching out to faculty members at each of the seven colleges and universities for feedback, the Nevada Faculty Alliance submitted recommendations for the formula funding on June 24th. We tailored those recommendations to be largely consistent with the Committee’s discussion on May 30th, we stand by them, and we encourage committee members to review them.

The work session document for the July 25th agenda provides options for recommendations, but does not address all of the issues discussed by the committee nor the full range of options requested by committee members. Here we provide detailed recommendations for the work session.

Base budgeting. We reiterate our global recommendation that the NSHE budgeting mechanism be changed from a distribution formula where institutions compete against each other for a fixed pot of money to a true funding formula where funding for each institution is based on the costs of instruction and student services based on appropriate inputs such as student credit hours, student headcounts, as well as fixed administrative and operational costs. Stakeholders told the committee that budget competition among institutions impedes budget planning and encourages mission creep.

Suggested language: The Committee recommends that future base budgets for the main instructional budgets each of the seven colleges and universities be calculated based on caseload factors (resident Weighted Student Credit Hours and on Student Enrollment factors enhanced for at-risk student groups) at each institution independently, with dollar amounts per WSCH and per student adjusted for inflation using the Higher Education Price Index, rather than using the caseload factors to distribute a fixed general fund appropriation.

Recommendations contingent upon funding. Nothing in the legislation funding this study nor in the charges from the Interim Chancellor restricts the Committee to recommending only a redistribution of existing funds (“reslicing the pie”). Although only the Legislature can appropriate funds, the Committee is free to state that its recommendations are contingent upon new funding and should do so wherever appropriate including possible inclusion of summer courses in the formula and Outcomes-Based Funding.

Directions to Chancellor. Many of the recommendations in the work session document merely “urge the Chancellor’s Office to…” act or make a decision. Although the Chancellor’s Office will need to follow up on recommendations, this language cedes the Committee’s mandate to make its own judgements and recommendations to later action by the Chancellor alone.

Suggested language: For each applicable recommendation, substitute “Recommend that the Board of Regents direct the Chancellor’s Office to… ” for “Urge the Chancellor’s Office to…”, and make a clear recommendation wherever there are several choices.

Inflation adjustments. The Committee discussed the need for inflation adjustments to formula factors, but the work session document includes an inflation factor only for the Small Institution Factor. Adjustments for inflation should be explicitly included for each component of the funding formula.

Suggested language: The Committee recommends that the dollar amounts per weighted or unweighted student credit hour or student headcount, where used for setting base budgets or caseload maintenance budgets, be adjusted for inflation using the Higher Education Price Index.

Fee waiver funding. The Committee discussed both the value of fee waivers for certain student groups and the negative impact that unfunded fee waivers have on the institutions and on other students. The work session document does not address this important issue.

Suggested language: The Committee recommends to the Legislature and Governor that fee waivers mandated by statute be fully funded through appropriations added outside of the funding formula based on the actual fee waivers awarded during the prior biennium.

Audits. Although it was never agendized for discussion by the Committee, the NFA believes it is essential for transparency and accountability that all numbers reported by the institutions that are used for formula funding be regularly audited.

Suggested language: The Committee recommends that the Board of Regents establish a policy for annual internal audits of the reporting of student credit hours, student headcounts, and other factors used for developing formula-driven budgets.

In the following sections, we address each of the recommendations in the work session document (numbered items in bold quoted):

1a. Funding Adequacy and Equity Study. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to pursue a study of funding adequacy and equity as soon as practical so that the study may be completed no later than June 30, 2025, when the authorization for expending funds appropriated under Assembly Bill 493 expires.

Background: AB493 appropriated up to $2,000,000 for the Committee’s study of higher education funding. This recommendation implies that the consultant’s fee and other expenses for the Ad Hoc Committee will be substantially less, given the estimate of $250,000 to $700,00 for a Funding Adequacy and Equity Study depending on scope. However, other states required between one year and 2.5 years to complete such a study, again depending on scope.

NFA supports adoption of item 1a, with the substitution that “The Committee recommends that the Board of Regents direct the Chancellor to purse a study…” If a full study cannot completed within the existing appropriation and time limit, then do a first phase and request additional funding from the 2025 legislature.

2a. Small Institution Factor (SIF) Inflationary Adjustment. Increase the SIF from $30 to $40 per WSCH and continue to adjust for inflation in future years using the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI).

2b. Increase SIF Cap to 125,000 WSCH. Increase the WSCH cap from 100,000 WSCH to 125,000 WSCH.

[OR]

2c. Increase SIF Cap to 150,000 WSCH. Increase the WSCH cap from 100,000 WSCH to 150,000 WSCH.

Background: The lack of an inflation factor and the fixed WSCH cap penalized GBC and WNC for growth and for the increased weightings for Career & Technical Education student credit hours. NFA proposes an alternative Administrative Allocation as a fixed dollar amount for all institutions of about $700,000 (inflation-adjusted in the future) to cover the minimum administrative staffing of a chief financial officer, chief academic officer, and human resources administrator.

NFA position: If these are the only options, the NFA supports 2a and 2c. However, we ask the Committee to consider a flat-dollar amount of $700K for each institution, inflation-adjusted using future COLAs for professional employees. Detailed analysis is in our June 24th recommendations (part E).

2d. Further Review of SIF. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to review the SIF calculation using headcount, rather than WSCH, and determine if an alternative calculation based on headcount should be utilized.

Background: Neither WSCH nor student headcount is directly correlated with the minimum administrative needs for a small institution. As an alternative NFA has proposed a fixed administrative allocation of about $700,000 based on the minimum administrative staffing of a chief administrative officer, chief academic officer, and human resources administrator, Detailed analysis is in our June 24th recommendations (part E). NFA opposes 2d as written.

Suggested Language: The Committee recommends that the current Small Institution Factor be eliminated and in its place an Administrative Allocation be appropriated prior to operating budget allocations by student headcount and credit-hour caseload factors. The amount of the Administrative Allocation for each institution should be about $700,000, adjusted in the future by Cost-of-Living Adjustments for faculty employees. This recommendation is contingent upon new funding ($4.9 million total); if new funding is not appropriated Administrative Allocations should be provided only for the legacy small institutions (GBC and WNC).

3a. Use Student Attributes as a Component in Funding Allocation Methodology. Allocate a portion of the General Fund appropriation based on the following student characteristics: 1) total student term headcount enrollments and credit hours (including non-resident students), 2) under-represented minority student headcount enrollments and credit hours, and 3) Pell eligible student headcount enrollments and credit hours.

3b. Academic Preparation. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to begin efforts to determine the data elements appropriate to identify students who are not prepared for the rigors of college-level coursework to be used as an attribute in the student-based component of the funding allocation methodology. The determination of such data elements should be done in consultation with campus-level Institutional Research Offices to ensure the consistent availability of data or the consistent collection of such data elements going forward. It is recommended that this effort commence in sufficient time that such data can be available for use in the formula allocation for FY2028 and FY2029 (or the 2027 Session).

3c. Students in Poverty. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to begin efforts to determine the data elements appropriate to identify students who are in poverty to be used as an attribute in the student-based component of the funding allocation methodology. The determination of such data elements should be done in consultation with campus-level Institutional Research Offices to ensure the consistent availability of data or the consistent collection of such data elements going forward. It is recommended that this effort commence in sufficient time that such data can be available for use in the formula allocation for FY2028 and FY2029 (or the 2027 Session).

Background: NFA and several committee members requested that additional categories of at-risk students be included in the enhancement factors for student headcounts. We would also include students requiring disability resource services. NFA recommended that the weightings be based on estimated costs of providing needed student-support services. Furthermore, if this recommendation is intended to incorporate the detailed proposal by HCM Strategists (50% unweighted student credit hours and 50% student headcounts, both multiply counted for under-represented minority students and Pell-eligible students), then the Committee report should explicitly include that recommendation.

The NFA supports 3a, 3b, and 3c with the proviso that the weightings be based on studies of the cost of student support services for the various listed categories of students plus those requiring disability accommodations. Using actual cost estimates is better than arbitrary weightings even if the estimates are imprecise. Also, the motion should refer to the details of the formula in the HCM Strategists proposal.

Suggested additional language: Include in the Committee report the details of the calculator of the student attributes component as proposed by HCM Strategists. For 3b and 3c, replace “Urge the Chancellor’s Office to…” with “Recommend that the Board of Regents direc the Chancellor to…”.

4a. Further Review of Summer School Student Credit Hours. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to review the budgetary and administrative implications of further expansion of state support for summer school course offerings, beyond nursing and teacher education.

Background: Several institutions, committee members, and NFA supported the inclusion of summer school courses in the Weighted Student Credit Hours (and Student Headcounts). However, there are complications and unintended consequences if the summer student fees that are currently in self-supported budgets were to be moved into the state operating budgets.

The NFA supports 4a, with inclusion of summer school courses in the Adequacy and Equity Study.

Suggested additional language: Replace “Urge the Chancellor’s Office to…” with “Recommend that the Board of Regents direct the Chancellor to…” and add “and include summer course offerings in the Funding Adequacy and Equity Study.”

5a. 3-Year Average of WSCH. Base the WSCH count for each year of measure on a 3-year average. Use the same caseload growth process the second year of the biennium, also based on the 3-year average figures.

5b. Greater of 3-Year Average or Prior Year. Base each institution’s WSCH count for each year of measure on a 3-year average or the prior year, whichever is greater. Use the same caseload growth process for the second year of the biennium, also using the same WSCH methodology as the first fiscal year of the biennium.

5c. Weight Most Recent Year in 3-Year Average Calculation. Base the WSCH count for each year of measure using a 3-year average and weight the most recent year higher.

Background: There was much Committee discussion about how to handle count years. NFA recommended against the three-year average because it increases the average lag period (e.g., 2021 through 2024 for the 2025-2027 budget versus the single count year of 2023-2024) and because it still treats even and odd years differently given biennial budgeting. NFA proposes using the higher of the prior two years. Because the second year of the biennium is budgeted in the prior legislative session, within the state budgeting process there is no way to adjust the numbers and budgets for the second year of the biennium

Among these alternatives, NFA prefers 5b but using a two-year average instead of three-year would better match the biennial state budgeting cycle and reduce the lag period.

Suggested Language: Amend 5b by changing “3-year” to “2-year”.

6a. Outcomes-Based Funding Component. Eliminate the current NSHE Performance Pool and replace it with an Outcomes-Based Funding (OBF) component in the funding allocation methodology, allocating the funds based on a relative growth calculation.

Background: There is near-universal opposition to keeping the current Performance Pool, which is a 20% carve-out of base funding that has to be earned back by meeting various target metrics. The relative growth model advocated by HCM strategists may be an improvement; it still is a carve-out although the funding can be calculated at budget-setting time. NFA argued that a 20% allocation is much too high and would be disruptive to budget planning. Several committee members at the May 30th meeting suggested allocations from 0% to 10%. This decision point is about using the relative growth model, not setting the relative percentages (see item 7).

NFA supports item 6a, but contingent on the percentage formula allocation being much lower than 20% (NFA recommends 5%) and contingent upon new initial funding. The Outcomes-Based Funding should be phased in over two biennia and be based on performance metrics that are not correlated with absolute student enrollment numbers, either student credit hours or student headcounts. Performance metrics should be measures of success relative to targeted student populations, relative efficiency measures, or full-time-faculty-to-student and advisor-to-student ratios. NFA recommends that the Committee include this item contingent on new initial funding; a delay of that funding until after new performance metrics can be implemented would be reasonable.

Suggested added language: This recommendation is contingent upon new appropriations for the OBF component of the formula, to be implemented in the first biennium that relative growth using new performance metrics can be determined. Performance metrics may vary by institution type but should not be directly correlated with student credit hours or student headcounts. The Committee report shall include the detailed methodology for calculating relative growth as proposed by HCM Strategists.

7a. 40%-40%-20% Component Mix. After SIF and research O&M are subtracted from the total General Fund appropriation, allocate the remaining General Fund appropriation as follows: 40% based on course weighted enrollments (WSCH); 40% based on student characteristics (described in recommendation 3a.); and 20% based on progression and outcomes (referred to as outcomes-based funding or OBF and described in recommendation 6a.).

7b. 45%-45%-10% Component Mix. After SIF and research O&M are subtracted from the total General Fund appropriation, allocate the remaining General Fund appropriation as follows: 45% based on course weighted enrollments (WSCH); 45% based on student characteristics (described in recommendation 3a.); and 10% based on progression and outcomes (referred to as outcomes-based funding or OBF and described in recommendation 6a.).

7c. 40%-50%-10% Component Mix. After research O&M and SIF are subtracted from the total General Fund appropriation, allocate the remaining General Fund appropriation as follows: 40% based on course weighted enrollments (WSCH); 50% based on student characteristics (described in recommendation 3a.); and 10% based on progression and outcomes (referred to as outcomes-based funding or OBF and described in recommendation 6a.).

7d. 60%-20%-20% Component Mix. After research O&M and SIF are subtracted from the total General Fund appropriation, allocate the remaining General Fund appropriation as follows: 60% based on course weighted enrollments (WSCH); 20% based on student characteristics (described in recommendation 2a.); and 20% based on progression and outcomes (referred to as outcomes-based funding or OBF and described in recommendation 6a.).

Background: The primary driver of redistribution of funding among the institutions is the percentage of the formula reallocated from resident Weighted Student Credit Hours to student attributes (with double or triple counting for underrepresented minority students and Pell-eligible students per item 2a). NFA argued that the 40% allocation to the student attributes factors as recommended by HCM is much too high and does not match the reality that only an average of 8% of institutional budgets are allocated to Student Services. Also included in this decision point is the percentage allocated to Outcomes-Based Funding—committee members recommended 0% to 10% versus HCM’s recommendation of 20%.

Using the enrollment trend data provided in supplemental material for the work session, the following table compares the growth in WSCH, unweighted student credit hours, and student headcounts for the ten-year period from AY2013 to AY2023 (AY2024 was not used because the large one-year increase in concurrent enrollment at UNR skews the comparisons). Note that for every institution except NSU, the growth in headcounts has been slower (or negative) compared with the growth in weighted or unweighted student credit hours. That is probably a good thing because it means that students are completing a larger number of credits. However, this trend should serve as a caution against a large formula allocation to headcount measures especially given that future demographics point to decreasing enrollments.

10-Year Growth in Enrollment Measures 2013-2023
	UNLV	UNR	NSU	CSN	GBC	TMCC	WNC	Overall
WSCH	26%	16%	83%	0%	28%	14%	26%	19%
Unweighted SCH	23%	10%	92%	-8%	6%	-12%	1%	9%
Headcount	11%	9%	98%	-23%	4%	-14%	-3%	-3%

NFA recommends percentages of 75% based on WSCH, 20% on student attributes, and and 5% for Outcomes-Based Funding, with the change form 100% WSCH phased in over two biennia to give institutions time to adjust to the new formula and performance metrics. Of the four alternatives provided, 7d (60%/20%/20%) is better, but the Committee should not be restricted to staff suggestions in setting the percentages.

Suggested language: After research O&M and [SIF or the Administrative Allocation] are subtracted from the total General Fund appropriation, allocate the remaining General Fund appropriation as follows: 75% based on course weighted enrollments (WSCH); 20% based on student characteristics (described in recommendation 3a.); and 5% based on progression and outcomes (referred to as outcomes-based funding or OBF and described in recommendation 6a.), phased in over two biennia. This recommendation is contingent upon a new appropriation equivalent to a 5% expansion of the base General Fund appropriation to fund the new OBF component (also phased in over two biennia). The 20% component for student attributes would be taken from the current formula allocation for WSCHs. Absent a new appropriation for the OBF component, the allocation would be 80% to WSCH and 20% to student attributes.

8a. Implementation Strategy. Urge the Chancellor to consult with the Presidents to determine the phase-in approach that best supports the System and its institutions when implementing the funding formula distribution changes.

Background: HCM Strategists suggested several different options for the phase-in approach: 1) phase-in the new model over a defined period (e.g., fully implemented by the third biennium), 2) utilize a stop-loss provision establishing that no institution will lose more than X% in any given year of implementation, 3) fund a hold harmless provision.

NFA position: The Committee should recommend specific implementation strategies. Leaving this up to the Chancellor and Presidents will just cause unnecessary confusion and political wrangling. NFA recommends the simple approach of phasing in the changes over two biennia AND hold-harmless funding for at least two biennia. The hold-harmless provisions should be relative to actual appropriations for FY2025, including enrollment recovery funds.

Suggested language: The Committee recommends that the changes to the formula allocations percentages as adopted in item 7 be phased in 50% in the first biennium and 50% in the second biennium. The Committee recommends that institutional budgets be held harmless for at least the next two biennia relative to legislative appropriations in FY2025 including one-time enrollment-based appropriations (AB491 and AB494). The recommendations for items 7 and 8 are contingent upon hard-harmless funding and new funding for the allocation to Outcomes-Based Funding.

9a. Review Committee. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to create a formula review committee that convenes every two biennia to evaluate and propose any necessary changes to the funding formula allocation methodology.

The NFA supports item 9a, but changes to methodology should be limited to adjusting weightings in the WSCH formula to reflect instructional costs and the enhancement factors for at-risk student categories in the Student Headcount formula to reflect costs of student support, also taking into account the State’s economic and employment needs. Broader funding formula changes (e.g. the percentage allocations to WSCH, headcounts, and performance factors) should not be changed frequently. However, the details of the implementation of the new formula through the state budget process have not been fully considered by the Committee and will probably need oversight and revision, as well as the performance metrics for OBF. At least at the beginning of the implementation of the new formula, adjustments will be needed more often than every four years. The approval authority should be specified in the motion.

Another implementation concern is determining the proportions of state funding versus student revenue (currently 65%/35% overall but varying by institution), with inflationary factors applied to both. In addition, a minimum of 70% to 80% of student registration fees should go to fund instruction and student services, not be diverted to other functions such as intercollegiate athletics or capital improvements.

Suggested language: Recommend that the Board of Regents direct the Chancellor to create a formula review committee including faculty representatives that convenes every biennium to evaluate and propose any appropriate changes to the funding formula allocation calculations to reflect the cost of instruction based on course level and discipline, the cost of student support considering student attributes, and the economic and employment needs of the State. The formula review committee should also evaluate and make recommendations regarding the implementation of the funding formula in the budgeting process, including the relative proportion of state and student revenue and limits on the use of student registration fees for non-instructional purposes. The formula review committee shall be responsible for recommending performance factors for the Outcomes-Based Funding model. Upon approval by the Board of Regents, the recommendations of the formula review committee shall be reported to the Legislature and Governor.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

2024 Legislative Candidate Questionnaire Responses

Kent Ervin — Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:48:21 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance sent a questionnaire to candidates for Nevada Assembly and Nevada Senate in the 2024 General Elections. Their responses to questions about higher education and faculty issues are in the table linked below. We encourage you to consider candidates' positions on higher education when you decide how to vote in the general election.

What's My Nevada Assembly and Senate District? (address look-up)

Coordinated national attacks threaten faculty rights

Jim New — Sat, 13 Jul 2024 15:20:26 GMT

NFA will defend faculty who are targeted or accused of VIOLATING UNJUST policIES

The 2020s may be remembered on college and university campuses as the years when many of the longest-standing bedrock principles of the American higher education model came under sustained attack. The siege is rooted in the ideology of the extreme right-wing groups who lobby to influence laws and policies and to support like-minded candidates for legislative and governing board seats across the nation, including Nevada. It remains to be seen if faculty will fend off the attacks.

You are not mistaken or paranoid if your perception is that these efforts are partisan, coordinated, and targeted. Isaac Kamola, the director of AAUP's Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom, recently published a comprehensive report, Manufacturing Backlash, Right Wing Think Tanks and Legislative Attacks on Higher Education, investigating the sources and strategy behind these attacks. It reveals that a small group of think tanks promote shared political objectives by pushing the same messaging and amplifying each other's work to create the false impression of legitimacy and whip up moral outrage targeted at higher education, and mostly, at faculty. For example, this disinformation led many legislators and policymakers to see critical race theory (CRT) and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) as divisive topics requiring regulation, or worse, prohibition. They subsequently introduce bills based on model legislation developed and promoted by this network. From 2021 to 2023, over 150 bills, based on models developed by these think tanks, were introduced across the United States. This number, however, does not include the number of model-based policies submitted to governing boards of regents/trustees.

Although multiple think tanks are involved, they share many of the same board members who direct their activities. For example, a LittleSis search of conservative activist Christopher Rufo reveals that he is a board member at the New College of Florida, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, director of the Discovery Institute's Center on Wealth, Poverty, and Morality, and has held (or currently holds) positions at a fellow at both the Claremont Institute and the Heritage Foundation, an adjunct fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, and a contributor to the Federalist Society. It's very likely that he is a major contributor to the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025.

Working almost exclusively with Republican politicians, these groups are actively bringing the culture war to campuses and manufacturing a backlash against faculty and the autonomy of academic institutions. The strategy is not arbitrary and it is often racist. It has been honed by these highly partisan think tanks to not only have a chilling effect on faculty, but to also encourage governing bodies to curtail academic freedom and institutional autonomy by weakening tenure and accreditation.

Some members of the Nevada Board of Regents embrace this dogma. By making restrictive policy proposals advanced by this network, and even inviting one of the participating think tanks to make a presentation on higher education governance, these Regents expose themselves as partisans who are hostile to faculty rights and higher education values. Unfortunately, they sometimes succeed despite vigorous opposition from NFA and other campus groups.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance will continue to zealously oppose any and all efforts to erode faculty rights and protections, or diminish the foundational principles that made the American higher education model the global gold standard. NFA will actively defend these fundamental rights for all our members, and by extension, all others in the profession. If you or a colleague experience discipline, retaliation, or any other adverse employment actions based upon these ill-advised policies or activities, please contact an NFA officer on your campus. You can find more information at NevadaFacultyAlliance.org.

More Information:

NFA stands ready to defend academic freedom and free speech rights

Jim New — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:16:14 GMT

Campus communities across the United States are experiencing an unprecedented increase in attacks on the core principles of free speech and academic freedom, primarily from external sources. A wave of ideologically driven policies and regulations represents one of the most significant challenges to academic independence in decades. Unfortunately, Nevada colleges and universities are not immune. There are credible indications that these attacks are the results of a coordinated pressure campaign by ideological groups to chill, if not outright prohibit, classroom discussions, research, and student engagement in topics with which they disagree. Moreover, faculty and staff face increasing risks of being targeted, doxxed, harassed, or even dismissed for exercising their academic freedom. These coordinated attacks not only undermine diversity of thought but also impede the pursuit of knowledge and the healthy exchange of ideas, which are fundamental to the academic ethos and democratic society at large. Even frivolous claims of discrimination or political indoctrination can harm reputations and careers.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance stands as a guardian and will vigorously defend the fundamental rights of free speech and academic freedom for all its members, and by extension, all others in the profession. The NFA strives to ensure that educators can teach, research, and express ideas without fear of political or external pressures. Through the NFA and its affiliations with the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers, members may access a variety of services including professional guidance and legal defense options. With a commitment to fostering a fearless exchange of ideas and protecting the academic community from censorship, the NFA is a bulwark against attempts to undermine the educational mission. It champions the right to debate and deliberate freely.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance also stands with the American Association of University Professors in firm opposition to legislative attempts to restrict classroom instruction and campus discourse based on content.

For further information:

College of Liberal Arts Dean Search: A Failure of Shared Governance

UNR Chapter — Tue, 02 Jul 2024 02:51:26 GMT

The UNR Chapter Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance continues to be deeply concerned about the failure of shared governance in leadership searches at UNR. In our previous post, we noted that UNR–which has seen record turnover in dean and vice president positions since 2020–has not consistently been following the processes set in place by college and university bylaws in leadership searches. In particular, the administration has not been taking into consideration stakeholder input, which is paramount for hiring the strongest candidates who have the qualities to lead while being respected as leaders in their fields.

UNR’s leadership continues to hire leaders “over the reasoned opposition of the faculty” (AAUP, “Faculty Participation”). We saw this in the hiring of Dean Erick Jones in Engineering, who was not recommended as a finalist by the search committee. The result of this search was national embarrassment and a precipitous decline in morale among College of Engineering faculty. We have now seen this in the hiring of a permanent Dean for the College of Liberal Arts, which has seen a decline in morale, the loss of many faculty, and program cuts that have limited course options for students in the past two years. The hiring of the current Interim Dean to this position despite the availability of stronger external candidates has reinforced perceptions that UNR leadership does not value the college, its faculty, or shared governance more generally.

Although we could point to a number of ways in which this process was flawed, the greatest concerns are that:

The search committee was disbanded before the candidates visited campus, which arguably violates CLA and UNR bylaws that state: “Upon completing the search process, the committee shall present the Provost with an unranked list of those applicants it considers best suited for the position of dean” (UNR Bylaws 3.6.4, emphasis added).
Despite the search committee’s requests, the Provost refused to meet with them to solicit their thoughts on the candidates;
The two strongest external candidates, who were broadly considered to have performed far better than the internal candidate during their open forums and meetings with the CLA chairs, were not extended an offer.

We reiterate the calls made in our previous statement:

Search committees and public forums should continue to exist for all leadership positions at the Dean level or above, or those that have a campus-wide role. This will not only uphold our principles of shared governance but will also create a faculty and staff who will be more confident in leadership and more supportive of initiatives.
Search committee chairs must work closely with committees through every step of the process.
Search committees should represent a diversity of perspectives and have a strong role in the hiring process.
Stakeholder surveys should be conducted and, even more important, that feedback should be central to the hiring process. Summaries should also be released to the campus community.
Any person involved in the hiring process must disclose personal connections or conflicts of interest that may influence their hiring of a particular candidate and recuse themselves from a decision-making role.

We affirm our belief that a meaningful commitment to shared governance can assist UNR’s leadership in correcting course and restoring our faith in the hiring of future leaders.

NSHE Funding Formula 7. NFA Recommendations

Kent Ervin — Mon, 24 Jun 2024 13:40:53 GMT

Recommendations to the NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding

Submitted by the Nevada Faculty Alliance, 6/24/2024

At the May 30th meeting of the NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding, Chair Hardesty asked faculty for our responses to the recommendations from HCM Strategists, the Committee’s consultants. After reaching out to faculty members at each of the seven colleges and universities for feedback, the Nevada Faculty Alliance recommends the following changes to the formula funding mechanism. We have tailored these recommendations to be largely consistent with the Committee discussion on May 30th.

A. Student Enrollment Component

1) Implement the headcount and unweighted student credit hour components at a percentage between 7.5% and 12.5% of funding in the first biennium and between 15% and 25% thereafter (rather than 40% as proposed by HCM). As recommended by HCM, unduplicated resident headcounts and full-time-equivalent (FTE) resident enrollments are equally weighted in the student enrollment component. FTE should be calculated as they are currently, using unweighted resident student credit hours at 30 credits/year for undergraduates, 24 credits/year for masters students, and 18 credits per year for doctoral students.

In the absence of a full analysis of the costs to provide wrap-around student services for diverse groups of students at an equitable level, the percentage allocation to the student enrollment component is a judgment call. We believe the 40% allocation initially suggested by HCM is much too large. Current expenditures on Student Services, which are correlated with headcounts, represent about 8% of the combined budgets of the seven institutions. That should be the baseline for funding by per-student enrollment. Our suggested range of 15% to 25% allocated to this component would represent substantial redistributions compared with the current Weighted Student Credit Hour formula. That means that new funding is needed to keep some institutions and their students from being harmed.

2) Count underrepresented minority (URM) students and Pell Grant recipients with a 1.5 multiplier (resulting in a 2.25 multiplier for a URM student with Pell), rather than double and triple counting as proposed by HCM. A 1.5 multiplier is sufficient to double (or more) the advisor-to-student ratio for the at-risk students. Within the next several years, develop ways to count and include underserved and at-risk students beyond URM and Pell and analyze actual costs to provide services to them.

3) For caseload adjustments in future biennia, adjust the per-headcount dollar value for inflation over the past two years using the Higher Education Price Index.

B. Outcomes-Based Funding

1) Eliminate the current Performance Pool as a 20% carve-out of base funding that has to be earned back for later allocation.

2) Implement Outcomes-Based Funding using the Relative Growth Model as recommended by HCM, except with a percentage of funding of 2.5% in the first biennium and 5% in the second biennium and thereafter (rather than 20% as proposed by HCM).

3) For the biennial budget, calculate relative growth by comparing the count year to the year two years prior to the count year. The Outcomes-Based Funding must be part of the regular budget closing, not held back and allocated later, so that budget planning can occur.

4) During the first year of the next biennium, review and revise the performance metrics so that none are directly correlated with absolute enrollment or graduation numbers. Performance metrics should reward student success and institutional efficiency, not overall enrollment which is already included in the formula through headcounts and student credit hours. College access for certain at-risk students (initially URM and Pell students) will be included in the student enrollment component; success outcomes for underserved and underrepresented students should be measured relative to the population of the targeted groups. Because graduate rates are lagging indicators, measures of semester completion or progress toward a degree or certificate should be considered.

5) Performance metrics should include the percentage of courses taught by full-time instructors, faculty-to-student ratios, and advisor-to-student ratios,

C. Weighted Student Credit Hour (WSCH) Formula

1) With the above recommendations for the headcount and performance components, resident WSCHs will account for 85% to 90% of the formula in the first biennium and 70% to 80% thereafter, after carve-outs for research O&M and the small-institution funding.

2) For caseload adjustments, adjust the WSCH dollar value for inflation for the past two years using the Higher Education Price Index.

3) Implement a periodic process (about every four years) to review and adjust the weights to capture both curricular costs and the state’s workforce needs.

D. Summer WSCH Funding

1) Although we believe in the principle that the state should fund summer courses, we concur with Chair Hardesty’s suggestion to defer a recommendation on including summer courses in the WSCH formula for further study of the fiscal, managerial, and staffing/workload impacts.

2) Any inclusion of additional summer school courses in the WSCH or headcount formulas should be contingent on full funding as a budget enhancement. Summer courses could be phased in as funding becomes available, starting with core general education courses and career and technical education (CTE) courses.

3) Because most instructors have academic-year contracts within the state operating budget and because summer terms span state fiscal years, continued budget flexibility is needed to provide summer courses. Student registration fees paid for summer courses must remain in self-supporting budgets.

E. Small Institution Administrative Allocation

1) Eliminate the phase-out formula for the Small Institution Factor, which penalizes growth and the higher weights implemented for CTE courses, and eliminate its dependence on WSCHs. The recognized funding need at small institutions for fixed administrative costs does not depend on credit hours and applies to every institution.

2) Instead of the current Small-Institution Factor amount per WSCH, fund a flat $700,000 for a minimal administrative staff allocation for each of the seven institutions, as a carve-out before distribution using credit hours and headcounts. The $700K value is based on the calculation in the following table for one chief academic officer, one chief financial officer, and a human resources administrator, i.e., minimal administrative staffing that is not dependent on enrollment. We do not include Presidents because their salaries are directly set by the Board of Regents.

Position	Median on Salary Schedule
CC Executive	$190,018
CC Executive	$190,018
Admin Faculty D	$125,940
Subtotal	$505,976
Fringe @34%	$172,032
Total	$678,008

3) For future biennia, adjust this amount by the Cost-of-Living Adjustments for faculty.

4) Unless full new funding is provided ($4.9 million less the current Small Institution Factor of $866,000), implement only for GBC and WNC as the preexisting small institutions at an additional cost of about $535,000.

F. Fee Waivers

1) Request new funding to fund fee waivers based on actual fee waivers for the average of the prior two years for:

a) All legislatively mandated fee waivers.

b) The NSHE-approved fee waivers for former foster youth and others.

c) Discounts for dual and concurrent registration fees for high school students.

Note that fee waivers are a form of state-supported financial aid; other state financial aid programs are not included in the funding formula.

2) Include appropriate inflation factors according to the NSHE predictable pricing program.

3) Because fee waiver demand may vary widely among institutions, in future biennia fund fee waivers based on the past two years of actual fee waivers over and above the formula distribution based on WSCHs and student enrollment. (Alternatively, fund through the Office of the State Treasurer on a reimbursement basis.)

F. General Implementation

1) Maintain a single formula for all seven institutions. No method has been proposed for dividing the institutions and their funding into groups with separate formulas. Using current funding levels would perpetuate existing disparities.

2) Phase in the new components of the formula over two biennia as indicated above.

3) Instead of a single count year, use the best of the past two full academic years for each institution. A three-year average increases the lag time between enrollments and funding, and still counts even and odd years differently with biennial budgeting. The best-of-two allows for single-year declines due to circumstances that cannot be controlled and allows for better planning.

4) For any institutions experiencing a loss of funding compared with FY2025 appropriations (after including AB491 and AB494 enrollment recovery and supplemental appropriations but not other one-shot funding), provide hold-harmless funding at 100% for the first biennium and 50% for the second biennium. Apply the hold-harmless funding on the combined effect of formula changes, not separately for each component.

5) For biennial base budget calculations, adjust the dollar values per WSCH and per headcount/FTE for inflation by the past two years of the Higher Education Price Index. That is, adjust the base budget for both inflation and caseload enrollment changes.

6) The proportion of revenue from the state versus from student fees and tuition has not been considered. The proportions should be fixed as part of the budgeting process to avoid needing student fee increases to cover shortfalls. Both state funding formulas and student fees and tuition should have inflation factors applied to maintain the level of services.

7) For full transparency and to promote trust between NSHE and the Legislature, all institutional reporting of formula factors (e.g., WSCHs and headcounts) should be audited regularly. The formula should incentivize services to students, not creative accounting.

G. Further Study and Review

1) Create an NSHE committee with broad-based faculty representation for regular review of the weights for WSCHs and enhancement factors for student headcounts.

2) Fund a follow-up study to determine the costs of providing adequate, high-quality, and equitable higher education serving Nevada’s students of all socioeconomic backgrounds, demographics, and geographic areas.

H. Impact of Formula Recommendations

For reference, Table 1 shows the impact of adopting the full recommendations of HCM Strategists (page 57) in the absence of any new funding. We are unable to calculate precise effects using NFA’s recommendations because of interactions among the various components, but we estimate the changes would be reduced by one-third to two-thirds assuming no new funding and depending on the percentage allocation to student enrollment in the formula. Table 2 summarizes the recommendations from NFA. To avoid harming some institutions while raising up others, new components to the formula should be contingent on new funding and hold-harmless funding should be provided.

Table 1: HCM Strategists Recommendations

Table 2: Summary of NFA Formula Recommendations

(percentages after small institution and research O&M allocations)

Formula factor	Current	HCM Strategists Recommendation (5/30/2024)	NFA Recommendation (First Biennium)	NFA Recommendation (Second Biennium)
Resident WSCH	100%	40%	85% to 90%	70% to 80%
Resident Headcount + FTE Enrollment	0%	40%	7.5% to 12.5%	15% to 25%
Outcomes Based Funding	20% Performance Pool carve-out	20%	2.5%	5%
Administrative Allocation	Small Institution Factor @$30/WSCH, with phase-out	Small Institution Factor @$40/WSCH, with phase-out	$700,000 per institution, over and above the formula
Summer School Courses	Certain nursing and teacher education courses included in WSCH	Include all summer courses in the formula, with or without funding.	Do not include additional summer courses in the formula without full funding per WSCH and headcount. Maintain summer student registration fees in self-supported budgets.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

NFA member offers support for amendment to BOR policy

State Board — Sun, 09 Jun 2024 15:25:44 GMT

The following submission is from NFA member and UNLV Professor Gregory Brown and does not necessarily reflect the views of the NFA State Board.

Dear colleagues and friends,

I'm writing you on a matter of some importance and which I believe is important to discuss, so I hope you will indulge me to read this letter. I am writing to explain the intent, language, and effect of the amendment approved by the Board of Regents to the above-numbered section of the NHSE Code, which serves as our faculty handbook. I am writing you about this, because you signed an open letter to the Board opposing this change, and since it has now passed, and since I advocated strongly for it, I feel you are entitled to an explanation of why and more importantly why I believe you need not feel concerned that your academic freedom or free speech will be encroached and why, perhaps, you may view the practical effect of this with sympathy and support.

Some of you I know very well and some I do not, so I feel I want to explain my own positionality to start. I am a 26-year faculty member at UNLV, an historian of European and World history, a former head of the chapter and state level Nevada Faculty Alliance, a former faculty Senate chair, and formerly Vice Provost for Faculty and Policy. I am someone with quite a solid track record in defense of academic freedom, shared governance and faculty rights in general. Ive testified in federal court on behalf of faculty tenure rights, and I served on an AAUP national committee on the defense of tenure rights and academic freedom. I am also a Jewish-American and one of the founders of the recently recognized Jewish Faculty and Staff group, which is part of the Office of Diversity's affinity group program and as such a member of the Presidential Advisory Council's subcommittee on diversity. I hope therefore that you will accept my comments below in good faith and based on a decent amount of experience working in these issues.

I have also over the past 8 months been an advisor to leaders of the campus's small Jewish student population, which is only several dozen students, and which includes a number of Israeli students (as well as Israeli faculty and staff). I have been consulted by them since last October, when some of them found themselves, in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks on Israel, subject to hostile treatment and asked in some cases in classroom environments to explain aspects of Israeli policy and history for which they should not have any particular knowledge or responsibility. In other cases, they found themselves ostracized within student life, excluded from certain student clubs, and in a few cases subject to minor but clearly worrisome attacks on their person and property. (This was in the days while the attack was still going on, long before any armed response from Israel by the way.) As the weeks went by, these students felt -- whether rightly or wrongly -- targeted on campus, through social media and through rhetoric that they considered to be aggressive, hostile and in some cases violent. In no case did I or anyone seek or advocate for anyone to be punished for such actions (with the exception, of course, of the incident in which a visiting scientist had his lecture shut down, in clear violation of university free speech policies.) In many cases, I advised students to understand that hostile language on social media is something they can ignore, or in other cases, explained to them the history and significance of slogans or symbols that they considered hostile. In all cases, I urged them to do three things -- to avoid confrontation (including to stay home on days of large demonstrations by groups which chose to engage in rhetoric they found offensive), to report any actual physical or emotional harm done to them or negative impact they may have experienced on their education and thirdly and most importantly, to engage in dialog, to listen and to share their views non-confrontationally. I have regularly had lunch with these students, met with them privately, received personal communications, and generally did what any faculty member would do, which is to help them understand the world around them.

I do think that among the individuals who spoke on the matter at hand, I am the only one to have had such close relationships and to provide support to those students.

As you may know, the group of faculty with whom I have been working held a few open conversations, on topics such as Jewish Identity at UNLV, the prospect of Jewish studies curriculum at UNLV, on interfaith dialog ("How to be a peacemaker"), and on the occasion of Israeli independence day, a visiting speaker who is a senior Israeli reporter who had been reporting from Israel and Gaza, on the current conditions there as he saw them. Many of these students attended, participated, and learned. These have been open events, announced to the campus, and to which all students and faculty have been welcome.

I have also attended events organized by other groups, including the Jewish Law School student association, and events organized by students engaged in advocacy for a cease fire and on the question of genocide (both very well run events organized by students whom I commended and with whom I engaged in quite detailed and thoughtful discussion). I have engaged in discussion with students of very different backgrounds and points of view -- or often no point of view at all -- in the first year course on the history of Zionism that I taught last spring.

Finally I have had many meetings and conversations with the office of Student Diversity Programs, the Office of Diversity, the Provost´s office, the President, the University Police, and community partners to encourage de-escalation of rhetoric, and try to encourage educational initiatives.

I therefore feel that my engagement on this question is not merely on the particular issue of the Code amendment.

The proposal that was put forth, debated and eventually approved by the Regents on Friday was discussed in the petition you signed as an action to "adopt" a particular definition of antisemitism. I do think that particular definition is defensible, and I did write a memo in support of it, which I will take the liberty of attaching here. But I do not think the issue is properly represented as an adoption of any particular definition, because the measure proposed was to adopt the provisions of federal civil rights law adopted by the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, with respect to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. That action, by executive order of the president, does refer to -- as does the Code amendment approved by the Board -- the most widely adopted definition, which is referred to commonly (though not entirely accurately) as the "International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance" (IHRA) definition. And for that reason, the compliance with civil rights regulations as set forth in the US DOE OCR "Dear Colleague Letter" of May 7. 2024, does refer to that definition as one basis for determining discriminatory intent. But it does not criminalize criticism of Israel -- this is stated plainly in both the definition itself and in the Code amendment -- and does not in any way make it possible for a student to be expelled or a faculty member to be terminated based on criticism of Israel. Indeed, the point I wish to make to you is that the idea that this is fundamentally about Israel at all is not accurate.

As the text of the amendment itself, which I will past below and attach, it was a measure that was brought forth, defended and eventually approved not to change or adopt a particular definition of antisemitism -- but to add the language of the Office of Civil Rights -- to the Code in the paragraph that states the NSHE principles of anti-discrimination.

That article begins with the following sentence:

"The Nevada System of Higher Education is guided by the principle that there shall be no difference in the treatment of persons because of race, religion, color, age, sex (including a pregnancy related condition), sexual orientation, military status or military obligations, disability (whether actual or perceived by others to have a disability including veterans with service-connected disabilities, or national origin, and that equal opportunity and access to facilities shall be available to all."

The amendment then inserts this sentence (which I reproduce in its entirety)
"This extends to individuals who experience discrimination (including antisemitism* ) based on their actual or perceived: (i) shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics; or (ii) citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity "

This language comes directly from US Dept of Ed Office of Civil Rights title VI regulations. The only element of the above that does not come directly from the OCR is the insertion of "(including antisemitism)" though that is clearly a part of the meaning of the OCR guidance. (The OCR guidance, using the above-cited language, also includes specific reference to Muslims and Palestinians.)

So the opposition is to the inclusion of a basic statement of civil rights already established under federal law. The letter that you signed wondered why this language was being inserted now, seemingly to the exclusion of discussion of other forms of discrimination, and I think the answer is clear -- because those were already present in the Code. They were already present in the Code because, as the lawyers among you will I hope agree, they had been and remain a part of federal civil rights law and compliance procedures.

What is new is that this new language was adopted to provide specific protection to groups that, I believe, there is universal assent ought to be protected, including (but not limited to) Jewish students and faculty. Because the Civil Rights Act of 1965 did not specify religion as a protected group, there was a need to find a way to interpret the law to extend this protection to groups, including but not limited to Jews, who are both a religious group and an ethnic identity. The somewhat awkward language in bold above was the solution, and this was adopted by executive order of the president, beginning in 2019 by then-president Trump and reaffirmed in May 2023 by president Biden.

It is precisely because the main thrust of the amendment is to specify the protection of the civil rights of Jewish students that I advocated for the amendment and why I had hoped that others would as well. Indeed, the letter you signed states your support for the principle of protecting Jewish students and faculty from antisemitism, and so it would have seemed to me helpful to have specified in the letter or in other public statements that the language above -- again the language that is already adopted by the federal government for purposes of civil rights protections. Indeed, it is my hope that you might be willing to make such a statement, individually, or collectively, of your support for the "principle¨ that "there shall be no difference in the treatment of persons because of"....being Jewish and the extension of the principle of "access to facilities for all" to include Jews. That, for me and for the students who spoke on behalf of the item, and for the majority of the Regents who voted for it, is the key point. That is what the university was already required to ensure and what the University will, I hope, continue to do so. It is therefore to my mind a very good thing that attention has been called to this legal and moral responsibility.

The second part of the amendment is where, I believe, the objection lies. This is a small modification to a footnote used to describe "antisemitism" as it appears in the language above. In December 2022, the Board voted to insert into section 2 of this same chapter -- again the chapter deals with anti discrimination and section 2 deals with anti-bias training for faculty and staff -- a reference to antisemitism as being among the forms of discrimination to be addressed in this training. At that time, the footnote was inserted to specify that the antibias training should refer to the IHRA definition and associated examples. That reference has been in the Code since December of 2022, so it would not be accurate to say it was being "adopted" or "added into the main body of the Code" through this action. It remains in a footnote.

The textual amendment added some language that specified that this would not be, as you have expressed concern, a restriction on free speech. I reproduce below the footnote, which is by the action of the Board now moved from section 2 to section 1, and I have highlighted and bolded the added language.

“Antisemitism” refers to (i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism [sic] adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and (ii) the "Contemporary Examples of AntiSemitism" identified by the IHRA, to the extent they might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent. Consideration of the materials described in (i) and (ii) shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment and shall not be construed to conflict with local, federal, or state law. Determinations that a particular act constitutes illegal discrimination or harassment requires detailed analysis of the particular facts at issue and consultation of applicable legal and regulatory guidance . "

Note that not only does this language specify that there is infringement upon First Amendment protected speech but it also specifies that the examples of the IHRA definition cannot be used as basis for determining discriminatory intent or harassment without "detailed analysis of the particular facts at issue and consultation of the applicable legal and regulatory guidance." In other words, the concern that a "process of simple ´matching´" would be used to prosecute or punish faculty or students is explicitly counter-indicated in the text of the amendment. And again, for those who are familiar with the handbook, extensive process exists in other parts of the Code for matters such as discipline of student or faculty, so this passage would not be the basis for encroachment upon academic or free speech is, not only in my view of but that of the System Counsel, as she explained at the Board discussion on Friday.

The bulk of the letter you signed is fundamentally about the philosphical question of the "IHRA" definition in relation to other possible definitions. And certainly there is a good basis, always, for further discussion and debate. And in that debate, which I hope we will have, I would be eager to make the case for at least some of the aspects of the IHRA to which your letter objects, notably the examples that do specify instances in which holding Jews accountable for the policies of Israel or criticism of Israel that is not applied to any other country, could be considered antisemitic. You may be interested to know that while the letter dismisses the 7 of the 11 examples that refer to Israel as being not related to "antisemitism", the Jerusalem Declaration devotes 9 of its 15 "principles" to consideration of Israel. I do not think it is either intellectually sound or fair to suggest that there can be a discussion of antisemitism and protection against harassment of Jews without some reference to Israel, and in particular I would suggest that the provision holding that it could be discriminatory to hold individual or group s of Jews responsible for policies of Israel is a quite valid concern.

The attached memo explains the history of this definition, which was first developed by specialist scholars on antisemitism in 2003 and was known for most of its history as the "EUMC" definition, referring to the European Union Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, which adopted it in 2005. This was in turn adopted by European Union parliament and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (to which the US is a party) the same year, and it was adopted in 2013 by the United States Department of State for the purpose of determining if a foreign country should be considered to have a problem of antisemitism in its culture. It was also adopted in 2013 by the United States Department of Defense in 2013 for purposes of anti bias training of the armed forces. It was, in turn, adopted in 2016 by the IHRA and since then it has been adopted by over 40 countries, over 1200 cultural and educational institutions, and over 350 American universities. It was adopted by the US as part of the national antisemitism strategy in 2019 and included in the 2023 expansion of that strategy. In no instance in any of these jurisdictions has anyone been prosecuted or disciplined for speech critical of Israel based upon this definition. (There are jurisdictions in Europe in which Holocaust denial or antisemitism is illegal, including the Federal Republic of Germany, but in no cases has anyone been prosecuted by virtue of the IHRA definition.) Indeed the European Union prepared and published in 2021 a Practical Handbook for the Effective Use of the IHRA Definition (which I have attached) which includes explanations of the real-world examples of each of the "contemporary examples," which are not actually that vague or abstract in light of the actual cases laid out here. Moreover, it includes a page on best practices for the use for which the Regents adopted it on Friday, for reporting and compliance (page 19) and it includes a 3-page section on best practices for use in educational institutions and universities (page 27-30), none of which are as speech codes or to restrict academic freedom. Indeed, the primary author of this definition did as your letter indicates, state that it should not be used to inhibit speech, as did former AAUP president and leading academic freedom advocate Cary Nelson, and this is precisely why the use adopted by the Board does not and could not, in any "detailed analysis," be used to punish anyone for speech. It could be used to identify a "pervasive and persistent" environment of harassment (the standard used by the Compliance office in title IX or title VI investigations) but it could not be used to punish someone for a use of speech that is critical of Israel or even which calls for the "dismantlement" of Israel.

But hereś the key. The code amendment did not -- despite the somewhat inaccurate headline in today's LVRJ -- adopt a definition of antisemitism at all. This is not only because the IHRA definition had already been adopted, by the Federal government, and this is included in the DOE OCR guidance. Therefore, if the case is to be made to adopt a different definition, in the context of title VI compliance, that case is being made in the wrong venue by opposing the NHSE Code Amendment. That case should be made to the federal government, and if that is your intent, fortunately, there is a presidential election this year. There is also of course the option of litigation against the federal government for adopting this definition as an encroachment on 1st Amendment protected speech.

But as one of the Jewish student leaders said to the Board on Friday, "Why should explicit protection of my civil rights as a Jewish American be set aside so there can be a philosophical debate about a definition"? IF the Board were to adopt the same article with a reference to the Jerusalem Declaration, any compliance reporting to the Department of Education or any response to a title VI investigation would have to be based upon the federal government's definition, which is to say, in reference to (not necessarily based upon) the IHRA definition.

Finally, for those who wish to enter into the specifics of the competing definitions, the primary substantive differences are that the IHRA definition does specify that statements which question the "right of the Jewish people to self determination on its ancestral homeland" could be considered antisemitic, while the Jerusalem definition notes that the right of "Jews as individuals" to self determination "in equality" with others would be possibly antisemitic. The IHRA definition uses as an example the statement that "Israel is a racist state" as an example of possibly antisemitic speech and that calls for the outright destruction of Israel do imply violence against Jews and could be considered antisemitic. The Jerusalem definition does not. Thus, as I have said to some of you already, if the concern is that you feel you will be restricted from saying "Israel is a racist state" or calling for the "destruction" or "dismantlement" of Israel, then yes there is a substantive difference in the two definitions. BUT this does not mean that under an environment in which IHRA has been adopted as a working definition, such as the one in which we have been living since 2019, you would not be able to say those things. They are stil protected by the First Amendment, and I personally would continue to advocate for your academic freedom to say those things.

But I would ask you to consider how that sounds to an Israeli student or colleague. Or if you state that as a Jewish student or I as a Jewish faculty member are responsible for the actions or policies of Israel that you consider racist, I do think that is hostile. Not illegal. But hostile. If stated in a persistent and pervasive manner, that could certainly create an environment in which access to education or the ability to do ones job could be inhibited.

If you are still reading, I will close with this. I supported and celebrated the adoption of this amendment. And if it turns out I am wrong and you find yourself or anyone you know finds yourself in a position in which your speech is being curtailed or in which you are being punished or disciplined for criticism of Israel, please let me know. I will be among the first to help, and I will draw on my experience as an advocate for faculty rights and for academic freedom. I can also request the assistance of the AntiDefamation League on your behalf, as could you, as the ADL regularly provides support and assistance to students or workers facing discrimination based on their Muslim religion, Arab cultural heritage or otherwise. And of course you can count on the ACLU and the NFA to protect you if it is a matter of prosecution based on political speech.

But Id like to ask something of you, colleague. Having signed a letter stating your concern about antisemitism, can I ask for your help? Can I ask for you to help students who are fearful? Can I ask you to help launch a discussion on campus about antisemitism -- a serious, intellectual and historically informed one? One that actually looks to decades of scholarship in this field and applies the principles of anti-racism that we apply when we discuss anti-Black racism or harassment of LatinX or Asians?

That is the issue on which the Regents voted on Friday, and in my opinion, they made the right decision. You may disagree, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss. Please feel free to reach out, by email or phone, and please raise concerns, objections, objections of moral outrage to what I have written or said. The campus has had a difficult year for many reasons, not least that many are afraid to discuss this issue. Lets stand against that fear and silence and lets not treat each other as hostile entities, but as colleagues. I look forward to talking to you.

Additional resources from Professor Brown:

Dear Colleague Letter_ Protecting Students from Discrimination, such as Harassment, Based on Race, Color, or National Origin, Including Shared Ancestry or Ethnic Characteristics (May 7 2024)

Handbook for the practical use of the IHRA working-definition

IV-8-1

On the IHRA definition

The Nevada Faculty Alliance welcomes contrasting points of views and appreciates Dr. Brown's feedback. NFA condemns bigoted and hateful behavior in all forms.

BOR antisemitism policy proposal is misguided

State Board — Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:31:20 GMT

UPDATE, June 12, 2024: On June 7, 2024, the Nevada Board of Regents, by a vote of 7 to 6, amended the Board of Regents Handbook's anti-discrimination policy to include language specifically identifying antisemitism based on the IHRA working definition and examples. The NFA State Board rejects and abhors antisemitism and continues to support statements from the ACLU and AAUP that oppose adoption of the IHRA definition. Our position echoes that of AAUP in their letter to the US Department of Education. In the event that this new policy is not applied as its many supporters have testified, the NFA is prepared to defend any faculty member who is unreasonably accused of discrimination based on the IHRA definition or examples of antisemitism. We look forward to working amicably with all students and faculty at our NSHE institutions to foster an environment that encourages free speech and avoids any discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, or national origin, and recommit our members to fostering diversity, equity and inclusion.

ORIGINAL POST, June 4, 2024: At their next quarterly meeting on June 6 and 7, the Board of Regents will consider an amendment to the Handbook’s definition of discrimination so that it includes “citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity, and permit consultation of the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of ‘antisemitism’ and accompanying examples thereof.” It begs the question, could criticism of Israel and/or the Israeli government be considered discriminatory of Jewish people and the Jewish faith? The proposal, which has been submitted by Regents Joe Arrascada, Byron Brooks, and Stephanie Goodman, aims to add the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and specific examples to the Handbook which governs the Nevada System of Higher Education. The definition is already included in mandatory anti-bias and anti-discrimination training for Regents and NSHE employees.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance condemns antisemitism in all its forms, just as we condemn all forms of discriminatory and hateful behavior. However, we vigorously oppose this proposal for infringing on the first amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religion, and we encourage all higher education employees in Nevada to voice their opinions to the Board.

The definition developed by IHRA provides examples of what can be considered antisemitism, but explicitly references Israel. Ironically, the author of the original definition on antisemitism that is used by the IHRA, Kenneth Stern, testified in Congress against enshrining the definition into any law because the definition “was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus.” Instead, the definition was only meant to be non-legally binding guidance.

Indeed, the definition is not universally accepted even in the Jewish community. More than 1,300 Jewish college and university faculty members from across the United States have signed a statement that rejects the IHRA working definition because “[c]riticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not - in and of itself - antisemitic.” The group acknowledges there are differing opinions on Israel, even within its own ranks, but it cautions against the dangerous belief “that Jewish identity is inextricably linked to every decision of Israel’s government.” Instead of combating antisemitism, this notion may have the inverse effect and actually intensify the real threats Jewish Americans already face.

Other definitions of antisemitism exist, including the Jerusalem Definition developed by Jewish academics. It is unambiguous in its simplicity and makes no link between Jewish people and institutions to the government of Israel. Similarly, the Nexus Project, which has published multiple documents designed to guide policy makers in the fight against antisemitism, opposes using the IHRA working definition to formulate policies and laws.

In their submission, Regents indicate they have consulted with Jewish student organizations about this proposal, but we know of no outreach to Jewish faculty who are equally, if not more, exposed to antisemitic behavior. It appears the Regents submitting this proposal may have failed to recognize that Jewish NSHE faculty can provide valuable insights when forming a policy such as this.

NSHE is not the first place where ideological groups, motivated by former President Trump’s Executive Order 13899, have moved to enshrine this language into educational governance. Earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a letter to the US Department of Education urging them to reject the IHRA definition in any rules, policies, or practices for enforcing civil rights because it “conflates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination, and enshrining it into regulation will chill the exercise of First Amendment rights and risk undermining the agency's legitimate and important efforts to combat discrimination.”

Besides the obviously unconstitutional aim of suppressing the right of individuals to criticize government activities, the IHRA definition is ill-suited as the basis of a policy because it is simultaneously too ambiguous in one sense while being too specific in others.

First, the handbook change would include “citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity” as a potential basis of discrimination. There are a number of countries around the globe that have dominant religions or a distinct religious identity, such as Afghanistan, Cambodia, Egypt, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others. Could this definition lead to an assault on free speech for far more than one nationality and curtail objective, rational discussions of international current events, politics, art, and literature in the future?

Second, it does not make sense to codify into the handbook incredibly specific examples of antisemitism that make direct references to a specific country without doing the same for other types of discrimination.

College campuses are places in which students learn and create their world views. It is imperative that we keep free speech paramount on our campuses and encourage students, faculty, staff, and community members to understand that their words can literally be dangerous - something we have said to the Board in the past regarding oppressed identities. In other words, it is our responsibility to teach and remind students, and each other, of the weight that is our right to free speech, not to dictate what we can and cannot say as members of public higher education in Nevada.

The NFA echoes the ACLU’s objections when they stated, “[a]dopting the IHRA working definition of antisemitism would lead to more censorship on campus, and change the nature of universities, which exist to promote the free flow of information and marketplace of ideas.“ We will vigorously defend the rights of all Nevada faculty members and students to engage in free speech and the uncensored exchange of ideas. It is a pillar of our mission as an organization, and a foundation of our profession.

As stewards of higher education in Nevada, the Board of Regents should reject this proposal.

Regents should reject blanket delegation of authority

Jim New — Wed, 22 May 2024 00:30:23 GMT

At their May 23, 2024, meeting, the Nevada Board of Regents will consider a resolution to delegate their authority in litigation matters to the Chancellor. While Nevada laws permit such delegation, and several public bodies have adopted similar resolutions delegating litigation decisions to executive leadership, this proposal gives the Chancellor and the NSHE Chief General Counsel blanket authority over litigation decisions with little, if any, oversight by the Board. It only requires the Chancellor to consult with the Board Chair. There is no mandate that the two must agree. Similarly, there is no requirement to keep the other members of the Board informed. Alarmingly, the resolution states that the Chancellor would have the authority to make any decision “consistent with the advice of the Chief General Counsel.” That is, it appears to delegate real authority to the Chief General Counsel, not the Chancellor.

There is no argument that delegation is often necessary. Nevada’s Open Meeting Law makes it untenable for Regents to confer as a body on all litigation within the deadlines set by courts. Previously, the Board delegated this authority to the Chair who was charged with seeking approval from the Chancellor and the General Counsel. The new proposal, generally, reverses those roles, delegating authority to make litigation decisions “to the Chancellor, after consultation with the Board Chair and consistent with the advice of the Chief General Counsel.”

As presented, this resolution would apply to all litigation, including lawsuits initiated by NSHE on behalf of the Board, not just those where NSHE is a defendant.

The NFA recommends that Regents amend the resolution to authorize delegation ONLY when time does not allow consideration by the full Board. It should also require that the Board Chair approve decisions by the Chancellor, not just be consulted, and that the full Board be informed once a decision has been made. The Board Chair should retain the right to seek additional legal counsel and not rely solely on the advice of the NSHE Chief General Counsel. If the Board Chair disagrees with a decision of the Chancellor pertaining to litigation, the matter should automatically go before the full Board. Furthermore, NSHE should not initiate any legal action without consideration by the full Board of Regents.

Regents have the fiduciary responsibility for the Nevada System of Higher Education. A blanket delegation of authority over litigation abdicates a significant portion of that responsibility. It should not happen. Once established, the delegation of authority would be difficult to reverse. Consider the consequences of the worst possible Chancellor and General Counsel, not the current ones, having authority over litigation under any possible circumstances effectively without Board oversight.

NSHE Funding Formula 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions

Kent Ervin — Mon, 20 May 2024 18:22:00 GMT

Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers

Part 6 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding Higher Education.

The recommendations here from the Nevada Faculty Alliance are presented in good faith as ways to improve the funding formula and meet achievable goals. We appreciate the Committee’s difficult task and hard work. Our shared concerns are in serving students across the state, especially those in underserved areas.

One of our actionable solutions begins with analyzing the current NSHE funding formula. Because it is only a distribution formula an institution can meet all of its performance goals and still experience a budget decrease because other institutions had larger enrollment growth. Any new formula that merely redistributes existing funds will produce winners and losers and fail for Nevada’s students.

Chair Hardesty and Vice Chair Charleton have emphasized the Committee’s charge is to develop a new formula without new funding. Committee members have advocated for additional funds to fairly implement formula changes. As shown in Part 3, including summer course credits in the Weighted Student Credit Hour (WSCH) formula without additional funds would result in significant budget cuts for five of the seven institutions.

Reimagining the Formula as a Funding Formula

Budgets for the seven NSHE colleges and universities are currently developed through the state budget process, starting with the base-year budget and making various maintenance adjustments including caseload. At the end of the process, the total appropriation for the seven institutions is redistributed according to their WSCHs. That is backward and it leads to constant competition among the colleges and universities.

A true funding formula would determine the cost of providing higher education per WSCH (or other chosen metrics), then budget that amount multiplied by the WSCHs. The existing dollar value per WSCH should be adjusted for inflation according to the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI). Then that value multiplied by each institution’s WSCHs would be the institution's new base budget. The detailed budget (including cost-of-living adjustments) for each institution would be developed with the formula funding totals. Using WSCHs as the starting point for budgeting would prevent a redistribution or competition between institutions.

If the state provides insufficient funds to fully fund the formula, the only alternative is to reduce the appropriation per WSCH across the board by the same percentage and then raise student fees or cut services to compensate. That’s the reality regardless of which formula is established.

In case another sudden drop in enrollment were to occur, as happened during the pandemic, the best of the past two years of the WSCHs should be used to provide time for recovery or adjustment. (A three-year average has been proposed, but that still counts even and odd years differently with a biennial budget and increases the lag between count and budget years.) Ideally, projected enrollments would be used, but further study would be needed to find a feasible and accurate projection method.

Funding Student Services

In Part 4, we recommended shifting funding for existing student services expenditures from the WSCH to a headcount to reflect the costs of providing student services beyond the classroom. To implement that in a revenue-neutral way, each institution’s current student services expenditures would be carved out of their WSCH allocation (8% overall but varying from 5% to 14%). The total amount would then be redistributed according to the average of fall and spring student headcounts, resulting in an initial minor funding shift. For future budgets, the total student service funding would be divided by the total headcounts to obtain the dollar value per headcount. That value would be increased by HEPI inflation to set the budget based on each institution’s new headcount.

Funding Enhancements

The Committee cannot appropriate funds, but it can recommend additional changes in the formula be contingent upon full funding. These should include:

Adding all summer course credits to the WSCH formula, with an appropriation to cover the full cost. Unintended consequences of including summer credits without additional funding are discussed in Part 3. If all summer school courses convert to regular WSCH funding in the state-supported operating budget, then UNR’s and UNLV’s academic departments must receive equivalent funding levels to support their research missions.
Enhancing the headcount formula to fund additional wrap-around services for at-risk and underserved students, counting them at 1.25 to 1.30, with an appropriation to cover the full cost. The categories of at-risk students should include Pell-grant recipients, underrepresented and first-generation students, English-language learners, and students needing disability accommodations. Details can be found in Part 4.
An adjustment to the weighting in the WSCH formula for Nursing and possibly other critical needs. Again, weight enhancements must be fully funded to avoid robbing one institution to pay another. The Committee should also recommend a regular procedure to update the level and discipline weights in the WSCHs. They should be revised every four to six years to keep up with changes in the cost of instruction and the state’s critical economic areas.

Without full funding for these enhancements, smaller institutions would face severe budget cuts because existing funds would be redistributed to larger institutions. Recommending formula enhancements contingent upon funding would provide a path to future budget requests.

Inflation Adjustments

NSHE already has a policy to raise student registration fees according to HEPI, and state funding should keep up. A funding formula that is not adjusted for inflation results in cuts that prevent our ability to serve students and compensate faculty and staff fairly and competitively. The HEPI by Commonfund is a reasonable national measure of inflation in the higher education sector. For each biennial budget, the WSCHs or headcounts should be adjusted for the most recent two years of HEPI inflation.

Indexing the WSCH dollar value for inflation is not a major change from actual practice. For all the biennial budget requests and supposed enhancements since the current formula was established, the following figure shows that the appropriation per WSCH adjusted for inflation has been mostly flat since 2014, except for the decline after the pandemic from which we haven't not fully recovered.

If (and only if) the formula funding for NSHE is indexed for inflation, then the mechanism for funding COLAs for NSHE employees could be reconsidered for the formula-funded NSHE budgets. COLAs in line with the HEPI could be accommodated within the formula. Catch-up increases for competitive compensation require additional state funding, however.

Outcomes-Based Funding

We recommend eliminating the current performance pool as a carve-out from base funding. Any outcomes-based funding should be additions to the base budgets. Our recommended enhancement to the headcount formula for at-risk and underserved students provides outcomes-based funding, applied to about 8% of the budget (versus the 20% carve-out in the current performance pool). Institutions that recruit and retain those students would receive a funding boost based on their headcounts but without competing against other institutions for a fixed allocation or being threatened with a reduced budget for not meeting targets, as with the current performance pool. Headcount values could also include student-centric performance metrics for retention, progression, and completion. If a larger percentage of the formula is allocated to headcounts to enhance student support services (such as disability resources or mental health), it should be phased in with hold-harmless funding.

Other performance could be rewarded in a similar manner. For example, WSCH values could receive a bonus for efficiency measured by the number of degrees and certificates awarded per credit hour; that would prevent a reduction in funding if an institution graduates its students more quickly. All outcomes incentives must be additional funds that do not make institutions compete or put base funding at risk. No performance funding should risk base funding using metrics that track the total number of students, directly or indirectly. The WSCHs and headcounts already account for enrollment. Instead, institutions should be rewarded for increasing efficiency or reaching a higher proportion of a target population.

Audits

For full transparency and to promote trust between NSHE and the Legislature, all institutional reporting of formula factors (e.g., WSCHs and headcounts) should be audited regularly. The formula should incentivize services to students, not creative accounting.

###

Data are sourced from public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources. Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

Updated 5/20/2024 11:30 a.m. Edited for clarity.

NSHE Funding Formula. 5. A Separate Formula for the Community Colleges using Headcounts Could Decimate the Rural Colleges

Kent Ervin — Sun, 19 May 2024 23:21:06 GMT

A Separate Formula for the Community Colleges using Headcounts Could Decimate the Rural Colleges

Part 5 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHECommittee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamentalPrinciples for Funding Higher Education.

Several presidents and members of the Committee have recommended establishing separate formulas for different institution types to account for their different missions and student demographics. HCM Strategists, the Committee’s consultant, has advised against that, stating that there are too few institutions for multiple formulas to be practical and that the Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCHs) formula can provide sufficient differentiation by mission.

A simple two-formula system has been suggested to maintain the WSCH formula funding for the three universities but switch the four community colleges to a headcount formula. Table 1 shows how that system would affect the community colleges. With no additional funding or hold-harmless provisions, CSN’s budget would increase by 8%, but the other three colleges would have their funding reduced by 4% for TMCC, 9% for GBC, and 33% for WNC. The smaller and rural community colleges would be significantly harmed. Such a change should not be contemplated, at least not without long-term hold-harmless funding for the smaller institutions.

As recommended in part 4, a less radical and more practical solution would be to shift funding for Student Services expenses, about 8% of the budget overall, to a headcount formula but keep the student credit hour formula to fund instruction and related academic support. A credit-hour formula, weighted or not, more accurately represents the costs of instruction than do headcounts, but student support costs are better correlated with headcounts.

Table 1. Comparison of WSCH and headcount formulas for CSN, GBC, TMCC, & WNC

College	WSCH	Share of WSCH	Formula Appropriation (millions)	Funding Per WSCH	Headcount	Share of Headcount	Headcount Formula Funding (millions)	Funding Per Head	Change (millions)	Change (%)
CSN	564061	60.1%	$97.0	$172.01	33546	64.6%	$104	$3,127	$$7.9	8.1%
GBC	81614	8.7%	$14.6	$179.50	4279	8.2%	$13.4	$3,127	($1.3)	-8.7%
TMCC	204001	21.7%	$35.0	$171.76	10754	20.7%	$33.6	$3,127	($1.4)	-4.0%
WNC	89534	9.5%	$15.6	$174.65	3333	6.4%	$10.4	$3,127	($5.2)	-33.3%
Totals	939210	100%	$162.3		51912	100%	$162.3	$3,127	$0	0%

Sources: NSHE and LCB public reports. WSCH and Unduplicated Resident Headcount for the 2021-2022 count year. Formula appropriation is from the General Fund for FY2024 before COLAs and enrollment recovery funding.

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources. Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

NSHE Funding Formula 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts

Kent Ervin — Sun, 19 May 2024 22:02:08 GMT

Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts

Part 4 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding Higher Education.

A valid criticism of the current funding-distribution formula, which allocates state appropriations using resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCHs), is that it does not account for students from diverse backgrounds and part-time students needing wrap-around services. Several of the presidents have proposed using headcounts instead of WSCHs to distribute funding. HCM Strategists, the committee’s consultant, recommend using headcounts for only a portion of the formula.

In part 2, we showed that a complete switch from WSCHs to a headcount distribution formula would have disastrous consequences for multiple institutions. In this article, we analyze cost estimates for student services based on advisor-to-student ratios and recommend that funding for student service expenditures be tied to a student headcount measure.

Achieving a 350-to-1 Advisor-to-Student Ratio

NSHE's service standard for student services is one academic advisor or counselor per 350 students. Table 1 provides a cost estimate for funding that many advisors system-wide.

Table 1. Estimated cost of academic advisors and counselors

Total Student Headcount (Fall 2023)	107,000
Advisors at 350-to-1 students-to-advisor	305
Compensation per advisor ($56K average salary + 35% fringe + 11% FY2025 COLA)	$84,400
Total Cost	$25,700,000

The total cost of about $25.7 million represents 2.7% of the total budgets of the seven NSHE colleges and universities.

Enhancement for At-Risk and Students: Closing the Achievement Gap

Another goal is to enhance funding for services to at-risk students, including underrepresented minorities (URM), Pell Grant recipients, first-generation students, English-language learners, and students needing disability accommodations. NSHE data indicate 63% of students or 67,000 are historically minoritized and 32000 are Pell-grant recipients (data for the other categories are not readily available). The calculations in Table 2 show a cost of about $18.5 million overall to provide additional advisors or other program staff to support these students at the same 350-to-1 ratio as regular academic advisors.

Table 2. Estimated cost for additional support personnel for at-risk and underrepresented students (at a 350-to-1 student-to-staff ratio)

Student Services Expenditures

Funding advisors and support personnel is only a portion of student services. We can examine current expenditures attributed to Student Services for the colleges and universities. The NSHE Operating Budgets classify expenditures using standardized functional categories. Table 3 shows percentage expenditures for the NSHE colleges and universities for 2021-2022. The overall expenditure for Student Services is 8.0% of the budget, varying from 5% for UNR to 14% for NSU. Student Services include not only academic advising, but a wide range of services and programs beyond classroom instruction including information technology.

Table 3. 2021-2022 Expenditures by Functional Categories

A correlation analysis (Table 4 in footnote) shows that institutional expenditures for Instruction, Academic Support, and Operations & Maintenance are most highly correlated with Weighted Student Credit Hours. In contrast, expenditures for Student Services are most highly correlated with Total Fall Headcounts. Thus, the institutions are already allocating resources to serve students outside of the classroom in proportion to headcounts. The left side of Figure 1 shows that institutions are spending similar amounts on Student Services per student ($644 overall). The right side shows, in contrast, that the two comprehensive universities spend a much smaller portion of their budgets (5 to 6%) on Student Services than do NSU and the community colleges (11 to 14%).

Figure 1. Student Services Expenditures by Institution

As discussed in Part 2 of this series, a complete switch for the distribution formula from Weighted Student Credit Hours to headcounts would result in huge disruptions of funding. However, distribution by headcounts for up to the current 8% of expenditures for Student Services would be reasonable and would account for a variety of support services and technology infrastructure.

Recommendations

NFA recommends that Student Services expenditures (approximately 8% of the formula-funded budgets overall) be carved out from the resident WSCH distribution formula individually for each institution and that those amounts be distributed using an average of Fall and Spring resident headcounts. In future budgets, these headcount allocations should be updated through caseload maintenance items in the state budget process, plus an adjustment inflation. Because current Student Services expenditures are highly correlated with headcounts, this change would not cause a major disruption in funding, but it would allow for growth in services to students based on headcounts rather than student credit hours, accounting for part-time students who predominate at the community colleges.

Additionally, the headcounts should be enhanced for underrepresented minority, Pell recipients, and other identifiable at-risk or underserved students (without double counting individual students) by a factor sufficient to fund an additional counselor or other program officer per 350 of those students (roughly 0.25 to 0.30). Because the current formula does not account for these students in any way, this funding should be implemented as a enhancement. Once funded and implemented, the enhancement of headcounts for at-risk students acts as a performance factor–recruiting and retaining those students would boost future funding.

NFA also recommends that all reporting by the institutions of student credit hours, headcounts, and other factors that go into the funding formula should be audited regularly. The formula should provide incentives to serve students, not incentives for creative accounting.

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources. Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

_______________

Table 4. Correlation Analysis of 2021-2022 Institutional Expenditures in Major Functional Categories

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

NSHE Funding Formula 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula

Kent Ervin — Thu, 16 May 2024 21:16:12 GMT

Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula

Part 3 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding Higher Education.

Summer Course Credits

Summer school courses have traditionally been funded by student fees, not the state. But over the years certain summer courses have been brought into the current funding-distribution formula based on resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCHs). Nursing courses, science prerequisites for nursing, and teacher preparation courses were introduced as enhancements with appropriations for state-supported summer courses.

The CSN, GBC, NSU, and WNC presidents have proposed that summer courses be funded through the WSCH formula (Item #21 in Institutional Formula Recommendations). Their reasons include reducing the time to graduation by expanding summer course offerings and funding student support during the summer.

HCM Strategists, the consultants NSHE retained for the Committee, recommend adding summer courses to the WSCH formula with or without new funding. Although we support the general policy that the state fund all courses helping students earn their degree or certificate, bringing summer credits into the WSCH formula without additional funding would have dire consequences.

Budget Cuts for Rural Community Colleges

Non-state-funded summer credits range from 1% of WSCHs for GBC to 14% for NSU. As seen in Figure 1, HCM estimates that, with full funding, including all summer courses in the WSCH funding-distribution formula would cost an estimated $48 million. HCM describes “minor shifts” in current funding if summer credit hours are counted in the WSCH formula without additional funding.

Figure 1. Summary of including summer WSCH in the formula (HCM, p. 23).

However, HCM’s characterization of the budget effects as minor does not survive scrutiny. Table 1 examines the consequences for each institution’s funding.[1] A 5% to 6% decrease in funding at GBC and WNC is hardly a “minor shift.” Neither are funding cuts of 2% to 3% for NSU, UNR, and TMCC. NFA believes that any change must be fully funded.

Table 1. Summer WSCH without additional funding.

Institution	Percentage Change in Share of Total WSCH (Systemwide)	Change in Total WSCH Funding	Percentage Change in Total WSCH Funding
UNLV	0.77%	$3,873,296	2.0%
UNR	-0.69%	($3,504,870)	-2.7%
NSU	-0.11%	($557,363)	-1.9%
CSN	0.49%	$2,499,682	2.7%
GBC	-0.13%	($681,850)	-5.0%
TMCC	-0.15%	($768,229)	-2.3%
WNC	-0.17%	($860,667)	-5.8%
Totals	0.00%	$0	0.0%

Other Consequences

The discussion of summer course funding has not addressed how various institutions use summer school revenue. Although community colleges appear to collect the revenue centrally, UNLV and UNR rebate a portion to academic departments as an incentive to offer courses. Units and departments use this revenue for faculty development, conference travel for faculty and graduate students, research support, and emergencies. If summer courses are brought into state-supported operating budgets without funding, many of UNR’s and UNLV’s academic departments will face yet another budget crisis. Also, each university will risk support for research that contributes to R1 status.

In addition, faculty workloads will be required to support expanded summer course offerings. Given the difficulty of recruiting and retaining instructors, adding summer loads will be a big lift for some institutions and programs. Departments and units may have to compensate by proportionally reducing course loads for B-contract faculty during fall and spring semesters, which could lead to students finding reduced course offerings.

Conclusion

As previously stated by NFA, a new formula that merely redistributes available funding will be a failure. If summer WSCHs are added to the distribution formula, they must be fully funded as an added appropriation at HCM’s estimated cost of $48 million per year.

__________

[1] We cannot reproduce HCM’s percentages in Figure 1 using available public records, but the consequences using their percentages would be similar to those in Table 1. Our full calculations are available for review; corrections from authoritative sources are welcome.

***

We welcome feedback from faculty, especially department chairs, administrative faculty, and classified staff who manage state-supported budgets. Contacts: Kent Ervin (kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Doug Unger (doug.unger@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Jim New (jim.new@nevadafacultyalliance.org), and Staci Walters (staci.walters@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and corrections. Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

NSHE Funding Formula 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie--Winners and Losers

Kent Ervin — Wed, 15 May 2024 00:56:11 GMT

Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers

Part 2 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for the Funding of Higher Education.

The ad hoc NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding has been tasked with evaluating other states’ higher education funding models to support their NSHE-similar institutions. These models are to be compared to Nevada’s current model, including allocation and institutional costs to deliver instruction. The committee will then determine whether other funding-allocation methods would be appropriate for NSHE. The Nevada Faculty Alliance has stated to the committee that a new formula will be a failure if it merely redistributes the existing funding without new resources.

Impact of Formula Changes

The total funding per student at Nevada’s public colleges and universities is third-from-bottom among all states. It can be simultaneously true that certain institutions–for example, Nevada community colleges–are disadvantaged by the current formula and that all institutions are underfunded. Presidents will naturally recommend formulas that favor their own institutions, but the Committee must balance students’ different needs and resources and recommend an equitable funding formula.

The current formula distributes funding to the seven NSHE colleges and universities in proportion to resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCH). A change from the resident WSCH to a different formula could result in a major disruption to funding. For example, as the following data will show, changing from WSCH to “unduplicated resident headcounts” in 2021–2022 would have decreased UNLV’s state appropriation by $55 million (−29%) and increased CSN’s by $69 million (+74%), out of a total $500 million appropriated to all seven institutions.

NFA maintains that any additions to the formula (e.g., including summer school courses in the WSCHs) must be fully funded. Any changes to the distribution formula must be implemented only with hold-harmless provisions for at least two biennia to allow institutions to adjust. Furthermore, different measures may be appropriate for a portion of the budget—for example, headcounts for non-instructional student support services—but not for the entire budget.

Comparison of Different Formula-Distribution Metrics

The following tables and charts show how different distribution formulas would affect the seven NSHE colleges and universities, using 2021–2022 data. Tables 1A and 1B show the state appropriations in percentages of the total and estimated percentage change after a shift from resident WSCHs. Tables 2A and 2B show the appropriations and changes in millions of dollars.

Switching completely from WSCHs to other enrollment metrics for the funding distribution formula would benefit the community colleges and NSU, but without additional funding would require drastic budget cuts at UNLV and UNR, comparable to recent pandemic budget cuts. Alternatively, different funding distribution formulas could be implemented for different institution types. Without additional funding, however, that could bake in disparities in the current formula.

The first data column in Table 1A shows resident WSCH percentages, which is how the current formula distributes funding. That is compared to unweighted student-credit hours (same as average annual full-time-equivalent enrollment) in the second column. The weightings of courses by levels and discipline are intended to account for the different costs of instruction.

The tables and Chart 1 compare three different headcount measures. Headcounts generally peak in the Fall semester. Total headcounts include out-of-state students; resident headcounts do not and are therefore lower. The “unduplicated resident headcount”, however, counts any individual student who has taken a state-supported course during the year. These can exceed the peak total headcounts because some students take courses sporadically. Because most of those students do not need year-round support, the unduplicated resident headcounts are a poor measure for the resources needed for student support services. We recommend the Fall headcounts, or an average of Fall and Spring, as more accurate for distributing funding for student services.

Finally, maintained square footage is included in the tables and Chart 2 because a bill in the 2023 legislature would have shifted the formula to consider only building square footage on each campus. Square footage has been mentioned in the funding committee discussions mainly in the context of fixed facility operations and utility costs.

Conclusion and Future Analysis

The current Weighted Student Credit Hour formula attempts to recognize the costs of offering courses to students at various levels in various disciplines. That’s appropriate for funding instructional staff and operations. Student support services geared to individual students are better correlated with student headcounts, including part-time students. There are also fixed facility and administrative costs that depend weakly on student numbers. In later posts, we will analyze these various cost drivers and how they might equitably be incorporated into a new formula for appropriate portions of the budgets.

Table 1A. NSHE Institutional Appropriation Percentages using Various Distribution Metrics

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	37.9%	33.7%	28.8%	28.2%	27.0%	34.2%
UNR	25.2%	20.6%	18.9%	16.7%	15.3%	37.7%
NSU	5.8%	6.8%	6.8%	7.6%	7.6%	2.0%
CSN	18.6%	24.7%	29.3%	30.8%	32.4%	14.7%
GBC	2.7%	2.9%	3.3%	3.9%	3.2%	2.7%
TMCC	6.7%	7.8%	9.3%	9.7%	10.4%	5.5%
WNC	3.0%	3.4%	3.5%	3.1%	4.1%	3.1%

Sources: NSHE public reports and records. Maintained square footage includes non-instructional space.

Table 1B. Estimated Percentage Change in State Appropriation using Various Distribution Metrics

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	0.0%	-11.1	-24.0%	-25.7%	-28.8%	-9.8%
UNR	0.0%	-18.3%	-25.0%	-33.6%	-39.3%	+49.6%
NSU	0.0%	+17.2%	17.2%	+31.3%	31.0%	-65.5%
CSN	0.0%	+32.8%	57.5%	65.4%	74.2%	-21.0%
GBC	0.0%	7.4%	22.2%	43.7%	18.5%	0.0%
TMCC	0.0%	16.4%	38.8%	45.5%	55.2%	-17.9%
WNC	0.0%	13.3%	16.7%	3.4%	36.7%	3.3%

Table 2A. NSHE Institutional Appropriations using Various Distribution Metrics (Million $)

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	$189.5	$168.5	$144.0	$140.8	$135.0	$171.0
UNR	$126.0	$103.0	$94.5	$83.6	$76.5	$188.5
NSU	$29.0	$34.0	$34.0	$38.1	$38.0	$10.0
CSN	$93.0	$123.5	$146.5	$153.8	$162.0	$73.5
GBC	$13.5	$14.5	$16.5	$19.4	$16.0	$13.5
TMCC	$33.5	$39.0	$46.5	$48.7	$52.0	$27.5
WNC	$15.0	$17.0	$17.5	$15.5	$20.5	$15.5

Sources: NSHE public reports and records. Assumes $500 million total appropriation.

Table 2B. Estimated Changes in State Appropriation using Various Distribution Metrics (Million $)

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	$0.0	-$21.0	-$45.5	-$48.7	-$54.5	-$18.5
UNR	$0.0	-$23.0	-$31.5	-$42.4	-$49.5	$62.5
NSU	$0.0	$5.0	$5.0	$9.1	$9.0	-$19.0
CSN	$0.0	$30.5	$53.5	$60.8	$69.0	-$19.5
GBC	$0.0	$1.0	$3.0	$5.9	$2.5	$0.0
TMCC	$0.0	$5.5	$13.0	$15.2	$18.5	-$6.0
WNC	$0.0	$2.0	$2.5	$0.5	$5.5	$0.5

Chart 1. Headcount numbers by institution and type

Chart 2. Distribution Formulas by Institution for Various Measures

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources. Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Update 5/17/2024: Corrected values in Table 1B to be percentage change in institutional appropriation (rather than the difference in the percentage share of the total budget).

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

Candidates for Board of Regents seek NFA endorsements

Jim New — Tue, 14 May 2024 17:08:25 GMT

Update: For the 2024 General Election, the NFA has endorsed Carlos Fernandez for Regent District 1, Tonia Holmes-Sutton for Regent District 4, and Amy Carvalho for Regent District 12. Regent Carol Del Carlo was elected in District 9 with over 50% of the vote in the primary electon.

There are four seats on the Board of Regents up for election in 2024. The primary election is on June 11 with early voting starting May 25. The primary will narrow the field to two candidates for each race going forward to the general election in November--unless one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote in primary in which case that candidate is declared elected and there is no general election.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance Political Action Committee (NFA-PAC) sent a questionnaire exploring NSHE and faculty issues to each candidate's email address. Seven of the 13 candidates have responded.

The NFA-PAC is also conducting candidate forums that are open to all NFA members. Video recordings of the forums will be available for review once all candidates have responded to our request to participate. Candidate endorsements may be made by the NFA-PAC at the conclusion of the process. Only candidates who offer unqualified support for the principles of shared governance and collective bargaining rights will be considered for endorsement.

District	Questionnaire Responses	Forum Video
District 1 - northern Clark County	Matthew Bowen Carlos David Fernandez Ida Zeiler	April 30, 2024 Matthew Bowen Carlos David Fernandez Ida Zeiler
District 4 – northeastern Clark County	Aaron Bautista Richard Andrew Carrillo Donald Sylvantee McMichael (incumbent) Shawn Stamper Tonia Holmes Sutton	April 24, 2024 Aaron Bautista Tonia Holmes Sutton
District 9 – Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Storey and southern Washoe Counties	Carol Del Carlo (incumbent) Bret Delaire Gary T Johnson	May 13, 2024 Carol Del Carlo
District 12 – southeastern Clark County	Amy Carvalho (incumbent) Jonathan Maxham	April 29, 2024 Amy Carvalho Jonathan Maxham

USA Today shines spotlight on unheeded calls for Title IX reform at UNR

State Board — Wed, 08 May 2024 23:54:09 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is committed to working with all members of the UNR community to repair the damage to UNR's reputation from national attention and to work toward full EO/Title IX compliance and our shared emphasis on equity and inclusion. The NFA also calls for immediate action to support victims and survivors of abuse, discrimination, or power-based violence at UNR and strongly believes concrete action must be taken to protect those who are the most vulnerable.

In light of the recent USA Today article, “Exclusive Records Show Nevada Athletics Ran Afoul of Title IX: Its Leaders Shrugged,” the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance reiterates its call for UNR to reform its Equal Opportunity/Title IX practices. As stated in our letters to the UNR administration in December 2022 and to NSHE leadership in October 2023, we have been gravely concerned about leadership's pattern—particularly under the guidance of Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel Mary Dugan—of protecting powerful individuals accused of EO/Title IX violations while suppressing cases brought forward by whistleblowers and individuals who have faced harassment and retaliatory behavior.

Request for Accurate Historical Data

Table 1 shows data eventually released after UNR refused, in 2022, to provide sexual misconduct data to USA Today. The data illustrate how very few of those found guilty in Title IX investigations from 2018 through 2021 were disciplined when Maria Doucetperry served as the Title IX coordinator. Of 19 formal investigations and 7 findings of fault, only one student was suspended and none expelled, a number that is extremely low in comparison to other schools. Furthermore, sanctions greatly declined in comparison to when the office was run by the previous Title IX coordinator, Denise Cordova.

Table 1

Question	Year
Question	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	Total
1. How many reports did your institution receive of a student accused of a Title IX offense?	39	62	36	85	66	25	8	5	326
2. Of the number in Question 1, how many reports were informally resolved?	30	58	26	64	60	10	4	3	255
3. Of the number in Question 1, how many formal investigations were opened?	9	4	10	8	7	11	0	1	50
4. Of the number in Question 3, how many formal investigations resulted in a finding of responsibility against one or more students for a Title IX offense?	8	3	5	5	5	1	0	1	28
5. Over the same time period, how many students found responsible in a formal investigation for a Title IX offense were expelled/dismissed/permanently separated from your institution?	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
6. Over the same time period, how many students found responsible in a formal investigation for a Title IX offense were suspended/temporarily dismissed from your institution?	2	1	2	2	0	0	0	1	8

An Opaque Process

Although the NFA and faculty senators have been requesting similar data for faculty and staff since November 2022, UNR's administration has repeatedly refused to release historical data. This is in contrast to their new era of EO/Title IX transparency and a monthly dashboard of case statistics and a fully staffed office. A consultant's long-promised report on the operation of the EO/Title IX office has not been released to the university community.

Despite public commitments to transparency, the NFA is regularly asked to assist complainants who are denied access to their investigative reports. As reported by USA Today, access to these documents is “a standard practice at other universities.” Furthermore, federal policy requires Title IX offices to “create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence and…send to each party and the party's advisor, if any…for their review and written response.” In the meantime, we urge all members of the UNR community to please reach out to NFA leadership if you have concerns about an EO/Title IX investigation or to let us know if you have been denied access to an investigative report, so that we can provide guidance on how to obtain it.

Finally, USA Today reports that UNR paid Athletic Director Doug Knuth $308,000 to leave the university when his contract was not renewed, a payment UNR did not include in their annual NSHE buyouts report, which is submitted to the Board of Regents. Our previous statements have described and criticized the lack of transparency and completeness of the buyout reports. Without transparent and full reporting, Regents are not aware of issues so problematic that they necessitate being covered up through buyouts or settlements and therefore hold any responsible individuals accountable. Given Knuth’s reported behavior at UNR, a payout of such magnitude was fiscally and ethically irresponsible and creates mistrust in the university community. Although we applaud the administration for firing Doug Knuth for egregious Title IX violations, we again urge the administration to adhere to their new transparent processes.

Creating a Culture of Accountability

To create a culture of accountability and trust, we call on UNR’s leadership to do the following:

Follow federal law by creating and releasing investigative reports.
Release historical case data for faculty and staff so the UNR community can assess the administration’s progress and trust the process.
Establish public policies in line with federal guidance clearly showing the roles played by institutional administrators, general counsels, and HR managers in Title IX hearings and EO/Title IX office
Hold institutional administrators and other employees accountable for violating prohibitions when intervening in Title IX and other proceedings.

We further call on the NSHE Board of Regents to require complete and transparent annual reporting from each NSHE institution. These reports should, at a minimum, include statistical data on student, faculty, and staffEO/Title IX investigations and outcomes as well as buyouts and settlements with employees or former employees and the amount of each.

UNR Budget Crisis Update

Kent Ervin — Thu, 02 May 2024 21:16:09 GMT

UNR Budget and Enrollment Update

This is an update to NFA’s eight-part series on the University of Nevada, Reno budget crisis published in January 2024. (Some of the original articles have been updated–most recently Part 3B. Growth of Executive Positions and Salaries).

Budget Shortfall for 2024–2025

At the April 30 UNR Campus Conversation, Vice President for Administration and Finance Andrew Clinger reported the “good news” that the previously projected shortfall of $31.7 million for FY2025 has been reduced to about $12 million. The stated reasons for a lower shortfall were the three-month delay in faculty COLAs, the 5% increase in student registration fees and tuition, and an improved enrollment outlook. VP Clinger clarified that the FY2024 budget cuts would remain in place, including 108 faculty and staff positions being held vacant and 5% cuts to department budgets. The administration has told the Faculty Senate Budget & Planning Committee they found additional commitments to be budgeted.

The UNR budget is not out of the woods: it is deep in the forest. Previous administrations would have considered a $12 million budget hole to be a crisis. No information was provided about how the $12 million shortfall will be addressed for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024, but it is equivalent to an additional 100+ faculty and staff positions being kept vacant or eliminated. The cumulative budget shortfalls of $25 million in FY2024 and $12 million in FY2025 represent over 10% of the state-allocated operating budgets at UNR.

Enrollment Status

UNR’s Spring 2024 FTE enrollment is up 5.5% overall from Spring 2023 and the headcount is up by 15.3%. However, that counts the huge growth in enrollment from non-degree seeking undergraduates (a 190% increase to 4,900 students), primarily high school students taking dual and concurrent enrollment classes. Concurrent enrollment fees are only $75 per course, compared with the $788 UNR undergraduates pay in registration fees for a three-credit course. Future credit for concurrent Weighted Student Credit Hours would apply to the budget in the next biennium. In the meantime, this program, part of the UNR instructional budget, requires UNR personnel, including pay for the high school instructors, coordinators for each subject, travel funds to visit high schools, and administrative oversight.

If we look at the enrollment of degree-seeking students, the headcount is down 1.3% from Spring 2022 to Spring 2023. At the most recent Campus Conversation, Provost Jeff Thompson reported that although new enrollment for Fall 2025 is down from this time a year ago, he did not have a percentage due to data-collection changes. In addition, continuing delays and errors in federal financial aid applications are impacting student recruitment and retention.

Possible Real-Estate Deals with Long-Term Consequences

At the April 30 Campus Conversation, President Sandoval talked about two potential real estate transactions, which were also announced at Faculty Senate meetings. First, the President is hoping to sell UNR land north of the Med School to the Department of Veterans Affairs as the site for a new VA hospital to replace the existing facility on Kirman Avenue. As reported to the faculty senate, the VA is considering the UNR location and one or two other potential sites to build the new hospital. Selling this land to the VA would rule out future northward growth for UNR and would displace lower-cost parking lots as well as several buildings. Proceeds from a land sale would be one-time money that could not be used for continuing budgets. Financial and other details of UNR’s offer to the VA were not disclosed.

Second, UNR is considering buying 18 parcels with homes and apartments south of I-80 between Lake and Evans streets, north of Sixth Street. To be dubbed “University Village,” the 49 or so residential units would provide faculty and graduate students with much-needed affordable housing in Reno’s expensive market. While we appreciate helping faculty and graduate students with housing, the projected price is $6.5 million plus an estimated $825,000 for improvements. The down payment would come from UNR’s property acquisition fund, while the rest would be financed with a loan from UNR’s Operating Fund assets (account reserves held at NSHE) and paid back through rent revenue.

In another budget circumstance, we would applaud this decision. However, the long-term debt on this acquisition would limit future capital improvement funding because it would be added to the Business Building 30-year lease and bonds for the new engineering building, student achievement center, wellness center, and other buildings still being paid for. Another question is whether the properties in that neighborhood would be attractive to new faculty or graduate students at the rents required to pay for the loan, maintenance, and management, and President Sandoval did not mention a market study or business plan. The President has requested feedback through the Faculty Senate; you can provide comments here about whether future faculty and graduate students would be interested in living there.

Outlook

Provost Thompson and VP Clinger professed “cautious optimism” about the 2025–26 and 2026–27 budgets in the next legislative session, but that does not help for FY2025. President Sandoval has proposed a new ⅛-cent Washoe County sales tax for UNR and TMCC infrastructure and capital improvements, which would require legislative, county commission, and possibly voter approval. New revenue to fund higher education is highly desirable, but this is apparently the first time since 1885 [1] that county taxpayers have been asked to fund the state university. As mentioned by a speaker at the Campus Conversation, sales taxes are regressive.

The Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding, which will make recommendations in July, is a wild card. NFA has been actively engaged with the funding formula committee, and the NFA state board has published a set of principles for funding higher education. Faculty feedback on the preliminary recommendations for funding formula changes by the committee’s consultant would be appreciated, especially from department chairs and others who administer state-supported instructional budgets.

###

Our UNR budget analyses are based on public reports and records and interpreted as accurately as possible given uncertainties in the assumptions used for various reports. Corrections from authoritative sources are welcome. Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Previous articles on the UNR budget crisis:

Part 1. Overview (updated 1/3/2024)
Part 2. Increased University Support for Athletics (updated 2/2/2024)
Part 3. Growth of Executive Positions and Salaries (updated with total compensation data 5/1/2024)
Part 4. Student Registration Fees (1/10/2024)
Part 5. Business Building PPP (updated 2/6/2024)
Part 6. Inflated Enrollment (updated 1/25/2024)
Part 7. Underfunded COLAs (1/19/2024)
Part 8. Summary and Solutions (updated 2/2/2024)

[1] In 1885, the Nevada Legislature directed Washoe County to issue $25,000 in bonds to fund the university’s move from Elko to Reno, to be paid by a property tax in Reno (1885 Statutes of Nevada, Chapter LXXI).

NSHE Funding Formula 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations

Kent Ervin — Thu, 02 May 2024 01:06:01 GMT

NSHE Funding Formula 1. Preliminary Recommendations of the Consultant

Part 1 of a series analyzing proposals for modifying the legislative funding formula for NSHE colleges and universities. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA state board issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding of Higher Education.

The NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding is working toward recommendations on changes to the funding formula for the seven NSHE colleges and universities. At the April 26th meeting, consultants from HCM Strategists presented their preliminary recommendations for feedback from the committee. The HCM recommendations were based in part on recommendations submitted by the seven presidents and on interviews with committee members and a few other stakeholders, but also represent HCM's view of best practices.

The NFA is actively engaging with the committee, with little other faculty input so far in public comment periods. The NFA state board provided a set of Principles for Funding of Higher Education to committee members, and we have provided background data and analyses on how the current formula has affected funding and how it has been implemented in the state budgeting process. Committee members have taken note of our information during the meetings.

The Committee has just two more meetings, on May 30 and July 25, to finalize its recommendations.

Here we present an outline of the main HCM recommendations as presented on April 26. Future posts will analyze some of the consequences if the recommendations are adopted.

HCM Recommendation 1:

Create a separate enrollment-based portion of the formula that uses both full-time equivalent FTE and headcount enrollment and incorporates weights for Pell recipients and underrepresented minorities (URM)

HCM Recommendation 2:

Modify the resident Weighted Student Credit Hours calculations:

Include headcount enrollment with adjustments for student attributes
Review nursing program costs in light of state needs and goals
Include all summer course credit hours in WSCH
Do a 3-year average for WSCH to avoid odd incentives of “every other year” counting for the year of measure.

HCM Recommendation 3:

Include all WSCH in the formula regardless of term (i.e., including summer) to remove the disincentive to offer summer courses. NSHE could request a budget enhancement but should pursue this policy with or without new funding.

HCM Recommendation 4:

Performance Pool changes. The current Performance Pool is a 20% carve-out from base funding that is at risk if an institution does not meet performance targets, but has rarely resulted in funding being jeapardized.

(HCM preferred option 1) Performance Pool should incorporate or be based on share of outcomes or relative growth.

HCM-recommended Relative Growth Model: A certain percentage of the total funding (20% in the HCM example) is carved out as a performance pool and earned back based on “relative growth” or how much an institution has changed from its own baseline on a percentage basis. Institutions with higher relative growth get a larger share of the pool. Institutions with lower growth than other institutions (or negative growth) get a smaller share of the pool.

(option 2) Modify the existing Performance Pool by re-baselining each institution’s targets each year.
(option 3) No performance pool or fund with new money only

Other HCM recommendations:

No new cost study to adjust student credit hour weightings—just modify key areas based on state workforce needs, such as nursing.
No changes to Performance Pool metrics.
Do not create separate formulas for different institutions

Committee Discussion on April 26

Some committee members pushed back generally on the idea of redistributing funding with no new funding. For example, the addition of all summer courses to WSCH counts in the formula would dilute the funding value per WSCH and redistribute funds among institutions by up to 0.5% of their total budgets. Chancellor Charlton and Chair Hardesty indicated that the charge of the committee was to recommend changes to the distribution formula, not to recommend additional funding, but there was also discussion that the Board of Regents could make budget enhancement requests to fund any formula changes. Some committee members also objected to HCM’s Relative Growth Model for the Performance Pool because it would be funded out of existing appropriations rather than new money.

NFA Analysis

Every formula change has “winners” and “losers” unless the changes are fully funded and there are hold-harmless provisions for a transition period. A new formula that merely redistributes existing funding will be a failure. Some of the HCM recommendations may have unintended consequences based on current budgeting practices at the various institutions at NSHE (for example, how or whether summer school revenue is shared with departments). NFA will be providing analyses of the consequences of the various funding proposals in forthcoming posts.

We welcome feedback from faculty, especially department chairs and others who manage budgets on the ground. Contacts: Kent Ervin (kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Doug Unger (doug.unger@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Jim New (jim.new@nevadafacultyalliance.org).

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

Recapping a successful year

Jim New — Wed, 01 May 2024 15:54:07 GMT

As the end of the 2023-24 academic year draws near, we are happy to report that NFA has had one of its most successful years ever. It was a year marked by securing the largest-ever back-to-back cost of living adjustments for NSHE professionals in history, due in large part by the exceptional turn out of NFA members making public comment at Board of Regents meetings and advocacy on campus with constituents such as student leaders. We also saw restoration of long-term disability benefits, an NSHE priority, but one that past president Kent Ervin refused to let slip to the back burner.

At the beginning of the academic year, the NFA State Board established five goals, and with a few weeks left before the year closes, we are happy to report that we have met or exceeded all of them.

Five goals:

Progress toward establishing one new collective bargaining unit - It is likely that a new bargaining unit may be established shortly after the start of the 2024-25 academic year. At least one chapter is reaching the critical level of support to ensure that more than 50% of their faculty will vote in favor. Once completed, it will take the remainder of the academic year, and perhaps the next, to negotiate their first bargaining agreement with administration.
Membership growth of 10% - Not only is membership growing, exceeding the 10% target by mid-January, it is accelerating. By April, growth has reached 20%, and we anticipate 22% before year-end. The story at some individual chapters is even more impressive. Both university chapters have grown about 15%, while the CSN chapter notched 19%, the TMCC chapter at 35%, and the GBC chapter a whopping 111%. In less than two years, TMCC-NFA has grown 121%, and is targeting 100 members before the end of the academic year. More than 54% of current teaching faculty at the college are now NFA members.
Restoration of GBC-NFA - As noted above, not only has the GBC chapter of NFA been reactivated, it is thriving. The State Board initiated a recruitment campaign in January, and by March the chapter had more than doubled in size and a new slate of chapter officers had been elected.
Quarterly newsletters - On this one we failed. The newsletters are not published quarterly because our activity has made it necessary to publish them monthly. All members receive the “Quarterly” Dispatch via email and readership exceeds 65% among the recipients.
Website update - Not only has the content on the NFA website been refreshed with dynamic content, such as current news and events, on the home page, we’ve also implemented electronic forms and payments for membership applications and PAC donations. Some membership growth is directly attributable to the new on-line application form that streamlines the process for applicants.

Of course, through the year, other issues and opportunities present themselves requiring our action. The passage of SJR7 in the 2023 legislature means that Nevada voters will be asked once again to determine if the Nevada Constitution should be amended to remove the status of the Board of Regents. The ballot initiative, known as Question 1, may offer many opportunities, but also creates uncertainty. NFA is organizing a series of town hall sessions for faculty to hear from and ask questions of stakeholders on both sides of the issue. No other constituent group will be as impacted as faculty if Question 1 passes.

CSN-NFA also successfully re-opened negotiations on their collective bargaining agreement for modifications that were contingent upon the outcome of the 2023 Legislative session, which was underway when the agreement was originally approved. The modified agreement includes cost-of-living-adjustments for new faculty who were not included in the adjustments approved by the Board of Regents for fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25. Other changes addressed inequities in workload for faculty in studio and lab classes.

At this time, NFA Officers are working with other faculty leaders and members of the Board of Regents to update Title 4 Chapter 4 of the Board of Regents Handbook, the chapter that defines the rights of faculty members to organize for collective bargaining. The language was written over 30 years ago and has only had minor modifications since then. It is significantly outdated, and in some cases, doesn’t reflect the reality of NSHE practices.

It’s also the time of year when we start formulating goals for the next academic year.

Proposed 2024-25 goals:

Political action: Every election is consequential, but it’s not hyperbolic to say that the 2024 election may be the most consequential ever for faculty in Nevada and the NFA. In addition to Question 1, NFA will be very actively supporting candidates who actively support us.
1. For the Board of Regents, we will endorse only those candidates who unconditionally recognize and embrace our critical role in collective bargaining and shared governance.
2. For state government offices, the NFA is supporting legislative candidates who support collective bargaining and academic freedom as NFA continues its work to establish bargaining rights for NSHE professionals in state law.
Membership growth - We hope for a repeat performance in growth. Another year with 15-20% growth is within reach.
What can NFA do for you in the next year? Please reach out to your chapter leaders or state NFA leaders with your suggestions or concerns. The NFA State Board will be setting new priorities and goals at our summer strategy meeting.

Principles for Funding of Higher Education

Kent Ervin — Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:57:49 GMT

The Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Committee is charged with making recommendations on a new funding formula for NSHE colleges and universities. The NFA has been actively engaged in providing background information for the committee. The NFA state board has issued our priorities and principles for the funding higher education for the benefit of students and the state, copied here and also available as a one-page document.

Nevada Faculty Alliance Priorities for Funding Higher Education

Reinvesting in Higher Education for the Common Good

● Higher education drives upward economic and social mobility and should be affordable for all.

● NSHE colleges and universities provide workforce development, ranging from training in technical sciences and advanced manufacturing to educating future teachers, nurses, engineers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, scientists, accountants, business managers, hospitality workers, public health workers, policy-makers, communicators, etc. All are important for Nevada’s economic growth.

● Workforce and economic development is fueled by discoveries made by basic and applied research.

● Student debt is a national crisis preventing generational improvement in living standards. The burden on students should be reduced through direct debt relief and by restoring student fees to pre-2008 levels.

● Funding must provide for the actual cost of delivering high-quality education for students. A new formula that simply re-slices the funding pie will be a failure.

Principles for Higher Education Funding

Caseload and Operational Funding

● Headcount funding should be tied to standards such as advisers per student (1 per 300 students, or more) and counselors per student. Some students require more wrap-around services because of their educational, socio-economic, cultural, or military backgrounds. Funding enhancements for these students should apply to all institutions and programs.

● Evidence-based discipline and course-level credit-hour weightings are important for instructional caseload funding, but so are standards for the number of full-time instructors per student (>1 to 18) and the percentage of courses taught by full-time instructors (60% to 80% depending on institution type).

● Infrastructure for research must be funded, along with investment in partnerships between NSHE and the state to pursue federal and private research funding.

● Allocate funds for fixed costs for facilities, operations, and administration not based on student numbers.

● At least 80% of student registration fees should go to fund instruction and student services, not be diverted to other functions such as intercollegiate athletics or capital improvements.

● Maintain established proportions of state funding versus student revenue, with inflationary factors applied to both. Budget shortfalls should not be made up by increasing student fees.

● To avoid pressure to relax academic standards, no funding should depend on grade assignments.

Outcomes-Based Funding

● Discontinue the ineffective Performance Pool carve-out and establish outcomes-based funding with truly aspirational performance metrics but without jeopardizing base funding.

● Outcomes metrics should not be based on absolute student numbers, but rather ratios that demonstrate access or success relative to target populations.

● Graduation rates have too long of a time lag for the biennial funding cycle. Semester completion better measures current progress and captures non-degree-seeking students and transfer students.

● Phase in outcomes-based funding in the new formula over several years to allow the institutions to adjust.

● Incentives should recognize an institution’s own performance, not make it compete against other institutions.

Financial Aid

● Set targets for state financial aid based on the financial needs of the students at each institution.

● Provide need-based financial aid through state funding, not by redistributing student fees for Student Access.

● Fee and tuition waivers for selected student groups should be 100% state-funded.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

The National Day of Action for Higher Education

Jim New — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 17:05:06 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is a proud participant in the upcoming National Day of Action for Higher Education organized by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) for Wednesday, April 17. As one of dozens of AAUP chapters, higher education unions, and student organizations across the country, the NFA strongly endorses AAUP's statement, The Future We Stand For, a unifying national message linking our local struggles with a set of demands we can fight for together, including adequate funding for higher education, freedom to teach and learn, job security and fair pay, equity and racial justice, and democratic governance of our institutions.

As part of the day of action, the NFA will host Dr. Michael DeCesare, a nationally recognized expert on academic governance, in a Shared Governance Summit on Zoom to provide an overview of AAUP-recommended standards of governance to help stakeholders understand how to protect shared governance in a changing environment. All NSHE stakeholders - students, faculty, staff, campus and system administrators, regents, and legislators - are welcome to join us for for a candid exploration of shared governance and examine its implementation in Nevada. The event starts at 3:30 PM.

Higher education in Nevada is at a crossroads. In November, voters will decide whether to open the door for the most sweeping change to NSHE governance in the State's history, or maintain the status quo. Ideological groups, who have successfully managed to dismantle the foundations of governance in states like Florida and Texas, have trained their sights on Nevada. Regardless of the path we follow, shared governance may be threatened.

As a senior program officer in the AAUP's Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance, Dr. DeCesare is an authority on the principles set forth more than five decades ago in the AAUP's Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, which became a foundation of the American higher education system.

To register for the event, please visit:
https://nevadafacultyalliance.org/event-5649337

Topic: NFA-AAUP Shared Governance Town Hall
Time: Apr 17, 2024 03:30 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting - https://zoom.us/j/91374230163?pwd=a2hTK251K3dMYlJ1c05CNjU2YWh3UT09

Meeting ID: 913 7423 0163
Passcode: 290476

+1 408 638 0968 US (San Jose)

PEBP Upate: Healthcare Premium Increases

Kent Ervin — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 17:20:40 GMT

State Employee Healthcare Premium Increases for Plan Year 2025

The Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) Board has approved increases to employee premiums for Plan Year 2025. Beginning July 1, 2024, monthly premiums will increase by $8 to $53 (percentage increases from 8% to 25%) depending on your plan choice and dependent tier, as shown in the following table.

Most plan provisions will remain the same for FY2025. PEBP is implementing a centers-of-excellence program for specific surgeries and a cancer treatment concierge program, intended both to save money and help patients get better treatment. Some changes, however, will increase participants’ out-of-pocket costs. High out-of-pocket costs force some participants to forgo necessary medical care. The deductible for the High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) will increase from $1500/$3000 (single/family) to $1600/$3200 because of a higher IRS minimum for eligibility for Health Saving Accounts (HSAs). The supplemental contributions to HSAs or Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs) for all three plans will decrease from $600/$700/$800 (single/spouse or children/family) to $300/$400/$500, while the regular HSA/HRA contribution to the HDHP remains at $600.

Why Rates are Increasing

Each year, the PEBP actuary predicts medical inflation trends. Governor Lombardo used lower trends than those predicted by the actuary to design the 2023–25 executive budget for PEBP, and the legislature adopted those low trends. Because FY2024-to-date expenses and the actuary’s projection for FY2025 now indicate higher expenses, PEBP must fund the higher costs through employee premium increases or with reserves. Without using reserves, the employee premium increases would have been twice those shown in the table above. However, PEBP is potentially dipping into the Catastrophic Reserve (formerly known as the rate stabilization reserve) to mitigate employee costs.

PEBP Reserves

As of December 2023, PEBP’s total cash balance was $121 million, including $42 million in the Catastrophic Reserve. The cost to mitigate 50% of the employee premium increases for FY2025 is $7.3 million. Although PEPB will not go broke, spending reserves below the mandatory levels set by the actuaries means the difference must be made up in the next budget cycle. However, we won’t know whether the reserves are being depleted until the close of each fiscal year.

For the past dozen years, as the following chart shows, PEBP has often generated excess reserves because actual claims have come in lower than projected, especially after benefit cuts. Excess reserves are cash balances above the mandatory reserves set by the actuary, and have ranged up to tens of millions of dollars. Although excess reserves declined in FY2023 and FY2024, because they partially restored benefits cut during the pandemic, these reserves have never gone negative. However, the excess reserves have helped the governor and legislature justify lower budgets for PEBP. The result is that PEBP’s actuaries predict shortfalls, inducing PEBP to raise employee premiums or cut benefits. This perversely leads to the generation of more excess reserves.

NFA Positions

Given the realities of PEBP funding, these more moderate premium increases approved by the PEBP Board are about the best that can be done at this time. Therefore, NFA supported the 50% mitigation plan over the alternatives of higher charges to employees. We appreciate that PEBP Executive Officer Celestena Glover proposed the mitigations after the initial plan for higher employee premium increases was announced.

However, the NFA believes that the state should pay 100% of single-employee premiums in the basic plan, as most local governments in Nevada do this for their employees. Benefits have been cut or employee premiums have been raised every time there has been a budget shortfall or projected shortfall. PEBP should use its ample reserves instead of making employees pay for fluctuations in claims that are typical of any self-funded insurance plan. The State should be responsible for funding stable benefits for its employees.

###

The Nevada Faculty Alliance has strongly advocated for faculty and other state employees with the Public Employees Benefits Program since the PEBP Board was established in 1999 and before that with the state Committee on Benefits. It is a constant battle to maintain benefits and keep employee costs in check. Currently, Kent Ervin and Doug Unger represent NFA members at every PEBP Board meeting and meet regularly with PEBP staff along with our public employee advocate partners. To support these efforts on your behalf, join NFA now if you are not already a member.

NFA would like to hear members’ concerns about PEBP. Contact kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org or doug.unger@nevadafacutlyalliance.org. You may also contact the NSHE representatives on the PEBP Board, Michelle Kelley (mkelley@nshe.nevada.edu) or Jennifer McClendon (jmcclendon@unr.edu).

Praise for the Nevada State Student Alliance

State Board — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 00:30:10 GMT

Following the NFA's call for Patrick Boylan to resign from the Board of Regents after his hostile response (7:53:16) to a student leader's public comments (7:52:00) hoping Boylan would "expand and change [his] paradigm" regarding LGBTQIA+ individuals, the Nevada State Student Alliance issued a powerful statement denouncing multiple regents for inserting ideological, geopolitical, and regional rhetoric into Board deliberations.

"We are learning from our regents that many are controlled by singular issues that do not promote progress within institutions. Some board members, like Regent Brooks, fixate on geopolitical matters, some, like Regent Arrascada, focus on perpetuating regionalist and irrational ideologies between the north and south of our state, and some, like Regents Boylan and Goodman, regurgitate extreme ideologies that manifest in racist and transphobic remarks. These dogmas have no place in the realm of higher education." - NSSA statement

The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance applauds the NSSA for their courage to speak truth to power, and we echo their observations. Too frequently, substantive and legitimate deliberations about the oversight of NSHE are derailed when a Regent raises a divisive and irrelevant issue instead discussing the substance of athletic reports and deliberating on the budgetary challenges confronting our programs that will lead tolong-term deficits. As the students of the NSSA pointed out, "[t]hey are not fulfilling their responsibilities to the students and citizens of Nevada."

Worse still are some of the reactions of these Regents toward their constituents who are bold enough to publicly disagree or challenge them. This was on full display on March 1 in Regent Boylan's response to NSSA President Kevin Osorio Hernandez exercising his right through Public Comment to share his perspective on the language used earlier in the meeting and to challenge Boylan to do better. NSHE Chief General Counsel James Martines had toinform Boylan (7:53:08) that he could not engage in back-and-forth debate with Mr. Hernandez during the Public Comment period, so Boylan insisted on making a public comment himself (another disturbing trend among Regents).

The irony is probably lost on Regent Boylan, but by refusing to walk up to the podium where everyone else makes comments, and remaining in his seat at the Regents' table to decry that his First Amendment rights were being violated, he used a literal position of authority to denounce the criticism. As the NSSA students recommend, the Regent should become a student again and review the First Amendment, which prohibits those in power from suppressing the speech of others, not the other way around.

Concealing what's critical in buyouts

Jim New — Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:56:08 GMT

During a congressional hearing several years ago, former chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, Alan Greenspan, likened statistics to skimpy swimwear. "What they reveal is interesting," Greenspan said, "but what they conceal is critical." In the case of the annual employee buyouts report presented to the Board of Regents earlier this month, NSHE delivered the documentary equivalence of a bell diver suit, revealing almost nothing. While the Board of Regents set transparency and accountability as a strategic goal, the staff of the System Administration appear intent on moving in the opposite direction.

The annual reports are the result of a policy passed by the Regents in early 2019. It requires NSHE to share information regarding employee buyouts and settlements following the revelation in November 2018 that approximately $8.8 million had been spent by NSHE institutions in the previous biennium on employee-related buyouts. As previously reported in Missing Buyouts in NSHE Buyouts Report, the Regents received the first detailed report in March 2020, another in March 2021, and a third in March 2022. Those multi-page reports, however, gave way to a single page report with virtually no details in March 2023, and again this year.

NSHE institutions frequently use settlement buyouts and termination agreements to avoid negative publicity about its employment practices. The detailed reports provided a much-needed glimpse into the extent of these practices.

A review of the early reports reveals that individual institutions interpreted the policy language differently from one another, resulting in some inconsistent reporting. The drastic change in the March 2023 report, however, did not result from a change of policy. Instead, we can attribute the change in reporting to a new general counsel at NSHE, James Martines, and his interpretation of the policy language.

The briefing paper prepared by Martines for the 2022 report indicated that only payments directly associated with terminations and notices of non-reappointment are included. Amounts paid out to settle actual or anticipated litigation are no longer reported, and apparently, any payment made to an employee who agrees to resign to avoid termination is omitted as well. NFA is aware of at least one such case where a substantial payout under these terms was not reported.

Unfortunately, no Regents appeared to have noticed this dramatic change in the reports. It is clear from the minutes of the November 16, 2018 Board meeting that Regents at that time did intend for the report to include settlements.

NFA urges the Board of Regents to correct Chief Counsel Martines' misinterpretation of this policy and provide a full accounting of all independent payments made to employees associated with their separation from employment with any NSHE institution.

Read Missing Buyouts in NSHE Buyouts Report >>

NFA calls for Regent Patrick J. Boylan to resign

State Board — Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:07:08 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance strongly condemns discriminatory, harassing or otherwise unacceptable behavior by any members of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) community. As such, we are deeply angered by repeated anti-transgender comments made by Regent Patrick Boylan during the quarterly Board of Regents meeting on Friday, March 1st. We are especially appalled by his aggressive response to a student leader who gave public comment decrying remarks made earlier in the meeting. In the March 1 meeting, Regent Boylan also questioned the qualifications of students from underrepresented minority groups. These are not isolated incidents. Regent Boylan has a history of racist and discriminatory remarks that have been condemned by a number of NSHE students, including the Senate of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada.

This behavior is not only offensive, it violates the NSHE Board of Regents Anti-Discrimination Resolution, which states that “the Board recognizes its resounding responsibility to the NSHE community, the State of Nevada, and its higher education families throughout the nation to denounce any words or actions with discriminatory intent or effect, and such efforts are exemplified by the leadership and representations of its Regents.”

Because Regent Boylan’s comments have directly attacked thousands of members of the NSHE community and are in direct violation of the Regents’ own anti-discrimination resolution, the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance calls for his immediate resignation.

The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance

Jim New, President and TMCC-NFA Chapter President
Shantal Marshall, Vice President
Joey Ray, Secretary
Cheryl Cardoza, Treasurer
Ted Chodock, CSN-NFA Chapter President
Pete Martini, NSU-NFA Chapter President
Doug Unger, UNLV-NFA Chapter President
Todd Ruecker, UNR-NFA Chapter President
Heather Reardon, WNC-NFA Chapter President
Kent Ervin, Past President
Staci Walters, Collective Bargaining Committee Chair

Missing Buyouts in NSHE Buyout Reports

Kent Ervin — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 03:34:16 GMT

NSHE Buyout/Settlement Reports Omit Buyouts

Since 2019, the Board of Regents has required that NSHE institutions annually report their contract buyouts and settlements for transparency in the use of public funds and for holding institutions accountable for employment practices. However, while Regents have set transparency and accountability as a strategic goal, NSHE has recently allowed for the omission of several types of buyouts and settlements from the institutional reports to the Regents.

The proponents of Question 1 (to remove the Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution) have attacked NSHE for a lack of transparency and accountability. To counter those arguments, the Regents should take prompt action to correct the NSHE General Counsel’s new interpretation of the buyout reporting policy. Without this action, institutions can hide their settlement and buyout activity.

Omission of Cases

The Regents’ briefing paper for the 2022 buyout report partly signaled the change in the implementation of the buyout reports:

"Due to the form currently used for institutions and units to report employee contract buyouts, the amounts reported include sums that are not directly associated with the contract buyout amount, such as required payouts of accumulated annual leave and amounts that may settle actual or anticipated litigation. Accordingly, the Chief General Counsel will update the reporting form to allow more accurate reporting in the future."

This implies that buyouts and settlements related to litigation or even the possibility of litigation are now excluded from the reports. In addition, buyouts and settlements are apparently not being reported in cases where no Notice of Non-Renewal is issued, such as agreements resulting in termination following disciplinary proceedings or other voluntary separation agreements. It is also not readily apparent which categories of NSHE employees are included in the reports. Starting in 2022, the annual reports were retitled from “Employee Buyouts/Settlements” to “Employee Contract Buyouts.” As a result of the change in the interpretation of Title 4 Chapter 3 Section 49 of the NSHE Handbook, the reports are obscuring the number and magnitude of contract buyouts, which in some cases have been used to remove employees who have brought complaints against the institution and to establish non-disclosure agreements.

Buyout Report Summaries, 2019–23

Tables 1 & 2 summarize the buyout reports for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Looking at the NSHE report for 2023, it would appear that the number and amounts of buyouts have declined. Although such a scenario would be welcome, the definition of reportable buyouts has been narrowed into meaninglessness.

For example, the University of Nevada, Reno, reported zero buyouts in 2023. However, NFA is aware that a former employee agreed to resign from their UNR position in 2023 in exchange for a large settlement payout. In addition, the buyout reports for 2022 do not include the well-publicized $27,000 per month paid to former UNR Athletic Director Doug Knuth after he was fired in April 2022 nor the roughly $100,000 per month due to former UNLV football coach Marcus Arroyo after he was fired in November 2022. (Update 3/1/2024: According to public compensation records for 2023, Arroyo was paid $1.16 million in 2023 after his termination in 2022. The UNR employee received a six-figure payout in 2023. )

(Update 3/1/2024. NSHE Chief General Counsel reported to the Board of Regents that the buyouts listed in the 2023 report "saved" $95,000 compared with the standard notice periods for Notices of Non-Renewal. However any putative savings are almost certainly surpassed by settlement amounts that are not being reported.)

Table 1. NSHE Reported Buyouts/Settlements - Total Amounts

Calendar Year	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
UNLV	$347,406	$90,409	$0	$0	$58,087
UNR	$91,201	$53,144	$38,479	$40,310	$0
NSU	$0	$0	$0	$0	$13,767
CSN	$77,295	$0	$63,314	$0	$0
GBC	$25,000	$184,001	$0	$0	$0
TMCC	$71,988	$543,992	$403,097	$46,881	$75,235
WNC	$0	$196,327	$122,583	$356,645	$55,192
DRI	$40,000	$7,308	$0	$0	$0
System	$60,741	$27,102	$154,158	$869,564	$15,533
Total	$713,631	$1,102,283	$781,631	$1,313,400	$217,814

Table 2. NSHE Reported Buyouts/Settlements - Number

Calendar Year	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
UNLV	6	2	0	0	1
UNR	4	2	1	2	0
NSU	0	0	0	0	1
CSN	3	0	1	0	0
GBC	1	3	0	0	0
TMCC	2	13	12	1	2
WNC	0	4	3	6	1
DRI	1	1	0	0	0
System	1	1	3	5	1
Total	18	26	20	14	6

Full Transparency and Accountability

As stewards of public funds, the Board of Regents should clarify the reporting policy to encompass ALL compensation that is not earned through service, for all classes of employees and former employees. This includes but is not limited to:

Any termination settlement, regardless of whether it is related to litigation;
Any contract buyout, regardless of whether it is associated with a Notice of Non-Renewal or disciplinary action;
Any settlements or payouts for damages;
Payouts resulting from termination pursuant to an employment contract;
Involuntary administrative leave or voluntary administrative leave under a termination agreement;
Annual leave payouts associated with an involuntary termination or a settlement agreement;
Payouts related to voluntary separation or retirement incentives; and
“Ghost employees” with no or minimal assigned duties.

Transparent reporting of these items would not require the identification of individuals or release of confidential information, only the aggregate numbers and monetary amounts by institution and type of payout. Payments for attorney fees and expenses as part of a settlement or termination agreement should also be reported. Note that the former NSHE General Counsel told the Board of Regents that settlement agreements are not confidential per Nevada Revised Statutes:

"NRS provides that any agreement to settle a claim or action brought against an employee must not provide any terms of the agreement be confidential. NRS also provides that the settlement must include a number for attorney’s fees and costs to be paid pursuant to the agreement and that any settlement is public record."

The omission of relevant data in reports to the Board allows NSHE institutions to obfuscate the use of public funds and to avoid accountability for employment practices.

As always, faculty members with an employment-related issue should feel free to contact the NFA for guidance.

***

Data and interpretations are based on the cited reports and other Board materials. Corrections from authoritative sources are welcome (Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org).

AAUP Letter of Concern addresses UNR issues

State Board — Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:08:01 GMT

Recently, the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance reached out to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to express concerns about violations of shared governance at the University of Nevada, Reno. The AAUP acknowledged NFA’s concerns about the climate at UNR and responded with an advisory letter that included relevant AAUP statements on aspects of shared governance.

The AAUP informed us that only about 10% of the complaints they receive rise to the level of our letter. The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance has sent UNR leadership a copy of this letter, and we hope they will read through these materials and work with faculty via the Senate and other groups to improve the climate at UNR. We are confident that faculty members across the institution will value this effort, which will also help improve some of the widespread retention and morale issues reported to us and others.

Our complaint to the AAUP began with expressing concerns about ongoing threats to shared governance and academic freedom. Our formal complaint was that:

. . .various members of the administration, guided by UNR’s Office of the General Counsel, have facilitated the dismissal of academic misconduct charges and/or the altering of student grades without faculty permission; have set an unreasonably high bar for removing disruptive and threatening students from classes; have greatly limited faculty’s ability to revise college bylaws; have undue influence on the Title IX/EEO process; have engaged in problematic hiring practices for institutional leaders; and provided overly restrictive guidance around DEI work.

The AAUP quickly replied that the described behaviors were concerning and that only 10% of the complaints they receive rise to this level of action–the full letter can be seen below. The AAUP recommended that the NFA send the upper administration a letter explaining relevant AAUP guidance around some of the described issues.

The AAUP also provided three relevant guidance documents–we are including links to and relevant excerpts from each letter below:

Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities

The variety and complexity of the tasks performed by institutions of higher education produce an inescapable interdependence among governing board, administration, faculty, students, and others. The relationship calls for adequate communication among these components, and full opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort.

Faculty Participation in the Selection, Evaluation, and Retention of Administrators

…the composition of the search committee should reflect the primacy of faculty interest, and the faculty component of the committee should be chosen by the faculty of the unit or by a representative body of the faculty. The person chosen for an administrative position should be selected from among the names submitted by the search committee. The president, after fully weighing the views of the committee, will make the final choice. Nonetheless, sound academic practice dictates that the president not choose a person over the reasoned opposition of the faculty.

The Role of the Faculty in Budgetary and Salary Matters

The faculty should participate both in the preparation of the total institutional budget and (within the framework of the total budget) in decisions relevant to the further apportioning of its specific fiscal divisions (salaries, academic programs, tuition, physical plant and grounds, and so on). The soundness of resulting decisions should be enhanced if an elected representative committee of the faculty participates in deciding on the overall allocation of institutional resources and the proportion to be devoted directly to the academic program. This committee should be given access to all information that it requires to perform its task effectively, and it should have the opportunity to confer periodically with represen- tatives of the administration and governing board.

Despite the gravity of the issues discussed in our original letter and in the AAUP response, NFA leadership remains hopeful for positive changes in shared governance at the University of Nevada, Reno. In the meantime, we advise faculty to do the following:

Contact their faculty senators to express any concerns about violations of shared governance and encourage the Senate to engage on these issues.
Share instances of shared governance violations with NFA leadership, so that we can advocate accordingly.
Share relevant concerns with one’s regent.

Unable to display PDF file. Download Nevada Faculty Alliance - Shared Governance.pdf instead.

Runaway Deficits Projected for UNLV and UNR Intercollegiate Athletics

Kent Ervin — Sat, 24 Feb 2024 04:15:55 GMT

Fiscal Analysis of UNLV and UNR Annual Athletics Reports for 2022-2023

[Update: After NFA called out these projected deficits [1], revised Annual Athletics Reports for UNLV and UNR were posted as supplemental materials for the March 1 Board of Regents meeting. UNLV raised various projected revenues to about break even for FY2025 through FY2028. UNR raised projected revenues and reduced some projected expenses, but still projects about $2 million per year in deficits for FY2025 through FY2028 (after spending the $10 million per year in additional institutional support). Neither UNLV nor UNLV provided public explanations for how or why they revised their budget projections.]

Both UNLV and UNR are projecting multi-million dollar annual deficits through fiscal year 2028, which would lead to cumulative deficits of $27 million at UNLV and $38 million at UNR by 2028. At the March 1, 2024, Board of Regents meeting, the Intercollegiate athletics programs at UNLV and UNR will present their 2022–23 budget information for the past five years and projected budgets for the next five years. Institutional presidents and the Board of Regents are responsible for holding athletics programs, as well as other “self-supported” university programs, accountable for fiscally sound practices. Alarmingly, the UNLV and UNR presentations contain no strategies for avoiding these unsustainable budget deficits other than vague mentions of increased gifts or university subsidies.

Here, we provide a fiscal analysis of the two NCAA Division I programs at UNLV and UNR, highlighting issues of concern.

Charts 1A and 1B (below) show the reported* annual operating revenues from the athletics self-supporting budgets for UNLV and UNR, respectively, from FY2016 through FY2023 (actuals) and FY2024 (projected). The revenues are categorized as (a) state appropriations, (b) student fees, (c) tuition and fee waivers, (d) institutional support, or (e) athletics income. Athletics income includes ticket sales, NCAA and conference distribution, media revenue, contributions designated for athletics, and all other program revenue of the athletics programs.

Charts 2A and 2B (below) show the annual operating surplus (or deficits) reported* to NCAA by UNLV and UNR, respectively, along with cumulative surpluses (deficits) starting with FY2019, the most recent annual athletics reports that stated the ending reserve balances, with projections through FY2018. The cumulative deficit for UNR does not include $8.25 million in "historical debt" that was assumed by the university in 2018.

UNLV

UNLV increased institutional support by about $10 million in FY2021 using federal COVID relief funds to cover pandemic-related losses, then returned university support to previous levels (see Chart 1A).

Contributions increased from $4.6 million in FY2023 to a projected $14 million in FY2023, and then are projected to continue at $10 million per year (see “Contributions” under Revenue on page 25 of the UNLV Annual Athletics Report). The source of these higher contributions to the UNLV athletics program was not discussed in the 2023 Annual Athletics Report.

For FY2023, UNLV reported an operating account deficit of $10 million. For FY2024, UNLV projects breaking about even. For FY2025 through FY2028, UNLV is projecting annual deficits of $4.2 to $5.8 million, which would result in a cumulative deficit of $27 million in FY2028 (see Chart 2A). The 2023 UNLV report does not indicate how this deficit will be addressed, only stating the athletics budget office is seeking to clarify institutional support (page 24).

Compensation for coaches at UNLV is increasing from $7.9 million in FY2023 to $11.4 million projected for FY2024, a 44% increase (compared with 12% cost-of-living adjustments).

UNR

UNR increased institutional support by about $10 million per year beginning in FY2021, initially to cover pandemic-related losses (see Chart 1B). UNR projects that higher level of university support to continue through FY2028. Reportedly, the initial funding for the increased institutional subsidy came from federal COVID relief funds while current and future funding is from Marigold Mine royalty income. However, the UNR Marigold Mine royalties are a finite and variable source of funds so it is unclear whether that is sustainable.

For FY2023, UNR reported breaking even with an operating account surplus fo $23,339. For FY2024, UNR projects a deficit of $2.9 million. For FY2025 through FY2028, UNR is projecting annual deficits of $7.4 to $9.7 million, which would result in a cumulative deficit of $38 million in FY2028 (see Chart 2B). These deficits are projected to occur despite the $10 million per year in additional university support. The 2023 report suggests that “additional University support” from UNR will be requested (see “Institutional Revenues” footnote on page 12) in an attempt to maintain parity within the Mountain West conference. That contradicts assurances from the UNR administration that UNR will hold the line on any further increases in institutional support and that Athletics cannot come back and ask for more.

Compensation for coaches at UNR is increasing from $8.8 million in FY2023 to $9.4 million projected for FY2024, a 7% increase (compared with 12% cost-of-living adjustments).

Chart 1A.

Chart 1B.

Chart 2A.

Chart 2B.

###

*Notes: The annual reports for the NCAA Division I programs at UNLV and UNR contain revenue and expense data as reported to the NCAA and as tracked for the self-supporting budgets internally in Workday. The latter exclude various indirect and indirect support, and different accounting standards may apply (e.g., cash vs accrual bases). Also, despite a 2018 NSHE internal audit review designed to make the UNLV and UNR financial reporting more consistent, the format and breakout details of the budget tables in the annual reports are different. Here only apples-to-apples data are compared as we understand the reports. Corrections from authoritative sources are welcome (Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org).

References

[1] The revised reports for Agenda item 20 appeared sometime after 5:35 pm on February 27. NFA's written public comment to Regents reprising the data in this blog post of February 23 was submitted on the morning of February 27 at 7:14 am.

Leadership Searches at UNR: An Ongoing Failure of Shared Governance

UNR Chapter — Mon, 12 Feb 2024 01:00:00 GMT

The board of the UNR Chapter of the Nevada Faculty Alliance expresses concern about the integrity of hiring processes for leadership positions at UNR. In the past week, a blog post raised concerns about the publication record of Dean Erick Jones of Engineering and led to additional coverage in the Sagebrush, This Is Reno, and Retraction Watch. While we believe that Dean Jones deserves due process in the investigation of these allegations, as would any faculty member, we have heard concerns from faculty across campus about his hiring process, as well as the hiring processes for various executive-level leaders. Given that UNR has seen record turnover in dean and vice president positions since 2020, with additional searches ongoing, ensuring full consideration of stakeholder input in these processes is paramount for hiring the strongest candidates who have the qualities to lead effectively while also being respected as leaders in their fields.

It has come to our attention that the processes set in place by college and university bylaws are not always being followed in leadership searches. Whereas the UNR Bylaws and University Administrative Manual have clear requirements for Vice President searches with faculty representation, we have seen at least two Vice Presidents (the VP, Governmental Relations and Community Engagement, and VP, Legal Affairs) appointed into their positions without a search, and the new Vice President for Information Technology was appointed after a search for a Vice Provost for Information Technology. The following table, based on data gathered via NFA public records requests, documents the searches and appointments of Vice Presidents by President Sandoval. In one case (VP, Governmental Relations and Community Engagement), there is no record of the required notice of appointment to the Board of Regents.

Position	Incumbent	Date Appointment Reported by President Sandoval to Board of Regents per NSHE Handbook 1.6.1(b,c)	VP Search following UNR Bylaws 3.6.3 and UAM 2,522	Search Firm
Executive Vice President and Provost	Jeff Thompson	12/13/2021	YES	WittKiefer
Vice President, Administration and Finance	Andrew Clinger	6/1/2023	YES	UNR search chaired by Patricia Richard
Vice President, Advancement	Patricia Richard	5/5/2023	NO (interim appointment)
Vice President, Governmental Relations and Community Engagement	Michael Flores	No record of notice to Regents in response to NFA public records request	NO
Vice President, Information Technology	Sasi Pillay	11/17/2022	NO (search for Vice Provost, Information Technology)	WittKiefer
Vice President, Legal Affairs	Mary Dugan	11/4/2022	NO
Vice President, Student Services	Catherine Cardwell	11/30/2023	NO (interim appointment)	Current UNR search for VP, Student Affairs, chaired by David Shintani

In multiple instances, the hiring of leaders has been perceived as being decided by who they know, rather than the qualities they bring to the positions. NFA has expressed these concerns in at least one previous letter sent to President Sandoval, to which NFA received no response. In the case of the search for the Engineering Dean in 2022, using the outside search firm AcademicSearch, five finalists were brought to campus, whose forums were announced via a campus-wide email. After this search failed to result in a hire, Dean Jones was invited to campus in the middle of the summer, when most faculty are off contract, and appointed a few weeks later. Engineering faculty have alleged this process bypassed the initial search committee and that faculty concerns were ignored.

Recently, we have seen a shift to simply appointing people into campus-wide leadership positions. After the departure of the previous Director of Latinx/Hispanic Community Relations in June 2023, who was hired via a formal search with campus and community forums, a new director was simply appointed. At the December 2023 Senate meeting, President Sandoval said that he was in talks with someone he would like to appoint as the permanent Executive Director of DEI. After some senators raised concerns, he opened a search with a short application window, but no information was provided about a search committee or campus forums for this important position. While opening a search was a promising step, a compromised search is just as bad as no search. Similarly, on February 5, 2024, the campus community was notified that Mehmet Tosun was appointed as the Chief International Officer for UNR–no search was conducted for what appears to be an important campus-wide position.

The Wolf Pack Rising strategic plan calls for UNR to “Increase faculty and staff diversity to achieve alignment with the National Association of System Heads (NASH) Equity Action Framework on hiring, retention, promotions, and rewards best practices.” Failing to conduct proper searches with input from a variety of stakeholders hinders the University’s ability to find talented candidates from a diversity of backgrounds, and risks people being promoted based on who they know, rather than the qualifications they bring to the position.

We are not questioning the qualifications of individual candidates, but rather calling for the administration to rebuild the UNR community’s confidence in our leadership by recommitting to shared governance in future executive hires. This work can include:

Having search committees and public forums for all leadership positions at the Dean level or above, or those that have a campus-wide role.
Ensuring that the chairs of search committees work closely with committees through every step of the process.
Selecting search committees that represent a diversity of perspectives and empower those committees to have a strong role in shaping the hiring process.
Conducting stakeholder surveys, and centering that feedback in the hiring process–consider releasing summaries of those surveys to the campus community.
Ensuring that any person involved in the hiring process discloses any personal connections or conflicts of interest that may influence their hiring of a particular candidate, and recuses themselves from a decision-making role.

By taking these steps, we believe that UNR’s leadership can correct course and restore our faith in the hiring of future leaders.

NFA resolution calls for national searches to fill presidential vacancies

Jim New — Mon, 05 Feb 2024 14:00:00 GMT

The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance issued a formal resolution calling on the Nevada System of Higher Education’s Board of Regents and Chancellor to commence national searches to fill the imminent vacancies in the offices of President at CSN, GBC, and TMCC as soon as practical, and to include faculty input in the search process as required by the principles of shared governance. It called for NSHE to initiate the TMCC search by May 2024, conduct interviews during Fall 2024 Semester, and select a successor in Spring 2025 Semester for a start date of July 1, 2025. Additionally, national searches for CSN and GBC should begin as soon as is practical for permanent presidents to be named before the end of Fiscal Year 2026.

The resolution also asks the Regents to restore searches as the preferred method for filling executive vacancies. Over the past decade, small incremental changes in the NSHE Code (Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 1.5) have dramatically altered the methods for filling vacancies for the Chancellor and campus presidents. Traditionally, in the spirit of shared governance, national searches with broad-based screening committees were used to select our executive officers. But, starting in June 2013, the Board began to adopt revisions that have significantly eroded this shared process, favoring appointments to fill the positions over a comprehensive search.

This came into sharp focus at the December 2023 quarterly meeting of the Board when interim appointments were proposed for two upcoming presidential vacancies. Despite having advance notice of more than a year and ample time to conduct a legitimate national search while the incumbents serve out their terms, the NSHE Code now requires appointments of either an officer in charge, an acting president, or an interim president. National searches have been demoted and, apparently, only occur after one of these temporary solutions have been put in place.

This has led faculty members on multiple NSHE campuses to have growing concerns as the process for filling vacancies has become increasingly opaque. The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance urges the Board of Regents to reverse the changes made to Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 1.5 of the Handbook in July 2013 and March 2018, and restore national searches as the preferred method for selecting all NSHE executive officers.

The standard practice of requiring national searches to fill faculty vacancies at all NSHE institutions should be the minimum standard for filling executive vacancies, especially presidents.

An interim president has been appointed for GBC starting on July 1, 2024. This does not preclude the ability to conduct a subsequent national search, allowing the interim president to compete for the permanent position with other qualified candidates from a diversity of backgrounds.

CSN President Federico Zaragoza announced his June 2024 departure before July 2023. Despite plans to appoint an interim successor at the December 2023 meeting, the appointment was tabled and CSN faculty have no idea of what is happening. What little transparency existed before has evaporated. With insufficient time to conduct a national search before President Zaragoza’s departure, we urge the board to collaborate with faculty and stakeholders to find a suitable acting president, and plan for a search over the next year.

TMCC President Karin Hilgersom, in exchange for a one-year contract extension and a waiver of her periodic presidential evaluation, committed to a June 2025 separation from NSHE in July 2023. Faculty members at TMCC have confirmed that they prefer a national search to identify her replacement. With 17 months remaining before her departure, it is not necessary to appoint an acting or interim president since a legitimate national search is possible while she holds the office.

established 1983

Nevada Faculty Alliance Resolution Advocating for National Searches to Fill Executive Vacancies

WHEREAS, TMCC President Karin Hilgersom, on July 21, 2023, gave nearly two years advance notice of her separation from TMCC on June 30, 2025, and

WHEREAS, GBC President Joyce Helens and CSN President Federico Zaragoza, in June 2023, gave advance notice more than one year prior to their separations on June 30, 2024, and

WHEREAS, faculty members have confirmed their preference for a national search to fill the vacancies, and

WHEREAS, the members of TMCC-NFA oppose appointment of an interim or acting president for TMCC, and

WHEREAS, faculty participation in the selection of institutional leaders is a foundational principle of shared governance, and

WHEREAS, national searches embrace the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, while unilateral appointments diminish them, and

WHEREAS, the standard requiring national searches to fill faculty vacancies at all NSHE institutions should be the minimum standard for filling executive vacancies, and

WHEREAS, there is adequate time to initiate a national search for the TMCC presidential vacancy without the need for an appointment of an interim or acting president, and

WHEREAS, it will be necessary to appoint an interim or acting president due to insufficient time to conduct a national search for the CSN president prior to the July 1, 2024, vacancy, and

WHEREAS, an interim president has already been appointed for the GBC presidential vacancy, and

WHEREAS, Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.5(d) of the NSHE Code currently prevents NSHE institutions from initiating a search to replace an outgoing president without first appointing an acting president, now, therefore be it

resolved, That the Nevada Faculty Alliance strongly urges the Nevada Board of Regents and the Nevada System of Higher Education to immediately suspend Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.5(d) of the NSHE Code and take the following actions: initiate the preliminary steps for a national search for TMCC’s next president no later than May 2024, conduct committee interviews of candidates during Fall Semester 2024, and make the final selection early in Spring Semester 2025 to provide adequate time for a transition to a new administration. We also urge the Nevada Board of Regents and the Nevada System of Higher Education to appoint an acting president to fill the CSN presidential vacancy and initiate national searches for permanent presidents at CSN and GBC before the end of Fiscal Year 2026.

be it further resolved, That the Nevada Faculty Alliance urges the Nevada Board of Regents to revise Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.5 to allow appointment of an interim or acting president of an NSHE institution ONLY when there is insufficient time to conduct a national search.

The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance

Monday, February 5, 2024

UNR Budget 8. Summary and Solutions

Kent Ervin — Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:57:20 GMT

UNR Budget: Misplaced Priorities and Diverted Resources

Summary and Solutions

Part 8 in NFA’s series on the University of Nevada, Reno budget crisis. This final installment summarizes our analyses of fiscal actions by the UNR administration and recommends solutions along with actions faculty members can take.

In this series of articles, we have attempted to shed light on the budget crisis at UNR. The administration has attributed the budget shortfalls to the underfunding of COLAs by the state, but the numbers indicate COLAs are not the primary factor. Long-overdue salary increases to restore faculty take-home pay (just back to 2019 levels after inflation) have been used by the UNR administration to justify austerity measures that threaten our core education and research missions.

In contrast, UNR executives–who also received their full COLAs–have not held themselves to those same austerity measures, by increasing executive salaries and the number of executives, committing to a thirty-year public-private partnership costing $10.25 million/year, and greatly increasing support for athletics. We are concerned that UNR is following the disastrous paths of West Virginia University and Auburn University, two publicized institutions with profligate spending on athletics, administration, and buildings. As a result, Auburn has become one of the most expensive public universities for students, and WVU eliminated entire academic programs when their promised enrollment increases never materialized.

Fortunately, some of these decisions are reversible. The key to putting UNR back on track as an excellent comprehensive university serving students and the citizens of the State of Nevada is to once again prioritize our core educational and research missions.

The fiscal consequences of decisions by the UNR administration are summarized in the following table.

Administrative Actions since 2020	Fiscal Impact
Increased University Support for Intercollegiate Athletics (Part 2)	An additional $10–13 million per year beginning in FY2021
New executive positions and increased executive salaries (Part 3)	$4.5 million per year over and above COLAs and average merit
Student registration fees diverted from the State Operating Budget to Capital Improvement and General Improvement (Part 4)	$3.65 million per year diverted from the main instructional operating budget
Committed funds to the Business Building public–private partnership (Part 5)	$10.25 million/year for 30 years; unless additional private fundraising is successful, up to $7.8 million/year will be from student registration fees
Inflated enrollment projections (Part 6)	Budget shortfalls of $8.5 million in FY2024 and $10 million in FY2025
Legislative underfunding of faculty and staff COLAs cited for 100 frozen positions and 5% budget cuts to departments (Part 7)	Net cost of the COLAs is $8.9 million in FY2024 and $8.2 million in FY2025, after mitigations approved by the Board of Regents in December.
Digital Wolf Pack Initiative (iPads for new full-time students)	About $3.5 million per year
Acquisition and operations of Lake Tahoe campus	Uncertain long-term impact
Budget Cuts	Fiscal Impact
Freezing or eliminating 108 positions	Savings of $11.3 million in FY2025
5% budget cuts for state-supported departments	Savings of $11.1 million in FY2024
5% administrative overhead charge for self-supported programs	$5 million cost to self-supported programs; income to UNR administration

Estimated ongoing annual cost for athletics, executives, the business building, and iPads: up to $31 million per year.
Each $1 million is equivalent to 10 new faculty positions [1].

Funding Sources

As documented in Part 4 and Part 5, student registration fees have been diverted from the core instructional budget to fund the business building while private fundraising goals have not yet been successful. We have so far been unable to determine funding sources for the rest of the listed new expenditures. The annual budget reports to the Board of Regents lack sufficient detail (video) to allow tracking of revenue flows. Public records requests submitted to UNR in December 2023 to discover the distributions of other student fees [2] and Marigold Mine royalties [3] have not been answered. Regardless of the sources [4,5], monies allowed for ongoing personnel or operational expenditures would have been available to UNR’s main instructional operations—that is, for the personnel and programs directly serving students.

Recommendations

The administration’s expensive initiatives can perhaps be justified on their merits when considered in isolation and if UNR had the funding to support them. In the absence of infinite resources, however, the question should always be whether the core missions of the University will be enhanced or harmed by a shift in budget. When athletics, buildings, and administrators are given higher priority than the instructional faculty and student support staff in a period of budget cuts, the judgment of the decision-makers must be questioned.

The following essential changes are needed:

Every new cost initiative must be judged not only on its merits in isolation, but also whether it is the best use of funds to serve the university’s core educational mission.
The administration must demonstrate a commitment to shared governance, in which faculty and students have a voice in decisions impacting them. Shared governance requires more than simply responding to Faculty Senate questions or listening to concerns at campus-wide meetings. Shared governance requires learning from comments made by those who know about these subjects and then meaningfully altering those plans to ensure the university can serve its core educational mission.
Reduce institutional support for UNR Intercollegiate Athletics, which succeeded for decades without the higher new level of revenue, which comes from public or student money.
The business building must raise its private philanthropy goal beyond the $50 million for the quasi-endowment of the Marigold Mine. Raising this goal–instead of expecting students to pay for it–would allow registration fees to be rededicated to the State Operating Budget.
Eliminate the new executive positions established since 2020, and return tenured incumbents to the teaching faculty ranks so they can better serve students, who are currently struggling to find the courses they need to graduate.
Cap future COLAs for highly compensated employees.
Replace the universal iPad initiative with a more targeted and cost-effective approach.
Develop a fiscally sound plan for the Lake Tahoe campus. A business plan to make the campus profitable—or less of a drain on UNR’s operating budget—has yet to be articulated.
Grow on-campus student enrollment while maintaining a low student–teacher ratio of 18 or less. Full-time, in-person students are needed both for a thriving campus environment and to maintain tuition and fee revenue streams.
Expand concurrent enrollment of high school students only if this program is demonstrated, with data, as having a net positive benefit.
For full transparency, resume publication of detailed annual UNR budgets with actual revenues and expenditures by department and sources of funds, starting with FY2023.

In addition to advocating for these changes, the NFA will be engaging with the NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding to promote improvements to the legislative funding formula that are more responsive to student needs and NSHE’s educational mission.

Call to Action

The NFA does not believe it is too late to reverse the tide and that, even without a “formal” union, faculty can contribute to helping UNR return to its core instructional mission. We recommend faculty members take the following actions:

Talk to your colleagues in other departments and colleges about their experiences. By being aware of the campus-wide issues, we can work together to solve them.
Counter, whenever possible, the narrative that COLAs are to blame for austerity cuts.
Ask your department chair or unit head to take your concerns to your Dean or Vice President.
Contact your Faculty Senator(s) with questions you would like them to ask the administration. Include the impacts on your department and ability to teach.
Ask the Faculty Senate Officers to demand full transparency from the administration on the sources and uses of funds and financial reserves.
Contact your Regent and state legislators to tell them about your experience in trying to help students succeed and how budget cuts have impacted your department or college.
Ask Regents to hold UNR and other institutions fully accountable for budget decisions.
Encourage your colleagues to join the Nevada Faculty Alliance to support our continuing advocacy. With greater numbers, we can do more.

Articles in this series:

_________

[1] A UNR Assistant Professor hired at Q1 on the current salary schedule would earn $69,383. Adding the 33.8% fringe rate gives $92,834, or 10.8 positions per million dollars. By the Board of Regents action on December 1, 2023, the salary schedules will be augmented by 10% as of July 1, 2024, giving 9.8 positions per million dollars for future new hires.

[2] The categories of fees collected as part of student per-credit registration fees include State Operating Budget funding, Student Access for financial aid, Capital Improvement, General Improvement, and Activities & Programs. Only the State Operating Budget portion goes directly into the main state-supported UNR operating budget; the other categories distributed by direction of the UNR administration. The expenditures from those General Improvement and Activitieis & Programs fees have not been reported in the recent past, but in response to the 2022 legislative audit the Board of Regents is requiring annual reports in the future for those fees and other per-credit student fees..

[3] Marigold Mine royalty income is another unrestricted revenue source for UNR. As described in Part 5, $50 million in accumulated royalties were transferred to a quasi-endowment at the UNR Foundation to help fund the Business Building. [Update 2/2/2024: According to public records received, in addition to the $50 million transfer out to the UNR Foundation in FY2023 another $5.6 million was transferred out for "Institutional Support". The destination of those funds has not yet been determined. The following chart shows that the multimillion-dollar royalty income started in FY2020. The remaining balance in the royalty account as of 6/30/2023 was $491,542.]

[4] A source of unrestricted funds for UNR is distributions from NSHE Operating Pool Investment Income. The following chart shows the income distributed to UNR from FY2018 through FY2023, using data obtained from a public records request to NSHE. Normal monthly distributions occur when the reserve balance is between 3% and 8% of the operating pool fund. Special distributions occur when reserves exceed that range. An extraordinary distribution in FY2021 was from the special Market Fluctuation Reserve, essentially a rainy day fund, to cover pandemic-related budget cuts after the 2020 special session. If this unrestricted income is being used for ongoing expenses, the low distribution in FY2023 due to poor market performance that year may have contributed to the current budget crisis at UNR.

[5] In FY2023 the UNR Foundation distributed nearly $19 million to UNR in program gifts as well as $7.2 million in scholarships. Most of the program gift distributions are for donor-designated programs. However, undetermined amounts may be unrestricted funds; for example, program gifts labeled as program or college “excellence”.

###

The information in this series of analyses of the UNR budget is based on public reports and records, interpreted as accurately as possible given uncertainties in the assumptions used for various reports. Corrections from authoritative sources are welcome. Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Updated 2/2/2024 to include additional information about the Marigold Mines Royalties account.

UNR Budget 7. Cost of Living Adjustments

Kent Ervin — Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:00:00 GMT

UNR Budget: Misplaced Priorities and Diverted Resources

Underfunded COLAs for Classified and Professional Staff

Part 7 in our series on the University of Nevada, Reno, budget crisis. This installment reviews the funding of Cost of Living Adjustments for NSHE classified and professional employees.

The 12% + 11% Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) for state employees for 2023-2025 passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor are historic. The NFA strongly advocated for the COLAs. We are grateful to the Regents for approving the full percentages for faculty and to student leaders for supporting the COLAs at the Board of Regents meeting on December 1. These COLAs will go a long way toward faculty retention, although the following chart shows that the COLAs still only bring take-home pay back to FY2020 levels after inflation.

President Sandoval has attributed “freezing around 100 vacant positions on campus, along with 5 percent budget reductions for each department on campus” to the Legislature underfunding faculty and staff COLAs. In this article, we counter the narrative that COLAs for faculty and staff are responsible for the budget shortfall. As described in our previous articles in this series, the new commitments of the current administration include athletics, executive positions and salary increases, and the Business Building project. Although the underfunded COLAs are a contributing factor, diversions of resources to the UNR administration’s priorities other than the core instructional mission have resulted in significantly larger budget impacts than the COLAs.

NSHE’s History of COLA Funding

When the state has funded COLAs, it has appropriated 80% of the budgetary cost [1], the premise being that less than 100% is needed due to regular employee turnover and vacancies. Eighty percent has averaged out in the past, as some agencies have been able to justify more funding than others. However, the procedures for justifying reimbursement are determined by the Governor’s Finance Office and have varied over time.

The following chart [2,3] shows how, in the three years prior to the Great Recession (FY2007–FY2009), NSHE was able to justify and was reimbursed for 93% to 100% of the required amounts, that is, more than the 80% appropriation to the Board of Examiners and essentially fully funding the COLAs.

No COLAs were provided for state employees from FY2010 to FY 2015, an era of furloughs and salary reductions. When COLAs were awarded from FY2016 to FY2019, the reimbursement rates to NSHE were variable, from 2% to 76%. That is, a COLA appropriation in the pay bill did not guarantee actual funding and the 80% appropriation appeared to be a cap on reimbursements to NSHE.

Before 2019, the 80% rule was applied to all NSHE personnel on the state-supported operating budgets, including the portion funded by student fees. Then, at the very end of the 2019 session, the appropriation for NSHE in the pay bill was only 64%, which reliable sources say was a math error, with 80% applied twice. Despite NSHE and NFA protests, the Legislature only appropriated the 64%. That percentage coincidentally approximately matched the fraction of the NSHE state-supported budget funded by state appropriations, the remainder being mostly student fees and tuition.

In the 2021 legislative session, the Legislature created a new budget policy (AB493, Sec. 7.3) whereby COLAs for NSHE budgets would be funded only for the portion of the budgets funded by state appropriations, that is, about 63% for NSHE overall but varying for each institutional budget and the non-formula budgets. For the 1% COLA in FY2023, NSHE overall was reimbursed for only 29% of the amount appropriated in the 2021 pay bill, or roughly 18% of the overall cost.

The 2023 Legislature retained the policy of funding NSHE COLAs only for the state-funded portion of budgets (AB522, Sec. 7.7). The Legislature funded NSHE COLAs at 65%, despite revenue surpluses and a budget amendment submitted by the Governor’s Finance Office that would have restored the 80% policy. With the historic COLAs of 12% on July 1, 2023, and 11% on July 1, 2024, the budget shortfall is larger and more difficult to absorb through regular vacancies and turnover.

This history shows that over the years the state has become increasingly stingier with funding COLAs for NSHE classified and professional staff, and now the state only funds COLAs for the state-funded portion of NSHE budgets. Since the only other source of COLA funding in the state-supported operating budget is revenue from student fees and tuition, that implies that the Legislature must expect COLAs to be proportionally funded by student revenue.

UNR’s COLA Funding for 2023-2025

UNR has a lower proportion of state appropriation (about 61%) than other NSHE institutions due in part to historically higher out-of-state student tuition (although revenue from non-resident students has decreased recently). For the state-supported UNR budgets, the difference between 100% funding of COLAs and the 61% funded for UNR by the Legislature in AB522 is $10.7 million in FY2024 and $21.7 million in FY2025, based on the data presented to the Board of Regents in June 2023 as updated by CFO Andrew Clinger to the Faculty Senate in November 2023. Roughly 85% of the COLA cost is for faculty and 15% for classified staff.

In the AB522 pay bill in 2023, the Legislature gave leeway to the Board of Regents to give faculty COLAs lower than the 12% in FY2024 and 11% in FY2025 that all other state employees are receiving. However, the Board of Regents approved the full 12% COLA for faculty in FY2024 at its June 30, 2023, meeting and approved COLAs for FY2025 at its December 1, 2023 meeting, with the following budget mitigations (Option A):

1) Delaying faculty’s 11% COLAs from July 1 to October 1, 2023, which is projected to save UNR $5.7 million in FY2025.

2) Raising student registration fees by 5% overall, with 15% of that amount being diverted to student access (financial aid) and 85% to the state operating budget, which is projected to raise $4.6 million for UNR in FY2025.

3) Suspending faculty performance pay increases for FY2025, which eliminates the 1% merit pool expense. Based on the FY2025 state-supported operating budget for UNR professional salaries of $144.9 million, that saves about $1.4 million.

In addition, only 11/12 of the faculty COLA increments and 23/24 of the classified COLA increments need to be paid in the first fiscal year because the final monthly or semimonthly pay period in June is paid in July of the next fiscal year. These budget savings were apparently not included in NSHE’s COLA calculations. Using the COLA figures from NSHE, this means the costs for professional and classified COLAs are $1.79 million and $1.83 million less than projected in FY2024 and FY2025, respectively.

After these mitigations and savings, the net cost of COLAs for UNR state-supported budgets is $8.9 million for FY2024 and $8.2 million for FY2025, including both faculty and classified staff. That is compared with the new continuing commitments by the UNR administration to other priorities such as athletics ($10+ million/year), executive positions and salary increases ($4.5 million/year), the Business Building project ($10.25 million/year), and iPads ($3.5 million/year). The diversion of resources to these uses are larger and prevent some unrestricted funds from being used for core academic programs. Thus, the narrative that underfunded COLAs are the only or primary driver for freezing 100 positions and the 5% budget cuts to departments is false.

The ongoing net underfunded cost of the COLAs for the UNR state operating budget is about $17 million per year (after the permanent 5% increase in student registration fees). COLAs are normally built into the salaries for the base budget for the next budget cycle but likely will only be funded by the state with the 65%/35% split between the general fund and student fees and tuition. Therefore, NSHE institutions must plan ahead for funding these and future COLAs in the budget development process. NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding recommendations could alter future funding mechanisms—a policy for sharing the cost of operations between state funds and student revenue would be desirable.

###

______

[1] 2007 Fiscal Report, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, (p. 105).

[2] NSHE Accountability and Budget-to-Actual Reports: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023.

[3] Pay bills: AB577 (2005). SB575 (2007), SB433 (2009), AB489 (2015), AB517(2017), SB368 (2017), AB542 (2019), AB493 (2021), AB522 (2023).

Articles in this series:

UNR Budget 6. Lower-Than-Projected Enrollment

Kent Ervin — Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:00:00 GMT

UNR Budget: Misplaced Priorities and Diverted Resources

Mismanaged Budgets Based on Inflated Enrollment Projections

Part 6 in NFA’s series on the budget situation at the University of Nevada, Reno. This installment addresses the impact of lower-than-projected enrollment growth on budgets.

The UNR administration attributes budget shortfalls of $8.5 million in FY2024 and $10.0 million in FY2025 to “lower-than-projected enrollments.” That missing revenue—from the equivalent of 1,079 full-time undergraduates in FY2024 and 1,187 in FY2025—could have funded 85 to 100 new faculty hires [1]. UNR also budgeted for overly optimistic enrollment numbers and revenue in FY2022 and FY2023. The extra projected available revenue may have spurred the upper administration to divert monies from the core educational mission to non-instructional purposes such as athletics, new administrative positions, and the new business building, contributing to the 5% cuts now being made to departments serving students.

UNR Enrollment Trends

President Sandoval touted a 4% increase in student enrollment for Fall 2023, but that was a preliminary headcount, not Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment. Revenue tracks FTE enrollment and student credit hours, not headcounts. The following chart shows that FTE student enrollments at UNR peaked in FY2018 and have declined since then. FTE enrollments did not revive after the pandemic-related declines in 2020. Preliminary Fall 2023 FTE enrollment increased by only 0.2% from Fall 2022—essentially flat. [Updated 1/25/2024: Final Fall 2023 FTE enrollment was up 0.6% from Fall 2022.]

The 4% increase President Sandoval references is due to the expansion of low-credit dual and concurrent enrollment of high school students (1,917 in Fall 2023, according to the UNR Enrollment Dashboard ) Although concurrent enrollment counts toward Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCH) in the state funding distribution formula, students pay only $75 for each three-credit course as compared to $788 in registration fees received from on-campus students. The hope is that the expansion of concurrent enrollment programs will result in student recruitment, but those students would not be taking the courses they took in high school and paying those registration fees. Despite requests from faculty senators, the administration has not provided data on whether the program, now in its third year, is boosting recruitment.

[Updated 1/125/2024: On 1/18/2024, Vice Provost Shintani reported to the Faculty Senate that there are 5000 unduplicated students enrolled in concurrent courses, and that 30% of the senior students in those courses have applied to UNR. It was unknown whether that is an increase from before the concurrent enrollment program. The NSHE capture rate for dual enrollment students has historically been 57% or higher.]

[Updated 1/25/2024: The Final Fall 2023 Enrollment Report lists a headcount of 2337 non-degree-seeking undergraduate students at UNR, a 186% increase from 817 in Fall 2022. We are unsure how dual and concurrent enrollment high school students are categorized in these tables.]

The following chart shows the student-faculty ratio at UNR from 2013 to 2022, the same time period as the FTE student enrollment data in the previous chart. The student-faculty ratio declined from 2015 to 2020, but then ticked up from 2021 to 2022. Since FTE enrollment declined slightly from 2021-22 to 2022-23, that means there was a steeper decline in the number of instructional faculty--while the executive ranks have expanded.

Budget Impact of Inflated Enrollment

The overly optimistic projection of enrollments and resulting student fee revenue is a serious matter. The following chart shows the actual revenue minus budgeted revenue for UNR’s main instructional state-supported operating budget for fiscal years 2007 through 2023, from NSHE budget-to-actual reports [2]. Negative values mean actual revenues fell short of the budget. The blue bars show state appropriations, which were cut dramatically mid-biennium during the Great Recession (FY2009 and FY2010) and the pandemic budget crises (FY2020 and FY2021). The orange bars show other revenue, primarily student fees and tuition.

Enrollments have sometimes fallen short of budgeted projections over the years, but that generally has been corrected in the next biennium. However, after the pandemic-related enrollment decline in FY2021, UNR budget managers projected a rebound in student-fee and tuition revenue for FY2022 and FY2023, leading to revenue losses relative to the budgeted enrollments exceeding the state budget cuts of the Great Recession. Drops in non-resident tuition accounted for a large fraction of the shortfalls, 79% in FY2022 and 66% in FY2023 [2].

It might have been reasonable to predict enrollments would bounce back from the pandemic-related declines in 2020. But when they did not in 2021–22 and 2022–23, UNR could have scaled back future enrollment and fee revenue projections for the 2023–25 budget cycle. Instead, lower-than-projected enrollments for this biennium have led to the continuing budget shortfalls.

Lower enrollment not only reduces tuition and fee revenue: it also reduces the WSCH counted in the funding formula for the next state budget cycle. The 2023/2024 academic year is the “count year” for WSCH under the existing legislative funding formula for the 2025–27 biennial budget (unless NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding results in a change to the formula).

UNR received a one-time appropriation in AB494 of $1.65 million for the 2023–2025 biennium for WSCH for Sierra Nevada University students who transferred to UNR, but most of those students will have graduated by the next biennium. Zero UNR students signed up for the first semester-at-the-lake session, so future student fee revenue from Lake Tahoe campus operations is in doubt.

Flat enrollments do not generally mean existing instructional positions need to be cut, however, unless phantom enrollment growth has been used to justify diverting funds into priorities that are not part of the core mission of the university. UNR has placed resources into Athletics, executive positions and salary increases, the Business Building project, and iPads for new students. In the meantime, academic and student support programs are being cut by 5% in FY2024.

Future Enrollment

The following chart shows that Nevada has a demographic advantage compared with other states in terms of the K–12 pipeline. The projected number of high school graduates peaks around 2026, but then plateaus in Nevada compared to significant declines on a national level and in other Western states. The WICHE projections [3] in this chart are pre-pandemic; the near-term pandemic declines in graduations were significant, and the future impact is uncertain. Nevertheless, the longer-term trends are based on known population demographics by age.

Another Nevada advantage for potential future enrollment growth is a traditionally low college participation rate [4]. The high school to college matriculation rate was 37th among states at 58% compared with the national average of 64% as of 2018 [4]. Nevada was 48th in the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college as of 2017 [4]. The challenge for UNR, NSHE, and Nevada is to increase the college readiness and college matriculation rates of our high school population as well as the retention of college students. Investing in programs proven to do that should be the highest priority.

Working toward future enrollment gains can be helpful, if the associated revenue becomes available for instructional staff to handle the teaching load. Using inflated enrollment and revenue projections to justify committing resources to priorities outside the core educational mission is a recipe for the budget cuts to academic programs being implemented now.

###

The information in this series of analyses of the UNR budget is based on cited public reports and records, interpreted as accurately as possible given uncertainties in the assumptions used for various reports. Corrections from authoritative sources are welcome. Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

_______

[1] A UNR Assistant Professor hired at Q1 on the current salary schedule would earn $69,383. Adding the 33.8% fringe rate gives $92,834, or 10.8 positions per million dollars. By action of the Board of Regents on December 1, 2023, the salary schedules will be augmented by 10% as of July 1, 2024, giving 9.8 positions per million dollars for future new hires.

[2] NSHE Accountability and Budget-to-Actual Reports: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023.

[3] Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates, 2020, www.knocking.wiche.edu.

[4] NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, www.higheredinfo.org (Nevada data from 2017 and 2018).

Updated 1/16/2024 8 p.m. to include student-faculty ratio data. Updated 1/18/2024 to include additional information on concurrent enrollments.

Articles in this series:

UNR Budget 5. Business Building Funding

Kent Ervin — Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:00:00 GMT

UNR Budget: Misplaced Priorities and Diverted Resources

Student Fees and Unrestricted University Assets Diverted to Business Building PPP

Part 5 in our series on the budget situation at the University of Nevada, Reno. Here we examine the funding of the new Business Building.

The new UNR College of Business Building at University Way & East Ninth Street is being funded under a complex Public–Private Partnership (PPP) in a lease-back arrangement. Since no state funds are being provided for the $164 million Mathewson Gateway project [1], a private corporate entity is financing and constructing the 128,000 sq. ft. building, which will be owned by UNR after thirty years.

According to the PPP agreement submitted to the Board of Regents, UNR is committed to payments of $10.25 million/year in lease payments for thirty years ($308 million total) for the business building. That annual amount will be sourced by a quasi-endowment, anticipated hotel/convention center revenue, and the Capital Improvement portion of student registration fees:

An estimated $4.1 million per year is projected to be generated from a $100 million quasi-endowment to be raised by the UNR Foundation. Of that, $50 million is a transfer from the University to the Foundation of existing unrestricted proceeds from the University’s ownership stake in the Marigold gold mine in Valmy, Nevada–royalties from a mining claim donated to UNR in the 1970s (video).
An estimated $500,000 per year is anticipated revenue from a proposed hotel/convention center project to be built on the property, which is near the existing hotels and convention center in downtown Reno. It is difficult to estimate how competitive a new non-gaming property will be in this location, and the hotel/convention center phase of the PPP has not yet been brought forward to the Board of Regents for approval.
As the “last dollar” source, the remainder of the annual lease payments come from the Capital Improvement portion of per-credit student registration fees. (See Part 4 for an explanation of student registration-fee distribution). UNR estimated to the Regents that “approximately one-half” of the lease payment, or $5.1 million/year, will come from the student Capital Improvement fee. However, that could be more or less depending on the quasi-endowment fundraising and potential hotel/convention revenue.

When the UNR College of Business proposed in December 2019 and March 2020 to raise differential student fees for business courses to help fund a new building, the Board of Regents refused twice. But then a 34% increase of the UNR Capital Improvement registration fees for all undergraduate UNR students (20% increase for graduate students) was approved in May 2022 without any discussion by the Regents (details in Part 4). When the PPP was approved a year later by the Board of Regents, in June 2023, the UNR Chief Financial Officer told Regents there were no new student or differential fees for the project, only the “existing capital improvement fee” (video). That was technically true because the increases in Capital Improvement student registration fees for FY2024 and FY2025 had been approved in May 2022.

As described in Part 4, the large increase in the Capital Improvement portion of undergraduate per-credit registration fees to help fund the Business Building came with a negative trade-off. Namely, there will be zero inflationary increases for FY2024 and FY2025 in the registration fees supporting the State Operating Budget, which funds instructional and support personnel who serve students and basic operations. That represents an ongoing diversion of student fees of $3.65 million per year from UNR’s core instruction and support operating funds and is a large part of the $5.1 million or more in student Capital Improvement fees obligated to the PPP. All UNR students, regardless of whether they benefit from the new building, will now pay for it through reduced services and course options across the university. Each $1 million diverted from the state-supported Operating Budget represents about 10 new faculty positions that cannot be filled [2].

The new Business Building—still lacking a $25 million naming gift—has been under construction since October 2023. That month, the UNR administration told the Faculty Senate the University had raised 65% of the $100 million quasi-endowment goal. Of that, $50 million is from the transfer of the existing Marigold Mine funds from the University to the UNR Foundation (video), so only $15 million of the remaining $50 million goal had been raised at that juncture as new donations for the Business Building. Fundraising of $15 million pales in comparison to the cumulative thirty-year cost of $308 million, not including maintenance and utility costs. [Update: On 1/18/2024, Vice President Richard told the Faculty Senate that "over $10 million" in private philanthropy had been raised for the business building.]

[Update 2/6/2024: According to the minutes of the May 22, 2023, meeting of the Executive Committee of the UNR Foundation, the Foundation approved up to $1.9 million for four years for the purpose of paying the Business Building sublease, as a backstop pending fundraising for the quasi endowment. The Foundation liquidated the $1.8 million unrestricted Stevenson family trust endowment to provide for the backstop funding. The Foundation also waived its 0.5% management fee for the $50 million quasi endowment for a four-year period.]

The $50 million of the windfall from the Marigold Mine represents unrestricted university assets that could be used to support academic programs but are now committed to the Business Building project for thirty years. Since gold mine royalties are a fluctuating and finite revenue stream, it is a smart move to convert the accumulated royalties into a quasi-endowment for long-term stable income [3].

Along with the risk of the financial viability of the proposed hotel/convention facility, the PPP funding model carries potential risks. Edgemoor, the development firm engaged by UNR, uses a “progressive PPP” model with a shorter track record than traditional PPPs and potential pitfalls. As with the ill-fated Fire Science Academy in Carlin, the UNR and NSHE officials who approved the PPP will be long gone by the time we know whether the funding plan for the business building is sound.

The thirty years of $10.25 million/year in commitments will tie up $5 million/year in student registration fees (or more, depending on the success of fundraising for naming opportunities and hotel/convention center revenue) as well as the income from the Marigold Mine quasi-endowment (estimated at $2 million/year). Since construction is moving forward, the thirty-year PPP commitment is not reversible.

In the worst-case scenario of no additional fundraising and a hotel/convention center that does not materialize or run a profit, students will be paying $7.6 million/year in Capital Improvement fees while receiving fewer services, fewer classes, and greater frustrations.

###

_______

[1] Acharya, Tanvi. "FC details for Nevada uni P3", IJGlobal Project Finance and Infrastructure Journal, 7/24/2023. [Available via EBSCO at library.unr.edu]

[2] A UNR Assistant Professor hired at Q1 on the current salary schedule would earn $69,383. Adding the 33.8% fringe rate gives $92,834, or 10.8 positions per million dollars. By the Board of Regents action on December 1, 2023, the salary schedules will be augmented by 10% as of July 1, 2024, giving 9.8 positions per million dollars for future new hires.

[3] NFA submitted a public records request in December to determine the continuing royalty income amounts and their distribution. [Update 2/6/2024: In FY2023, the $50 million in Marigold Mines royalties were transferred to the UNR Foundation for the quasi-endowment. An additional $5.6 million was transferred to "Institutional Support" (program destination to be determined), leaving $491,452 in the royalty account as of 6/30/2023.]

Articles in this series:

NFA State Board issues statement on Regent Geddes' passing

Jim New — Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:28:50 GMT

The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance is saddened to learn of the passing of former Regent Jason Geddes, a stalwart and pragmatic defender of higher education in the Silver State. His record as both a member and chair of the Board of Regents is marked with integrity, enthusiasm, and collegiality. Although the NFA and Regent Geddes sometimes disagreed on issues, he was always available, willing to listen, and treated differences of opinion with respect. Many NFA officers, past and present, appreciated his uplifting sense of humor and considered him to be a friend. He left a lasting positive legacy on higher education in Nevada. He will be missed.

UNR Budget 4. Diversion of Student Registration Fees

Kent Ervin — Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:00:00 GMT

UNR Budget: Misplaced Priorities and Diverted Resources

Student Registration Fees Diverted from the State-Supported Operating Budget

Part 4 in a series of articles on the budget situation at UNR. This installment addresses how student registration fees are being spent by the UNR administration.

The distribution of student registration fees at UNR has been shifted from the State Operating Budget into Capital Improvement and General Improvement fees. Specifically, about $3.65 million/year in FY2025 and beyond is being diverted from the core instructional budget into other priorities of the UNR administration. Each $1 million diverted from the operating budget represents about 10 new faculty positions that cannot be filled.

Student Registration Fees

First, we provide some background on the distribution of student registration fees, which are paid by all undergraduate and graduate students on a per-credit basis.

The Regents set the total student registration fees. Since 2019, the annual increase in registration fees has been indexed to the Higher Education Price Index under NSHE’s Predictable Pricing Program. The largest portion of student registration fees funds the State-Supported Operating Budget, UNR’s main instructional budget including instructional and support personnel and all regular academic department and administrative unit operations. Student Access funding for financial aid is mandated by the Board of Regents to be 15% of the overall registration fee for the universities. Smaller portions of the registration fees for General Improvement and Activities & Programs are intended to support programs that enhance the educational or student experience, rather than regular academic and administrative departments. Capital Improvement fees may be used directly for construction or committed to paying off bonds for major building projects.

In each even-numbered calendar year, the Board of Regents approves the distribution of student registration fees into various budget categories (State Operating Budget, Student Access, General Improvement, Capital Improvement, Activities & Programs, and Student Association fees) for the biennium starting in the following odd year.

Shift in Student Registration-Fee Distributions

In May 2022, the Board of Regents approved the registration fee distributions for FY2024 and FY2025. The inflationary increases in the total registration fees were 2.5% for FY2024 and 1.9% for FY2025. Traditionally, the percentage increases for the overall registration fees have been applied to the State Operating Budget category as well, with minor variations for the remaining categories. That would have resulted in a 4.4% increase over the current biennium in the student registration fees supporting the core educational mission.

For the 2023-2025 biennium, however, UNR requested and was granted a 0% change in the portion of registration fees going to the State Operating Budget. Those funds, intended for core instructional activities such as teaching faculty, were distributed instead to Capital Improvement and General Improvement fees. That was a significant departure from past practice, but the Regents did not discuss this shift nor did system or university staff bring it to the public’s attention. As approved by the Board of Regents, therefore, zero additional revenue was dedicated to the teaching of UNR students instead of a inflation-indexed increase of 4.4% over the current biennium, which would have resulted in a $7.86 per credit increase for the State Operating Budget. This diversion of fees represents $3.65 million/year from FY2025 onward diverted from the core instructional budget into other priorities of the UNR administration [1]. Each $1 million diverted from the operating budget represents about 10 new faculty positions that cannot be filled [2].

UNLV also initially requested no inflationary increases for the State Operating Budget registration fees at the May 2022 Regents meeting. However, in response to the higher COLAs approved by the 2023 legislature, UNLV requested in July 2023, a $5.00/credit reallocation from their Capital Improvement fee to the State Operating Budget category. UNR did not request a reallocation.

The diversion of student registration fees from the State Operating Budget diminishes the funding of UNR’s core educational activities. Lower student-fee revenue into the State Operating Budget may ultimately translate into reduced state funding, because the Governor’s Executive Budgets have, since the 2013 legislative session, held state appropriations to a fixed percentage of the total state-allocated budget for NSHE within a narrow range [3].

Trend in Distribution of Student Registration Fees

From FY2019 to FY2025, the overall undergraduate registration fee for university undergraduates as regularly approved by the Board of Regents increased from $224 to $268, a 19% increase. As shown in the chart below, during the same time period UNR:

Increased the Capital Improvement student fee from $16 to $27 per credit (67% increase)
Increased the State Operating Budget student fee from $155 to $177 (14% increase)
Decreased the General Improvement fee for campus-wide student programs from $16 to $13 (17% decrease), although higher than a low of $10 in FY2023.
The fraction of the undergraduate registration fees allocated to the State-Supported Operating Budget, i.e., core instruction and support, decreased from 69% to 66%.

These values are before the additional 5% increase in student registration fees the Board of Regents approved on December 1, 2023, to assist in funding the 11% COLAs for FY2025. That decision resulted in an increase of $11 per credit ($5.1 million per year for UNR) for the State Operating Budget and $2 per credit ($0.9 million per year) for Student Access.

How Are Auxiliary Student Registration Fees Used?

The expenditure of the General Improvement and Activities & Programs fees is largely discretionary, as they go into separate accounts from the State Operating Budget and are not part of the state budgeting process. NFA submitted a public records request to UNR on December 18, 2023, to discover how revenue from these student fees is being distributed among programs. An update will be provided when available.

A portion of the Capital Improvement fees has been committed to paying off bonds for various buildings. About $5.12 million/year for thirty years has been committed to the Business Building Public–Private Partnership, as will be described in Part 5 of this series.

###

_____

[1] Based on FY2023 average annual full-time-equivalent enrollments, each $1.00 per credit increase in student registration fees corresponds to $464,350 in additional revenue.

[3] The Executive Budgets from FY2014 through FY2025 proposed state appropriations at an average 64.8% of the total state-allocated budget for NSHE overall, with a range of 62.7% to 66.1% and a standard deviation of 1.1%. 2013-2015, 2015-2017, 2017-2019, 2019-2021, 2021-2023, 2023-2025.

Articles in this series:

UNR Budget 3A. Growth of Executive Staff and Compensation

Kent Ervin — Mon, 08 Jan 2024 14:00:00 GMT

UNR Budget: Misplaced Priorities and Diverted Resources

Growth of Executive Staff and Compensation

Part 3 in a series of articles on the budget situation at UNR. This installment addresses the diversion of resources to create new or upgraded administrator positions and to increase executive salaries.

President Sandoval has attributed the freezing of 100 positions at UNR and 5% budget cuts for each department on campus to the underfunding of Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) by the Legislature. However, during the past period of budget cuts the number of executive-level positions has been increased and their average salaries have been raised well beyond the COLAs and merit raises available to rank-and-file faculty and staff. As documented here, the estimated cost of new executive positions and executive raises between Fall 2020 and Fall 2023 over and above COLAs and merit pay is $4.5 million annually. Each $1 million diverted to administration represents about ten new faculty positions that cannot be filled [1].

The data on UNR employees and salaries used for this report have been obtained from public records requests to NSHE at the end of October each year since 2020. NFA has also documented statewide faculty salary trends at NSHE institutions.

Growth in Executive Positions and Salaries

Table 1 shows the number and average salaries of executive-level UNR employees from 2020 to 2023. The combined number of vice presidents, vice provosts, and deans at UNR was 21 in October 2020, with an average base salary of $257K. By the beginning of the Spring 2024 semester, only five of those 21 individuals hold the same position. Only three of the eleven academic deans from 2020 are still in their positions.

However, in Spring 2024 UNR has a total of 27 vice presidents, vice provosts, and deans (+6 positions / 29% increase). As of November 2023, their average base salary was $313K (24% increase). Only 15% of the salary increase can be attributed to COLAs and average merit increases since 2020. Some of the new executive positions also come with new support staff.

For comparison, at UNLV the total number of vice presidents, vice provosts, and deans rose from 32 to 36 (12.5%) and their average base salary rose from $269K to $300K (11.6%) from Fall 2019 to Fall 2023.

Table 1

Positions	Fall 2020	Fall 2021	Fall 2022	Fall 2023
UNR Executives and Administrative Faculty Range E - Number
Deans, Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts	21	24	24	27
Other executive-level personnel	57	53	55	64
Total	79	78	80	92
UNR Executives and Administrative Faculty Range E - Average Salaries
Positions	Fall 2020	Fall 2021	Fall 2022	Fall 2023
President	$449,489	$500,000	$505,000	$565,600
Deans, Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts	$252,872	$250,580	$275,875	$313,226
Other executive-level personnel	$186,576	$190,140	$189,918	$206,806
All	$207,796	$212,710	$219,643	$241,938
Source: NSHE public records. Notes: Averages of annualized base salaries only, other compensation not included. Vacant positions not included in counts. Analysis by NFA 12/2023.

Considering all executive-level employees (Executives and Administrative Faculty Range E) at UNR, table 1 shows that:

The total number of executive-level employees rose from 79 to 92 (+13 positions / 16% increase) between Fall 2020 and Fall 2023, including net new positions and filled vacancies.
Promotions of directors or other positions to Vice President, Vice Provost, or Dean did not result in fewer lower-level executives.
In Fall 2020, the total base salaries for 79 executives was $16.4 million. The 15% in regular increases (COLAs of 1% on 7/1/2022 and 12% on 7/1/2023 and two average merit raises of 1%) would have raised their salaries by $2.5 million to $18.9 million.
By Fall 2023, the total base salaries for 92 executives was $22.3 million, a net increase of $3.4 million beyond COLAs and merit for continuing positions.
Adding the 34% fringe rate gives a cost of $4.5 million per year as an ongoing annual expense for the added executive positions and executive raises.Each $1 million diverted to administration represents about ten new faculty positions that cannot be filled [1].

Table 2 lists the six new vice president, vice provost, and dean positions that were created, including:

Two new senior vice provost positions were created with salaries of over $260,000 each.
The Vice Provost for Information Technology position was upgraded to Vice President for Information Technology, while doubling the salary from $223K to $446K.
A Director for Government Relations and Community Engagement was hired in December 2020. By Fall 2021, the position had been upgraded to Vice President, Government Relations and Community Engagement, who now has a staff including a Director, Government and Community Relations and a Manager, Government and Community Engagement.

The NFA has submitted public records requests to determine which Vice President positions were filled using a search including faculty representation on the screening committee as required by UNR Bylaws.

Table 2

New or Upgraded Executive Position	Previous Position	Prior Salary*	2023 Salary
Vice President, Legal Affairs and General Counsel	General Counsel	$233,181^a	$282,250
Vice President, Information Technology	Vice Provost, Information Technology	$222,916^a	$445,760
Vice President, Governmental Relations and Community Engagement	Director for Government Relations and Community Engagement	$189,500^b	$259,567
Senior Vice Provost, University Projects and Strategic Initiatives	New position. Incumbent was formerly Associate Dean.	$160,311^b	$260,127
Senior Vice Provost	New position. Incumbent was formerly Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs.	$164,800^a	$265,332
Dean, Honors College	Director of the Honors College	$128,750^a	$181,388
Source: NSHE public records. New executive position titles between July 2020 and December 2023. *Prior salary is for incumbent or former holders before position upgrade or promotion as of (a) Fall 2020 or (b) Fall 2021.

... continued in part 3B

UNR Budget 3B. Growth of Executive Staff and Compensation

Kent Ervin — Mon, 08 Jan 2024 14:00:00 GMT

UNR Budget: Misplaced Priorities and Diverted Resources

Growth of Executive Staff and Compensation

Part 3B, continuation of Part 3 of our series of articles on the UNR Budget. [Updated 5/1/2024 with total compensation data, table below.]

Stagnant Academic Faculty Positions

Table 3 below documents the changes in the numbers of academic faculty, administrative staff, and executives at UNR between Fall 2022 and Fall 2023, just over the past year. The number of range A through D administrative faculty grew 12% and the number of executive-level staff grew 15% (net new positions and filled vacancies). But during this year of strong growth for administrative faculty and executive-level personnel, the number of academic faculty remained flat (+3 / 0.3% increase).

Table 3 also shows the salary changes for continuing employees from Fall 2022 to Fall 2023. All faculty, staff, and executives benefited from a 12% COLA and a 1% merit pool on 7/1/2023. Academic promotions from Assistant Professor to Associate or Associate to Full Professor come with a fixed 10% raise at UNR, but administrative and executive salary changes are discretionary. Academic faculty who were promoted had an average combined COLA and raise of 20.5%, while executive-level personnel with a promotion or change of title got an average raise of 33.4%.

Examples of the top 50 raises at UNR (table at link) between Fall 2022 and Fall 2023 include a $108,000 COLA for the Dean of the Medical School, a 34%/$66,000 salary increase for the Vice President of Government Relations and Community Engagement, and upgrading the General Counsel to a Vice President for Legal Affairs with a 19%/$44,000 salary increase.

Without a promotion, the 12% COLA on 7/1/2023 and the 11% COLA to be awarded on 10/1/2024 will bring a faculty member’s take-home salary only back to 2020 in purchasing power after inflation (details in part 7 of this series).

Table 3

Category	Academic Faculty	Administrative Faculty (Range A to D)	Executive & Administrative Range E
Academic, Administrative, and Executive/Administrative Faculty Fall 2022 to Fall 2023
Number of employees 10/31/2022	1008	1103	80
Number of employees 10/31/2023	1011	1231	92
Change in number of employees	+3	+128	+12
Percent change in number of employees	0.3%	12%	15%
Average salary percentage increase for continuing employees with no change in position title	13.9%	14.2%	13.2%
Average percentage salary increase for continuing employees with a change in position title	20.5%	29.4%	33.4%
Source: NSHE public records. Continuing employees = employees in the category on 10/31/2023, who were also employed at UNR on 10/31/2022. Salary changes are inclusive of the 12% COLA and merit raises from the 1% internal pool on 7/1/2023.

Expansion of Executive Staff Results in Cuts to Rank-and-File Faculty and Staff in Departments Serving Students

These data document the rapid growth in administrator and executive positions and salaries at UNR during a period of budget cuts, while the number of academic faculty remains flat. Salary adjustments for academic faculty have largely been limited to COLAs and regular promotions in rank. Even if the needs of the University fully justify the new executive positions, it is irresponsible to create them during budget shortfalls and flat enrollments. In the meantime, 5% budget cuts to academic departments and administrative units will result in vacancies and eliminations of positions that directly serve students.

The full impact of hiring decisions on academic programs at the department level is hard to gauge because UNR stopped publishing annual budget reports after 2018.

The public records available to NFA do not indicate the sources of funding at the individual position level. Still, to the best of our knowledge, most of the executive-level positions are funded through state-supported operating budgets (exceptions include Athletics and clinical faculty). That is, increases in executive positions and salaries reduce the available budget for other professional employees.

The central administration’s practice of sweeping vacancy salary savings from academic colleges has varied over the past decades at UNR:

The Lilley administration instituted central sweeps and even made departments justify positions based on detailed individual-faculty-level teaching loads, which contributed to serious disparities and low morale.
President Glick returned authority over salary savings to college deans to allow them to manage their academic portfolios and respond to challenges and opportunities.
President Johnson largely maintained that practice, although new positions from growth were allocated through a centralized decision-making process.
The Sandoval administration has gone back in the direction of centralized command and control, thereby assuming full responsibility for decisions and priorities while having limited ability to understand situations facing various departments and programs closest to students.

When salary savings are swept centrally, deans have little to bring to the table when making hiring requests. But it gives the central administration the ability to expand the executive staff and raise their salaries, as has happened since 2020.

[Update 5/1/2024. The data in this post are based on reported base salaries. We have also obtained total compensation including benefits and allowances during calendar year 2023 for UNR leadership positions, listed in the table below and available with detailed break-downs by compensation category.

Title as of 12/2023	Total 2023 Compensation
Dean, Medicine - University	$1,007,871
Director, Athletics	$615,282
President, UNR	$582,535
Dean, College of Engineering	$500,388
Executive Vice President and Provost	$474,446
Vice President, Information Technology	$472,429
Vice President, Research And Innovation	$430,888
Dean, School of Public Health	$384,412
Dean, College Of Business	$379,002
Vice President, Student Services	$347,583
Dean, Education	$346,303
Vice President, Administration and Finance	$338,519
Dean, College of Liberal Arts	$313,017
Vice President, Legal Affairs and General Counsel	$307,418
Dean, Reynolds School Of Journalism	$302,863
Dean, University Libraries	$298,515
Dean, Cabnr/naes/unce	$297,218
Dean, Orvis School of Nursing	$294,240
Senior Vice Provost	$293,658
Vice President, Advancement	$285,593
Vice President, Governmental Relations and Community Engagement	$284,630
Senior Vice Provost, University Projects and Strategic Initiatives	$268,517
Dean, School of Social Work	$258,863
Vice Provost, Undergraduate Education	$255,488
Vice Provost, Faculty Affairs	$255,400
Vice Provost for Graduate Education/Dean of the Graduate School	$231,828
Dean, Honors College - University	$209,540
Dean, College of Science	$182,170
Dean, Students	$149,985
Vice Provost, Online Learning	$80,155

(end updated information)]

###

The information in this series of UNR budget analyses is based on public reports and records, interpreted as accurately as possible given uncertainties in the assumptions used for various reports. Corrections from authoritative sources are welcome. Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

_________

Articles in this series:

UNR Budget 2. $10+ Million Increase in University Support for Intercollegiate Athletics

Kent Ervin — Fri, 05 Jan 2024 14:00:00 GMT

UNR Budget: Misplaced Priorities and Diverted Resources
Part 2. $10+ Million Increase in University Support for Intercollegiate Athletics
This is the second article in a series of analyses of the UNR budget situation.

Here we take a deeper dive into the diversion of resources away from the core academic mission by the UNR administration. In August 2023, the Nevada Sports Network reported that UNR is boosting institutional support of Intercollegiate Athletics by $10 million per year, funds that presumably could be spent on instructional operations. Unfortunately, we cannot yet answer the question about the exact source of the extra $10 million per year in university support of Athletics [1]. Spoiler alert: it could be from student registration fees.

Athletics budget data are obtained from the UNR Annual Athletics Reports submitted to the Board of Regents for 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-2022 [2].

UNR institutional support for Athletics was zero in FY2016 and FY2017. In FY2018 and FY2019, $650,000 each year was provided in Cost of Attendance Funds (financial aid for student-athletes beyond fees and tuition). In FY2020, that went up to $1,425,000, adding “COLA and fringe assistance.”

In response to the pandemic, UNR added $10 million in institutional support to offset the revenue losses for Athletics in FY2021, for a total institutional support of $11.1 million. Those funds were likely from federal Higher Education Emergency Relief Funds granted through the American Rescue Plan Act, although the UNR Annual Athletics Report does not indicate the source.

UNLV also increased institutional support for Athletics in FY2021, by $7.5 million from COVID relief funds according to the UNLV Annual Athletics Report. For future years, however, UNLV is returning to pre-pandemic institutional support levels. In contrast, UNR continued the increased institutional support for FY2022, at $10.7 million.

UNR Athletics budget projections include institutional support of $10.1 million in FY2023, $11.7 million in FY2024, $12.9 million in FY2025, and $13.0 million in FY2026. The chart below shows actual and projected revenues for UNR Intercollegiate Athletics for FY2016 through FY2027, obtained from the Annual Athletics Reports provided to the Board of Regents for 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-2022. “Athletics Income” represents all the revenue internally generated by Athletics including ticket sales, dedicated gifts, and media and conference income; the remainder is from state appropriations, student fees, waived tuition and fees, and institutional support. Institutional support was a tiny fraction of the UNR Athletics budget prior to 2020; now it is about 30% of the budget. Internal Athletics income now covers only about 50% of the expenditures: the remainder is from state appropriations, student fees, tuition and fee waivers, and institutional support. The combined state, student, and institutional subsidies for UNR Athletics are projected to be nearly $23 million for FY2024.

The addition of $10 million in university subsidies to Athletics represents a 26.4% increase over the pre-pandemic actual total revenue of $37.8 million for FY2019, which was an especially good year for Athletics income. It doubles the total subsidy from the state, university, and students. Although Athletics is subject to a $830,000 reduction for FY2024 as part of the 5% “across-the-board” cuts to university programs, that is offset by an increase in the state appropriation to $5,580,806 from the projected budget of $4,835,440, an increase of $745,366. A $830,000 cut would be 5% of a budget of $16,600,000; it is not clear to which portion of the projected FY2024 $46.1 million total Athletics revenue that applies.

Where does the extra $10 million to $13 million per year in UNR institutional support to Athletics come from for FY2023 and beyond? Federal COVID relief funds are no longer available. It is not from direct state appropriations ($4.8 million/year) or the student per-credit fees specifically for athletics ($2.8 million/year or $6/credit), which are reported separately, as are gifts designated for Athletics ($3.0 million per year including season ticket sales). The UNR Foundation has provided capital improvement funds for Athletics facilities; unrestricted foundation funds could also be used for support of Athletics operations–the 2022-2023 UNR Foundation Annual Report lists $2.4 million in program gifts identifiable as athletics-related.

The 2022 legislative audit [3] of NSHE self-supported programs for FY 2018 through FY2021 faulted two NSHE institutions, presumably UNR and UNLV, for using restricted student fee funds to support athletics: "Specifically, two institutions used a total of nearly $6.7 million in general improvement and other restricted student fees to support athletics and band programs over several years" [3]. However, the institutions argued that support for athletics was an allowed use.

Our understanding is therefore that the institutional support funds for Athletics could be derived from per-credit student registration fees in the General Improvement, Activities & Programs, or Student Access budget categories. That is, student support for Athletics could be significantly greater than is reported as “student fee revenue” in the Annual Athletics Reports. There may be other unrestricted discretionary funds available that have not been disclosed as the source, including continuing royalty income from UNR’s Marigold Mine stake and investment income from the NSHE Operating Pool. Regardless of the exact source of funding [1], the Sandoval administration is diverting an extra $10 million/year or more to Athletics on an ongoing basis that could be used for core academic programs to serve all students (or for financial aid in the case of Student Access fees). Each $1 million diverted from the core instructional budget is equivalent to about 10 new academic faculty hires [4].

[Update 2/2/2024: UNR Intercollegiate Athletic's annual financial statements to NCAA are submitted in mid-January for the prior fiscal year. The following chart shows the annual operating surplus or deficit reported to NCAA from FY2019 through FY2023, along with the (negative) ending reserve balances (as reported in UNR's Annual Athletics Report for FY2019 and calculated forward). The additional $10 million/year in University support started in FY2021. With this extra operating revenue, UNR Athletics about broke even in FY2021 and FY2023 and had a $2.7 million operating surplus in FY2022. In other words, most of the $10 million annually is being spent.]

###

___________

[1] Public records requests were submitted to UNR in December 2023 to determine how General Improvement student fees, Activities & Programs student fees, and Marigold Mine royalty income are being distributed. An update will be provided when available.

[2] The Annual Athletics Reports from UNR and UNLV to the Board of Regents present budget data in two forms. The NCAA Annual Statements of Revenues and Expenditures include various non-cash contributions that are not included in the internal Workday budget data. “Direct Institutional Support” as reported to NCAA includes tuition and fee waivers in addition to the “Institutional Revenue” reported to the Board of Regents for budget reports. Tuition and fee waivers represent lost revenue to the university instructional budget, but arguably some would not be realized if fewer student-athletes were attracted to the program. Here we use “institutional support” to mean the cash portion of direct institutional support and use the internal reports of total revenue and expenditures.

[3] Performance Audit, Nevada System of Higher Education Self-Supporting and Reserve Accounts, Legislative Auditor, 2022.

[4] A UNR Assistant Professor hired at Q1 on the current salary schedule would earn $69,383. Adding the 33.8% fringe rate gives $92,834, or 10.8 positions per million dollars. By the Board of Regents action on December 1, 2023, the salary schedules will be augmented by 10% as of July 1, 2024, giving 9.8 positions per million dollars for future new hires.

Articles in this series:

Updated 1/18/2024 in include information from the 2022 Legislative Audit of NSHE.

Update 2/2/2024 to include information on annual operating surpluses and deficits and negative reserve balances.

CSN-NFA negotiates pay increases

Jim New — Thu, 04 Jan 2024 16:40:39 GMT

Throughout Fall Semester 2023, CSN-NFA negotiators hammered out the details of amendments to their collective bargaining agreement with administrative representatives. Finalized on December 15, the amendments includes language to secure and improve several areas affecting faculty compensation including merit pay, COLA adjustments, increases to base salaries, and lab pay rates. This success at the negotiation table builds on the achievement of a 12% COLA this year and an 11% COLA next October for which faculty activism, coordinated by NFA, was critical. Following a ratification vote, the agreement will be submitted to the Board of Regents for approval at their February 29/March 1 quarterly meeting.

NFA found that CSN faculty and NSHE community college faculty salary schedules have not increased in over 10 years, creating severe compression and an inability to recruit or retain academic faculty. CSN’s current collective bargaining contract does not include language that tied starting salary increases to NSHE COLA adjustments, causing pay rates to decline and leading to numerous failed searches and losses in faculty retention. Additionally, CSN faculty are paid lower rates than all other NSHE institutions while teaching lab courses. Thanks to the hard work of CSN-NFA, these deficiencies will be corrected.

Key details of the new agreement include:

Lab Pay Increases to Full Pay: The end of the inequitable and unfair compensation of faculty who teach labs. Currently paid at 0.775 of a lecture IU, over the next year and a half, this will increase until the ratio is 1:1.
COLA Increases on Salary Schedule: The salary schedule used to determine faculty’s initial salary will be ratcheted up to include the 12% COLA we received in July 2023, the 11% COLA we will receive October 1, 2024, and future COLAs.
New Faculty Increases: The 12% increase to the salary schedule will be retroactive. All faculty who started July 1, 2023 or after will receive this 12% COLA increase to their salary with back pay.
Future COLAs: All future COLAs will be applied to the initial placement salary schedule to increase hiring and retention.
All-Faculty Stipend: All current full-time academic faculty will get a one-time $400 bonus (officially called a “professional development stipend”) in their August 2024 paycheck.

To ratify these changes, there will be an NFA members vote, conducted according to the NFA Bylaws, during Spring Semester's Convocation week beginning January 8. To answer faculty questions, CSN-NFA will hold two Q & A sessions. The first will be in person on Monday, January 8th directly after the CSN President Zaragoza's State of the College Address. The second will be from noon to 1 pm on Friday, January 12^th, on Zoom. CSN faculty are encouraged to contact any CSN-NFA chapter officers for more information.

UNR Budget: Misplaced Priorities & Diverted Resources. 1. Overview

Kent Ervin — Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:00:00 GMT

UNR Budget: Misplaced Priorities and Diverted Resources
Part 1. Overview

This is the first of a series of analyses of the budget situation at the University of Nevada, Reno. UNR is facing serious budget difficulties in the 2023-2025 biennium despite an increase in total state appropriations of $26 million (20%) from FY2023 to FY2024 for the main UNR instructional budget [1].

The UNR administration has blamed legislative underfunding of COLAs for the current budget shortfalls in the state-supported instructional budget. However, the entire ongoing underfunding of COLAs for professional and classified staff of $21.7 million per year could have been covered if the UNR Administration had not chosen to fund non-academic budget priorities instead of the core instructional mission.

UNR’s core educational mission is largely accomplished by the work of rank-and-file faculty and staff serving students. It is funded through the main UNR instructional account in the State-Supported Operating Budget, the budget for most instructional and support personnel who directly serve students as well as basic operations. This series will document how the budget deficits at UNR are caused in significant part by the diversion of resources away from the core educational mission into other priorities of UNR’s administration, specifically:

About $10 million per year in increased direct university support of Athletics. [Details in Part 2]
New administrator positions and increases in their base salaries beyond COLAs and merit. From Fall 2020 to Fall 2023, the number of executive-level personnel at UNR (Executives and Range E Administrative Faculty) increased by 13 from 79 to 92 (16% increase). The estimated cost of new executive positions and executive raises between Fall 2020 and Fall 2023 over and above COLAs and merit pay is $4.5 million annually. That is an ongoing cost for these positions in future budget years. [Details in Part 3]
About $3.7 million per year in inflation-indexed increases in student registration fees has been diverted from the State Operating Budget to the Capital Improvement fee and the General Improvement fee. [Details in Part 4]
Up to $10.25 million per year committed to the new Business Building. Of that, $5.1 million per year is from student registration fees funded largely by diverting the inflation increases to registration fees from the State Operating Budget into the Capital Improvement student fee. Approximately $2.3 million per year is unrestricted revenue from $50M in Marigold Mine royalties transferred from the university to the UNR Foundation as a quasi-endowment. The remainder is to come from fundraising for the quasi-endowment (only $15M of $50M raised so far) and hotel project revenue yet to be realized. [Details in Part 5]
About $3.5 million per year for the Digital Wolf Pack Initiative, which supports Apple Distinguished School status for UNR. [Discussed elsewhere.]

Each $1 million diverted from the core instructional budget is equivalent to about 10 new academic faculty hires [2].

UNR’s budget officers have counted on unrealistic increases in future student enrollment during a multiyear period of declining or flat enrollment, resulting in budget shortfalls of $8.5 million and $10 million in FY2024 and FY2025, respectively. [Details in Part 6]

On December 1, 2023, the Board of Regents approved Option A for funding COLAs, which delayed 11% COLAs for faculty until October 1, 2024, and increased student fees and tuition by 5% to help cover the cost of COLAs for both professional and classified staff. In the budgets for Option A presented to the Regents, UNR projected that 108 positions would be eliminated or held vacant. This high number of vacant positions accounts for 76% of all vacant positions to be held vacant at all NSHE institutions. (UNR’s closest counterpart, UNLV, projected no positions to be eliminated or held vacant.) The UNR administration has imposed 5% budget cuts for FY2024 across all university units, while recent additions of personnel were concentrated in the administrative and executive ranks. UNR’s academic mission will be seriously compromised by these cuts to personnel and operations. [Details in Part 7]

These budget issues will be documented in subsequent posts in this series over the next few weeks, followed by suggested solutions [Part 8].

###

_______

[1] FY2024 NSHE State-Supported Operating Budget Report, University of Nevada, Reno (p. 29). Includes COLA appropriations. State-allocated American Rescue Plan Act funds were added to the FY2023 state appropriation for comparison with FY2024.

Articles in this series:

Updated: on 1/3/2024 to clarify that the quasi-endowment for the Business Building is held at the UNR Foundation and was created with Marigold Mine funds transferred from the University.

Updated on 1/4/2024 to clarify that the $5.8 million increase in base salaries for executive-level administrators is for the entire group, not just for the 13 additional positions.

Updated on 1/8/2024 to report the cost of new executive positions and increased executive salaries net of regular COLA and merit increase and including fringe rate, per calculation in part 3.

NFA State Board issues statement on UNLV tragedy

Jim New — Thu, 07 Dec 2023 20:00:10 GMT

The officers of the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance are devastated by the horrific events at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas yesterday. There are no words that convey the bewilderment and sorrow we feel for our colleagues, friends, students, and all their families who are suffering. Platitudes, thoughts, and prayers cannot make this right.

Violence is never an acceptable solution. For now, kindness and understanding are essential. But in an uncertain environment that has stirred so many emotions and passions, this event reminds us that respect and compassion must guide our interactions with one another, especially in our institutions of higher learning.

We urge everyone in the NSHE community and our NFA family to be there for one another. Lend an ear to someone who just needs to talk, give them a shoulder to lean on, and gently reassure them that there is still good in the world.

We encourage all NSHE employees to practice self care every day, but especially at times like this. Please remember there are resources to help those of you who are suffering from the trauma of this event including the NSHE Employee Assistance Program.

NFA members have additional benefits through our affiliation with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), including trauma counseling and secondary trauma stress counseling. Each service requires an AFT member number. Individuals who are having trouble finding their member number can reach out to Tish Olshefski at tish.olshefski@aft.org for assistance.

Small policy changes over time dramatically erode shared governance

Jim New — Mon, 04 Dec 2023 20:57:46 GMT

Over the past decade, the Nevada System of Higher Education (“NSHE”) has implemented a series of small policy changes that, in the aggregate, have significantly eroded shared governance when it comes to the process of selecting campus presidents and the system chancellor. This became apparent when the agenda for the November 30 - December 1, 2023, Board of Regents quarterly meeting was posted and included proposals for the appointment of interim presidents at Great Basin College and College of Southern Nevada. Since both GBC President Joyce Helens and CSN President Federico Zaragoza had each given more than a year’s notice of their departures, it was surprising that the Board did not launch a national search for their successors.

As it turns out, the policy that once mandated national searches for institutional leadership positions has quietly undergone multiple small changes since 2012, and now gives Regents the authority to appoint individuals in an interim capacity, potentially avoiding a search process altogether. This shift in policy effectively diminishes the scope and opportunity for meaningful faculty engagement in the crucial task of selecting their campus leaders.

Following national presidential searches between 2007 and 2012, which resulted in the appointment of four internal candidates to permanent positions - Mike Richards, CSN; Neal Smatresk, UNLV; Marc Johnson, UNR; and Bart Patterson, NSC - Regents initiated a discussion about the necessity of investing substantial time and resources on a search if the ideal candidate might already be at the institution. Consequently, they directed staff to research “best practices” governing presidential vacancies, which resulted in a presentation at a special meeting in October 2012. Ironically, during this presentation, the Board’s Chief of Staff reported that despite researching the Association of Governing Boards’ (AGB) publication “Presidential Searches” and contacting the association directly, “such a model was not available.” The meeting minutes reveal a discussion that sometimes veered into the absurd. For example, while acknowledging that university provosts were the most likely individuals to ascend to a presidential appointment, the Regents seriously discussed raising the selection standards for provosts as an answer to lowering the standards for selecting presidents.

Nevertheless, the Board crafted a policy proposal that was presented for discussion at an April 2013 special meeting. It defined the role of an “Officer in Charge” for the temporary absence or vacancy in the office of president, but also made the requirement for a national search optional. It allowed the Board to appoint an acting president and either initiate a search immediately or appoint an interim president and decide on a search based on the interim president’s performance. Following the April discussion, the finalized policy was adopted as an item on the consent agenda at the June 2013 quarterly meeting.

Under Board policy, an acting president temporarily holds the office during the process to select a permanent replacement and is not eligible to apply for the permanent position. An acting president is not required to meet the minimum requirements for the permanent position. An interim president, however, can be appointed for a period of one to three years and may submit an application to a subsequent search, assuming their appointment is not terminated by the Board. The Board also has the option, however, to forego a search and unilaterally appoint the interim to the permanent position.

Other small, but significant changes were adopted at the March 2018 quarterly meeting. The main objective of that proposal was to align the procedures for selecting a chancellor with those already in place for presidents, but revisions to the presidential process gave the Regents greater latitude to immediately appoint an interim president, and the options to conduct either “a national, regional, in-state or other search for a permanent President” if the Regents ultimately chose to conduct a search.

Individually each change, as it was being adopted, appeared relatively benign, but the cumulative effect is a system where comprehensive searches to fill the top spots at our institutions may be the rare exception rather than the rule.

To be fair, the policy still requires the Board chair and Chancellor to meet with campus constituencies, including faculty and staff leaders, administrators, students, and community stakeholders before making an interim appointment. But it does not define guidelines for the topics to be discussed, the information to be gathered, or the information to be shared. A superficial discussion about the preferred qualities of a new president would suffice. The Board is not required to seek input from constituents about individual candidates or share information about the process. There is no obligation for transparency.

Searches are imperfect, costly, and time-consuming. And if we’re honest, NSHE’s recent history reveals a less-than-stellar track record when it comes to conducting successful searches. However, searches conducted with integrity can and do attract a diversity of qualified applicants who meet broad-based criteria established by a variety of campus stakeholders. They seek to identify the best possible individual for a job, who may very well be an internal candidate. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t, but it is the minimum standard for hiring tenure-track faculty. Why should the standard be lower for the chief executive officer of the institution?

The benefits of a well-planned search process are evident, but introducing an interim into the mix dilutes any advantages. To identify just a few:

A search conducted while the departing incumbent still holds the position generates the strongest pool of applicants.
An individual selected through a robust search process will always hold more legitimacy in the eyes of their colleagues and constituents than someone who is unilaterally appointed.
Conducting a search for an interim won’t result in a diverse pool because individuals outside the institution will not apply for a position that may be temporary.
Allowing an interim to compete in a subsequent search to fill the position permanently will depress the candidate pool since the interim has the inside track.
Continually drawing on candidates from within the system runs the risk of developing institutional myopia by denying others from outside the system to bring their varied experiences to the table.
Appointing an interim or permanent without a search eliminates the public process that can raise red flags about a candidate prior to appointment.

There are times when it makes sense to appoint rather than search. For example, when former WNC President Vincent Solis announced his resignation in November 2021, he gave the Board little more than a month to fill the vacancy. The three remaining community college presidents have all announced their departures well in advance giving the Regents more than enough time to organize and conduct comprehensive searches.

GBC President Joyce Helens, CSN President Federico Zaragoza, and TMCC President Karin Hilgersom

President Zaragoza announced in June 2023 that he would be leaving at the end of June 2024. A few weeks later, President Helens announced her plans to retire at the end of June 2024. And TMCC President Karin Hilgersom justified her request for a waiver of the periodic evaluation and one-year extension of her contract to the end of June 2025 by announcing to the Board last July that she would retire at the end of the extension.

On November 30, the Board made an interim appointment for the GBC position and was poised to make one for CSN before pulling the item from agenda.

UPDATE, 12/6/23: An article in the Nevada Current reveals that at least one Regent, Laura Perkins, has concerns about the proposal for the interim president at CSN. A faculty leader also says the proposal bucks input gathered in a November campus meeting with the Board Chairman and Interim Chancellor where the consensus was for an acting president and national search.

While both individuals selected for these appointments have stellar qualifications and broad support from campus stakeholders, they also would have made strong candidates in a search. They will be odds-on-favorites for permanent appointments to the positions without a search. It’s unlikely the faculty, students, staff, or community played any role in crafting minimum qualifications and desired characteristics (if any were even developed), nor did they participate in screening candidates or submitting recommendations. In other words, the process excluded shared governance.

With 18 months to go before the next known presidential vacancy, there really is no good justification for not planning a national search to replace President Hilgersom. It should begin no later than October 2024.

Advocating for, promoting, and protecting shared governance are prime objectives of the Nevada Faculty Alliance. This responsibility touches virtually all aspects of the operation of a system of higher education including participation in the hiring process for campus and system administrators. It is now clear that the existing policy governing vacancies in the offices of president or chancellor violates this well-established tenet.

NFA strongly urges the Board of Regents to modify Title 2, Chapter 1, Sections 1.5.5. to require a national search if they become aware of a pending vacancy more than nine months before it occurs. Anything less is a betrayal of the critical partnership between faculty, students, and administrators that is necessary to maintain an effective system of higher education.

NFA Helps Secure 11% Cost-of-Living Adjustment for FY2025

Kent Ervin — Mon, 04 Dec 2023 01:48:09 GMT

On December 1, the Regents unanimously approved an 11% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for NSHE faculty, matching those for all other state employees. The Nevada Faculty Alliance passionately advocated during the 2023 legislative session for full funding of the COLAs. After the legislature deferred the decision on faculty COLAs to the Board of Regents with “not to exceed” language in SB522, we worked with NSHE and the regents toward full funding. That effort paid off with their approval of a 12% COLA for FY2024 and now 11% for FY2025, delayed to 10/1/2024 but applied to base salaries for the future.

We thank the Regents for recognizing faculty efforts across campus and helping us contribute to student success. However, the unanimous vote was the result of the voices of student leaders, who expressed their appreciation for faculty, and their willingness to increase their own fees. We are humbled and honored by their support. We also thank the 130+ members of the NSHE community who submitted written public comments and 35+ who gave oral public comments in support of the full 11%, as well as the faculty senates of the colleges and universities who unequivocally supported it. Finally, we thank our classified colleagues for their support–at a time when they are doing more with less. These shows of unity ultimately persuaded the presidents of CSN, GBC, NSU, TMCC, UNLV, UNR, and WNC to support the 11% option.

Unfortunately, the COLA increase does not address many of the cuts coming our way. Since the State of Nevada is only funding 65% of COLAs for professional and classified staff, the rest will come from delaying the faculty COLA by three months, suspending faculty merit raises for FY2025, increasing student registration fees by 5%, eliminating positions and keeping vacant positions open, and other budget cuts and transfers. CSN and UNR are projecting the most position eliminations, 20 and 108, respectively, with UNR accounting for roughly 75% of the proposed position cuts across the whole system.

Despite narratives that faculty COLAs are responsible for student fee increases, the COLAs for professional and classified staff are not the main reason for budget challenges. Major shortfalls at some institutions are due to declining enrollments, new executive positions and raises for executive staff, and diversions of resources from core academic programs to priorities such as athletics and capital projects. Stay tuned for more details from the NFA about budget issues.

The NFA’s immediate focus is to shift budget priorities back toward our core academic mission for the benefit of students and to prevent or rescind cuts to faculty and staff positions. Advocacy with the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding is essential for a new formula mechanism that fully funds higher education and fairly apportions state and student funding. Then faculty, students, presidents, the chancellor, and Regents need to form a united front at the 2025 legislature to implement and fully fund the new formula. We will also be organizing through collective bargaining as a tool for working with management to advance NFA’s mission to empower faculty to be fully engaged in our mission to help students succeed.

For further information, here are some NFA posts that were recognized by Regents as influential:

Related Coverage:

Las Vegas Review Journal: Nevada college faculty to get pay boost; students face fee hike
Nevada Current: Regents to consider higher ed student fee and tuition increase to pay for raises
Nevada Current: Regents vote to hike higher ed tuition, increase salaries by 11%
Nevada Independent: Regents hike student fees 5 percent to fund 11 percent faculty pay raise
Elsewhere: CSU faculty to begin a week of strikes, demanding 12% pay raise this year

NSHE fees low compared to other western institutions

Jim New — Fri, 01 Dec 2023 22:28:29 GMT

Confirming previous reporting by NFA, an analysis of student fees and tuition at public higher education institutions in the Western United States illustrates that NSHE Institutions are among the most affordable. In considering the FY25 COLA proposal, members of the Board of Regents asked NFA officers for comparison of fees.

The task was challenging because different agencies use various methodologies for calculating student costs. Ultimately, we chose to compile the data from IPEDS to ensure accuracy and consistency. Here are some of the conclusions we can draw from this data.

Fees and tuition at Nevada's universities fall within the lower one-third among similar institutions. They are 15% lower, or about $1,500 less per year than the average for all tier 1 universities in the region.

Nevada State College/University is the second lowest among its peers in regional four-year institutions. Its fees are 29% lower, or about $2,500 less than the average of comparable institutions in the region.

Nevada's community colleges are equally affordable. All four institutions fall within the lower third of their peer group. On average, it is about $480 cheaper per year to attend a Nevada community college than the average two-year institution in the region, not counting California community colleges where government funding enables atypically low tuition.

2023 NSHE Employment and Salary Trends

Kent Ervin — Fri, 17 Nov 2023 17:31:55 GMT

2023 NSHE Employment and Salary Report

The NFA annually obtains public employee data for NSHE faculty and classified staff through public records requests. New employment and salary data as of November 2023 are compared here with the prior year.

Previous NFA news items discuss the Compensation Gap between Administrators and rank-and-file faculty at NSHE. This past year continued the trend of higher raises for executives.

Highlights:

Systemwide, the number of academic faculty increased by 52 to 3169 (1.7%), the number of administrative faculty increased by 282 to 3963 (10.1%), and the number of classified staff increased by 365 to 2901 (14.3%). These represent filled positions as of 10/31/2023 versus 10/31/2022.
Continuing employees benefited from the 12% COLA as of 7/1/2023. Academic and administrative faculty were also eligible for a merit raise on 7/1/2023 from the internally funded 1% performance pay pool. Classified staff are eligible for up to nine annual 3%-5% step increases within a compensation grade.
For continuing employees with no change in position title, the average individual salary increase (including merit, COLAs, and ad hoc adjustments) between 10/31/2022 and 10/31/2023 was 13.7% for academic faculty, 14.3% for administrative faculty, and 15.5% for classified staff.
For continuing employees with a change in position (e.g., promotion in rank, job change, or new title), the average individual salary increase was 20.4% for academic faculty, 30.3% for administrative faculty, and 25.5% for classified staff. These percentages include individuals who switched to a different employee category.
The number of executives (Executive and Administrative Faculty Range E) employed rose from 294 to 307, a 4.4% increase. UNLV added five executives and UNR added eleven, representing net new positions and filled vacancies.
New or changed executive position titles include, for example, “Special Assistant to the Vice President of Philanthropy and Alumni Engagement,” “Senior Vice Provost, University Projects and Strategic Initiatives,“ and “Vice President, Legal Affairs and General Counsel” (changed from “General Counsel” with a salary boost).
Despite the recommendation in June 2023 by former Interim Chancellor Erquiaga that Executives voluntarily forgo the 12% COLA, none did. Individual salary increases for 50 continuing NSHE, University, and Community College Executives ranged from $20,500 to $108,000. The total cost was $1.9 million.

Source: NSHE Public Records Requests. Analysis by NFA 11/2023

NSHE Student Fees Are Third-From-Bottom Among 50 States

Kent Ervin — Mon, 23 Oct 2023 21:53:20 GMT

Student Fees and Tuition at NSHE

Where are they and where are they going?

The NSHE Chancellor’s Committee To Recommend Board Action On FY 2025 Salary Increases is reportedly considering student fee increases to cover a portion of budget shortfalls for the 2024-2025 year. To put any such proposals into context, here we compare student fees and tuition at NSHE with other public state institutions. We also discuss where fees are headed under the NSHE Predictable Pricing Program, which was established in 2019 and indexes student registration fees to the Higher Education Price Index.

There are various ways to measure and compare student fees and tuition among states. The National Center for Education Statistics compiles averages for the 50 states. The chart below shows average in-state undergraduate tuition and required fees for full-time students for public four-year institutions for 2020-2021 (the most recent available data). The cost for Nevada’s students ranks third-lowest among the fifty states and only above Wyoming among western states. NSHE offers incredible value for students—average tuition and fees are $6434/year31% below the national average of $9375/year.

Another measure is the net revenue from tuition and fees, which subtracts state-level financial aid and grants from the gross tuition and fee revenue, compiled by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO). The chart below shows 2021-2022 state averages (adjusted for the mix of 2-year and 4-year institutions) per FTE. The state rankings are scrambled after state financial aid is taken into account, but Nevada also ranks third-lowest in net revenue from students, at $2,793 compared with the national average of $7,244. Not only are our tuition and fees relatively low in the first place, but Nevada is quite generous with our state financial aid programs including the Guinn Millennium Scholarships, Silver State Opportunity Grants, and Nevada Promise Scholarships.

Does Nevada’s low student costs arise from high state funding of higher education? Not so much! The SHEEO chart below shows state funding per FTE for FY2022 including both direct appropriations and student financial aid. At $8,022, Nevada's higher education appropriations per FTE including financial aid are 22% below the national average of $10,237 and ranks 34^th.

In 2019, the Board of Regents established the Predictable Pricing Program (PPP), which indexes future registration fees and tuition to the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) published by the CommonFund. The NFA chart and table below compare the annual percentage changes in UNR/UNLV registration fees (the percentages are nearly identical for all institutions and for lower- and upper-level and graduate courses) with HEPI and the Consumer Price Index (Urban/West) from 2013 to present, along with future increases under the PPP. Under predictable pricing, registration fee increases are set for four years ahead based on the most recent HEPI year. Since the HEPI numbers come out with about a 9-month delay after a fiscal year, that results in a five-year lag in adjusting for current inflation. So students won’t start paying for the high inflation of the past two years until 2026-2028. In fact, the annual percentage increases in student fees went down in 2021-2024 just as inflation spiked to historically high levels. After inflation, per-credit registration fees have lost purchasing power by 8.5% just from FY2021 to FY2024. Since student fees have to cover about 35% of the NSHE instructional budgets, the ability of the institutions to provide services and pay its staff is diminished as costs go up rapidly.

	Annual Change
Fiscal Year	Higher Education Price Index*	Consumer Price Index (Urban West)	NSHE Student Registration Fees**
2013-2014	3.0%	1.6%	0.0%
2014-2015	2.0%	1.5%	0.0%
2015-2016	1.5%	1.6%	4.1%
2016-2017	3.0%	2.4%	4.0%
2017-2018	2.6%	3.1%	4.0%
2018-2019	3.0%	3.0%	4.0%
2019-2020	1.9%	2.3%	4.0%
2020-2021	2.7%	2.4%	4.0%
2021-2022	5.2%	7.1%	2.8%
2022-2023	4.4%	6.3%	2.8%
2023-2024			2.5%
2024-2025			1.9%
2025-2026			2.7%
2026-2027			5.2%
2027-2028			4.4%
FY2023 HEPI August Forecast. *UNR/UNLV Undergrad. Predictable Pricing Program established 2019.

Analysis by the Nevada Faculty Alliance 10/2023.

Update 2/11/2024: The final Higher Education Price Index for FY2023 published in December 2023 shows an increase of 4.0% over FY2022 (vs 4.4% from the August 2023 forecast).

Update 8/9/2024: First chart with NCES data corrected to include missing Florida. Based on IPEDS classifications, NCES counts all seven NSHE colleges and universities as 4-year institutions (two research universities and five baccalaureate colleges).

NSHE Faculty Salaries Remain Low

Kent Ervin — Mon, 23 Oct 2023 21:37:08 GMT

NSHE Faculty Salaries

Where they've been and where they're going

The history since 2008 of NSHE faculty cost-of-living and other salary adjustments—including furloughs, salary reductions, average merit, and retirement contribution changes—is shown in the chart below. Even if the Board of Regents approves the full 11% COLA for FY2025 (pink hatched bar), take-home pay will only return to FY2015 levels in constant dollars and will reach only 89% of the salaries in FY2009.

This chart includes average merit raises (performance pay) but applies to faculty members who have not received a promotion or ad hoc raise.

Based on the 2022-2023 AAUP Faculty Compensation Survey, academic faculty salaries at UNLV and UNR were 16% below the average for faculty at doctoral universities nationwide and 23% below the average for public R1 research universities in the Western states. Although the 12% COLA for 7/1/2023 approved by the Board of Regents will partially close that gap, other states have also implemented COLAs in the past year so it remains to be seen how much more we still need just to catch up to average.

(The AAUP survey has very limited data for community colleges. The only other NSHE institution that participated in the survey besides UNLV and UNR was CSN, and there are few valid comparison colleges.)

Resisting Floridation in Nevada

Jim New — Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:10:15 GMT

On Friday, October 20, the Nevada Board of Regents will hold a special "workshop." The agenda includes an item with the innocuous sounding title Principles and Best Practices of Highly Effective Governing Boards. While one cannot disagree that a highly effective governing board is highly desirable, the characteristics that constitute a highly effective board are, well, highly debatable. That is certainly the case for the discussion about to occur in the Regents' "workshop."

At the invitation of Board Chair Byron Brooks, Dr. Jenna A. Robinson will be the presenter. One would assume that Dr. Robinson has extensive experience as a member of an academic governing board. While her credentials include some work on governing boards, the bulk of her career has been as an operative, and currently the president, of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.

When you visit their website, the organization's philosophies will quickly become apparent. Originally organized as the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy as a project of the John Locke Foundation, the goal of the organization has always been to restrict faculty rights and academic freedom with the aim of stifling voices that do not agree with their ideological ideals. They claim to seek balance, but the evidence runs counter to their claims.

Undoubtedly, the Martin Center played a role in drafting the draconian policies and legislation adopted in multiple states, including Florida, Texas, and North Carolina. They champion policies that inhibit vigorous debate and the free exchange of ideas, imposing restrictions on faculty and the content they are allowed to explore in their courses. They oppose many of the bedrock principles of the American system of higher education, such as tenure and shared governance.

These policies have also led to an exodus of faculty in states where they have been enacted. Over one-third of the faculty surveyed in Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia indicated that they were actively pursuing positions in other states. Many new faculty hired at NSHE institutions in the last year came from these states. Similarly, students are opting to leave colleges and universities where these policies have dramatically impacted the curriculum.

Nevertheless, the Nevada Board of Regents under Chairman Byron Brooks has solicited the president of this organization to give the Board advice on how they can be more effective. Despite assurances from Chairman Brooks to faculty senate chairs that Dr. Robinson's presentation has been vetted with no “slides pertaining to political ideology or anti-faculty chaos,” the act of providing her a platform implicitly validates the work of her organization.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance sent a letter to members of the Board of Regents and the interim Chancellor strenuously objecting to the presentation by Dr. Robinson. We urged them to postpone the workshop until a more suitable candidate from an ideologically neutral organization can be found. We also sent messages to each campus president to encourage them to lend their voices to our opposition.

It is imperative that we do not let this pass unchallenged. It's the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Before long, the entire beast will occupy the space, spying on our curriculum between the pages of our textbooks and regulating our instruction. We urge all faculty members to contact members of the Board of Regents and register your opinion about this "workshop." Better yet, please join us for the Public Comment portion of the workshop around noon, Friday, October 20.

The Compensation Gap part 2

Jim New — Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:35:04 GMT

It is a fundamental truth that you can identify an organization’s priorities by looking at its budget. When an organization pays its employees less than what they could earn elsewhere, but still plows resources that could go to compensation into other projects, like a new building or executive perks, it’s not hard to tell where the prosperity and welfare of its workforce falls on that organization’s priority list. Where the faculty rank in NSHE’s priorities will be coming into sharper focus as the Board of Regents awaits a recommendation from its newly formed Committee to Recommend Board Action on FY 2025 Salary Increases. An update from the committee is expected at the October 20 special meeting of the Board.

Already there is a divide. We applaud the campus presidents who have recently declared their support publicly for the full 11% COLA, matching our Classified coworkers and all other state employees. We encourage the other presidents to follow their lead, but there appears to be more organized resistance now than there was in June 2023 when hundreds of academic and administrative faculty made their voices heard, convincing the Board of Regents to approve the full 12% COLA for FY 2024.

Ironically, the greatest resistance is coming from the institutions that saw the greatest growth in their state-allocated funding from the 2023 Nevada Legislature.

State appropriated funds for NSHE formula-funded instructional budgets
Institution	*FY2022	*FY2023	**FY2024	**FY2025	Change for biennium
UNLV	$180,367,661	$188,138,610	$209,161,530	$212,055,165	$52,710,424	14.30%
UNR	$128,307,698	$129,888,921	$141,600,407	$143,604,596	$27,008,384	10.50%
NSC	$25,581,096	$25,815,872	$31,014,568	$31,103,180	$10,720,780	20.90%
CSN	$100,013,941	$103,622,123	$103,093,245	$103,540,400	$2,986,581	1.50%
GBC	$14,130,910	$14,872,388	$14,649,803	$14,718,803	$365,308	1.30%
TMCC	34,327,835	$35,579,629	$35,544,817	$35,698,145	$1,335,498	1.90%
WNC	$14,332,707	$14,483,533	$15,766,811	$15,822,790	$2,773,331	9.60%
TOTAL	$490,061,848	$512,412,076	$550,831,181	$556,543,047	$97,900,304	9.70%
General fund appropriations only, before COLAs for FY2024 & FY2025. Excludes student fees and tuition. Excludes professional schools and non-formula budgets.
FY2022 & FY2023 amounts include state-allocated ARPA funds for positions. *FY2024 & FY2025 from SB511 plus enrollment recovery funds and WSCH formula adjustments in AB491 and AB494.

It makes one wonder why institutions that saw double-digit growth in their state-allocated funding would be so resistant to applying some of that money to COLA and ensuring that their compensation doesn’t fall further behind the national average for salaries in the market where they compete for talent.

Their arguments against the full 11% adjustments for next year would be easier to swallow if there hadn’t been a growing disparity between salaries at the top versus the rank and file. In The Compensation Gap pt. 1, we described the widening gap between salary schedules for administrators and executives when compared to the schedules for faculty. As we acknowledged there, changes to the salary schedules don’t affect the vast majority of incumbent employees, only those whose salaries fall below the adjusted minimum in the schedule. Otherwise, the beneficiaries are newly hired employees. But as time moves on and natural turnover occurs, the gaps between salary schedules that were widened in 2023 will result in significant disparities by 2028 and beyond.

Recent history, however, shows that compensation growth for incumbent rank and file academic faculty has lagged all other employee classifications, and in the case of executives and senior administrators, it has lagged significantly.

NSHE Employee Class	Average Salary Increase, 11/2021 to 11/2022
Academic	3.9%
Classified	6.3%
Administrative A-D	7.9%
Administrative E	8.7%
Executives	14.8%
OVERALL	6.0%
Average percentage change of individual salaries for incumbent NSHE employees by employee class from November 2021 to November 2022. A 1% COLA was awarded on 7/1/2022. The salary schedule change on 7/1/2022 affected only incumbents below the new schedule minimums. Promotions or ad hoc raises account for additional increases. Compiled from public records by NFA, 10/2023.

Some growth across all classes during the period reflected in the table above can be attributed to a 1% COLA adjustment. Classified staff received annual steps for the first ten years in their grade; for faculty, there was a 1% merit pool distribution. All other growth occurred where incumbent employees were either promoted, or remained in their positions but received an ad hoc raise. An ad hoc raise can occur for one of several reasons. For example, an individual may absorb additional responsibilities due to campus vacancies, another may be equity adjustments. Some may be for individuals who simply found favor from their supervisors. Nonetheless, in the depths of the pandemic-fueled budget crisis, institutions still found adequate funding to provide substantial ad hoc raises.

NSHE Ad Hoc Salary Adjustments*
Institution	FY2022	FY2023
CSN	$593,784	$282,769
DRI	$125,812	$331,999
GBC		$68,259
NSU	$215,464	$381,417
NSHE Admin	$67,036	$150,105
TMCC	$92,364	$153,478
UNLV	$1,136,924	$1,918,347
UNR	$1,939,987	$2,056,406
WNC	$102,394	$10,613
TOTAL	$4,273,765	$5,353,393
Base salary adjustments and equity adjustments for positions with no change in business title. Excludes cost-of-living adjustments and merit raises. Includes equity adjustments per collective bargaining agreements. Analysis by NFA, 10/2023*

While some faculty were the beneficiaries of these ad hoc salary adjustments, the vast majority of recipients were senior administrators and executives. Some ad hoc raises were modest. Some were eye-popping. The table below lists the ten largest individual ad hoc raises at NSHE institutions during each of the 2022 and 2023 fiscal years. One executive's raise at a university is larger than the total of the three largest raises given to faculty in the same year.

Highest NSHE Discretionary Raises (FY2022 and FY2023)
FY2023
Institution Type	Position	Employee Class	Old Salary	New Salary	Raise	Percent Raise
Universities	Interim Vice Dean/Chair	Sr. Admin	$248,980	$400.000	$151,020	60.7%
NSHE Admin.	Associate Vice Chancellor	Executive	$136,514	$208,942	$72,428	53.1%
Universities	Vice President	Executive	$198,175	$260,000	$61,825	31.2%
NSHE Admin.	Chief General Counsel	Executive	$189,000	$242,938	$53,938	28.5%
Universities	Senior Vice President	Executive	$310,738	$355,000	$44,262	14.2%
Universities	Associate Dean	Sr. Admin	$200,000	$240,000	$40,000	20.0%
Universities	Lecturer	Faculty	$73,772	$113,476	$39,704	53.8%
Universities	Professor	Faculty	$194,185	$233,982	$39,797	20.5%
Universities	Professor	Faculty	$131,404	$170,000	$38,596	29.4%
Universities	Vice President	Executive	$193,659	$229,500	$35,841	18.5%
FY2022
Universities	Executive Vice President/Provost	Executive	$276,000	$378,750	$102,750	37.2%
Universities	Assistant Professor	Faculty	$324,800	$382,012	$57,212	17.6%
Universities	Vice President	Executive	$244,007	$299,500	$55,493	22.7%
Universities	Dean	Sr. Admin	$220,000	$270,000	$50,000	22.7%
NSHE Admin.	Chief General Counsel	Executive	$216,300	$255,234	$38,934	18.0%
Community Colleges	Controller	Sr. Admin	$98,492	$130,808	$32,316	32.8%
Universities	Vice Provost	Sr. Admin	$164,650	$195,000	$30,350	18.4%
Universities	Vice President	Executive	$226,600	$250,000	$23,400	10.3%
Community Colleges	Interim Executive Director	Sr. Admin	$104,178	$126,511	$22,333	21.4%
Universities	Deputy Controller	Sr. Admin	$137,917	$160,000	$22,083	16.0%
Base salary adjustments and equity adjustments with no change in business title. Excludes clinical and athletics. Does not include cost-of-living adjustments or merit raises. Source: NSHE Public Records. Compiled by NFA 10/2023.

A quick scan of this table reveals that Nevada's universities in FY2022 and FY2023 gave out more of the top ad hoc raises to incumbent employees than the other institutions and those raises went primarily to executives and senior administrators.

It should surprise no one that faculty feel misused when they hear renewed austerity may prevent them from sharing in the largess. We understand that institutions face significant challenges finding the funding in their budgets to pay the full COLA, but we don't believe they are insurmountable.

In a letter to the Committee to Recommend Board Action on FY 2025 Salary Increases, NFA offers our rationale in support of the full 11% COLA. We also offer several recommendations to help ease the budget impact, such as limiting COLA for the highest paid executives and senior administrators, utilizing reserve accounts until registration fee increases catch up, and mandating that at least 80% of student fee revenue be allocated to the state operating budget in support of employee compensation, just to name a few.

Despite our best efforts, though, we know the most effective tools we have at our disposal are faculty voices. Last June, hundreds of faculty members, despite the summer break, responded to our call to speak out for the FY 2024 COLA. It is difficult for Regents to ignore when over 60 rank and file faculty members show up at one meeting to make their case in the public comment period. If we fail to turn out similar or better numbers when the FY 2025 COLA is on the Board's agenda, they will likely assume that we are satisfied with our prior pay bump and will be happy with whatever they approve. We must keep the passion on display.

Between now and that meeting, we encourage all faculty to call, email, or visit the Regent representing your district. Encourage them to approve the full 11% and to consider policy changes that prioritize employee compensation over spending for special projects and unproven initiatives. Most importantly, watch for the COLA proposal on the agenda for an upcoming Board meeting and plan to attend to make a public comment in support of the full amount. Besides the meeting on October 20, a special meeting is scheduled on November 1, and the quarterly meeting will be held November 30/December 1 in Las Vegas. We believe the decision will be made at the quarterly meeting, but we will keep the members notified if anything changes.

The COLA passed by the 2023 Nevada Legislature, and signed by Governor Lombardo, are legitimately historic. There will not be another opportunity for many years, if not decades, for our salaries to recover from the extended period of stagnation. We cannot afford to let this pass us by. At least, not without a fight.

NSHE inequities and misplaced protection

Jim New — Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:37:19 GMT

Since its adoption in 1972, the landmark legislation known as Title IX has had a profound impact on the American educational system. It has played a pivotal role in leveling the playing field by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, and fostering opportunities for women in academics, sports, employment, and other aspects of education. Earlier this year, Nevada strengthened laws to address sexual misconduct and violence. Nevertheless, the laws regulating workplace discrimination and misconduct are only as good as the organizations administering them. Now, after more than five decades, serious deficiencies in NSHE’s implementation and enforcement of these laws may leave employees and students vulnerable to discrimination and violence, as well as retaliation for reporting misconduct. It also leaves the entire System of Higher Education liable for damages.

If you experience or witness power-based violence, sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or any other workplace conflict, we urge you to seek immediate guidance through your campus NFA chapter. NFA officers will provide the information you need to protect your rights and assist with conflict resolution. Our goal is to resolve disputes, when possible, before they escalate to costly lawsuits. NFA members have the additional benefit of access to legal defense support, depending on the merits of their case. Please make sure that you carefully document all of your interactions with individuals in positions of authority and keep records in a secure location off campus.

In December 2022, the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance issued a letter of concern to the administration at the University of Nevada, Reno, and the Nevada Board of Regents calling for immediate changes to the operation of the University’s Title IX Office following multiple reports of mismanagement. Neither UNR nor the Board of Regents responded to that letter.

Nearly one year later, with only superficial changes made, complaints of sexual abuse and harassment, discrimination, and retaliation have gone unresolved, resulting in multiple lawsuits and individuals seeking financial support from the public to avoid insolvency while pursuing redress. Students have picked up on this as well, covering it in the UNR student paper, launching a petition, and organizing protests. Worse still, instances of similar mismanagement are cropping up at other institutions. In one instance, a complaint filed by faculty members at UNLV went unanswered for seven months, potentially allowing the prohibited activity to continue unchecked. We have seen multiple instances of institutions retaliating against those making complaints by moving to terminate their employment.

As it appears that instances of misconduct and mishandling of these complaints continue unabated, the NFA State Board has issued a second letter to regents, the interim chancellor, and institution presidents, calling for immediate action.

1983 - CELEBRATING 40 YEARS - 2023

In December 2022, the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance wrote a letter to UNR President Brian Sandoval expressing our concerns about the Title IX Office at the university but received no response. Now, multiple highly concerning lawsuits against UNR have come to light, drawing the attention of local media and UNR students alike. Active suits against NSHE institutions allege mishandling of various Title IX violations, including sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The media attention further damages NSHE’s reputation and the ability of its institutions to recruit and retain talented faculty.

In addition to the cases at UNR, we have also been made aware of a case at UNLV that was delayed seven months before any action was taken. The case also alleges retaliation against the faculty member who filed the Title IX complaint. It now appears there is a pattern where NSHE institutions attempt to suppress these cases instead of taking appropriate action to protect all parties. Even worse, we have received reports of faculty being subjected to disciplinary action after filing a complaint.

The NFA urges Interim Chancellor Charlton and the Board of Regents to hold institutions accountable and correct these serious deficiencies in the operation of Title IX and equal opportunity offices. Our letter last year requested specific actions at UNR reiterated below. It is now apparent that these actions must be adopted across the entire system.

Provide reports to the community with essential information on how the Title IX and equal opportunity offices function. The University of Michigan’s report provides an outstanding model to follow.
Commission a qualified law firm that specializes in equal rights protections to conduct an audit of the Title IX offices and produce a public report with recommendations for improvement.
Establish public policies, in line with federal guidance, for which roles institutional administrators, general counsels, and HR managers can play in Title IX hearings and the functioning of the offices.
Make it a priority to fully staff the offices, including a sufficient number of investigators to handle caseloads in a timely manner.
Provide guidance on types of cases that should be referred to campus units other than the Title IX office and ensure that those units have the resources to handle the cases.
Implement policies that hold institutional administrators and other employees accountable for violating prohibitions on intervening in Title IX and other proceedings. Accountability should include denial of indemnification and immunity in cases of misconduct by administrators.

The 2023 Nevada Legislature passed, and Governor Lombardo signed, AB245, a bill brought forward by NSHE students to address sexual misconduct issues and to create the Task Force on Power-based Violence at Institutions of Higher Education. The previous NSHE Task Force on Sexual Misconduct failed to take significant proactive measures to improve the function of campus Title IX offices. We cannot afford for this new task force to repeat the same mistakes.

Respectfully,
The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance

Jim New, President and TMCC Chapter President
Shantal Marshall, Vice President
Cheryl Cardoza, Treasurer
Kent Ervin, Past President
Ted Chodock, CSN Chapter President
Pete Martini, NSU Chapter President
Doug Unger, UNLV Chapter President
Todd Ruecker, UNR Chapter President
Heather Reardon, WNC Chapter President

Recent lawsuits describe institutions with broken systems which allow interference that influences an outcome to the detriment of the complainant. Such actions not only enable prohibited behavior, they also dissuade vulnerable individuals from seeking lawful protections. Failing to adequately act on matters of discrimination and workplace misconduct emboldens those who cause harm to others. NFA officers consider it their duty to monitor and disclose failures of institutions to act on legitimate complaints.

It is essential for the Board to immediately review how NSHE code applies to campus administrators, especially executive officers, and establish rigorous checks and balances to prevent misconduct. Strict sanctions should also be established and applied to individuals who engage in misconduct or interference during the investigation of a complaint, including loss of retreat rights, denial of indemnification for costs, and termination for cause.

Unfortunately, NSHE leadership has exhibited an appalling level of indifference for our prior attempts to address this matter. We hope that will change. Until it does, however, we feel obligated to advise our colleagues to bypass the Title IX process at their institutions, and report misconduct directly to the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.

Is Concurrent Enrollment a race to the bottom?

Jim New — Fri, 06 Oct 2023 17:25:11 GMT

Previously considered the domain of the community colleges who expanded their mission-specific responsibilities in remedial education into college preparation for high school students, Concurrent Enrollment has recently drawn the attention of Nevada’s universities. With more than 15,000 potential CE students in Nevada, it’s not surprising the universities see CE as a means to mitigate the impacts of declining enrollment among their traditional students. But, as is so often the case, quality and rigor are often trampled upon in the race to more FTE.

In Nevada, Concurrent Enrollment is defined as “a postsecondary course taught at a high school by a high school instructor” in the Report and Recommendations of the Dual Enrollment Task Force formed by the Nevada Department of Education and NSHE.

Recently, several faculty members from different NSHE institutions have appeared at meetings of the Board of Regents to register their complaints during Public Comment periods about the sudden burst of Concurrent Enrollment (CE) activity across the state. Faculty members who expressed their concerns to the Regents cited issues ranging from inadequate enforcement of required credentials for high school teachers, to uncontrolled expansion of courses outside an institution’s traditional service area.

In response to these concerns, the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance sent the following messages to the Board of Regents, the Interim Chancellor, and the institution presidents urging action to address a number of issues in Concurrent Enrollment.

1983 - CELEBRATING 40 YEARS - 2023

2023-10-04

Dear Regent,

We are writing to express concern about the rapid expansion of concurrent enrollment (CE) programs throughout the state and recent requests made to the Board of Regents to decrease concurrent enrollment teacher stipends. The Nevada Faculty Alliance recommends the following actions to ensure that CE programs offering baccalaureate-level instruction genuinely embrace the goals of improving access for underserved students and providing a pathway to college success:

All CE programs in NSHE should be required to be accredited through the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships.
CE instructors must be approved by college faculty and must meet the minimum standards required to teach on campus, i.e., a masters-level degree for most disciplines.
CE instructors should be paid at least what a campus adjunct makes, on top of their normal teacher salary.
College faculty liaisons should provide training for CE instructors and should regularly visit and observe CE classes to assure alignment with curricular standards, and these liaisons should be appropriately compensated for this work.
NSHE should develop a comprehensive plan around CE offerings throughout the state, so that institutions are not competing against each other for students.

Concurrent enrollment programs have been promoted as providing access to underserved students. Failure to ensure the quality of these programs risks sending underprepared students into Nevada colleges and universities where they may be more likely to struggle and drop out, undermining our strategic goals to recruit, retain, and graduate diverse student populations.

Unlike well-established dual enrollment programs in career and technical education (CTE), which rely on national industry certification requirements for curriculum and instructor qualifications, CE transfer courses in Nevada are not currently required to adhere to comparable nationally-recognized standards.

We believe that all CE programs throughout the state should seek accreditation through the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP). This alliance has accredited programs in 27 states, but none in Nevada. NACEP accreditation would ensure Nevada CE programs are providing quality instruction by meeting a set of national standards, which are arranged around five areas:

Partnership Standards
Faculty Standards
Assessment Standard
Curriculum Standards,
Student Standards.

We urge you to review the NACEP standards and hope you will give serious consideration to our recommendations above. NFA and its members stand ready to provide constructive input that can help NSHE build one of the most effective CE programs in the nation.

Respectfully,

The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance

Jim New, President and TMCC Chapter President
Shantal Marshall, Vice President
Cheryl Cardoza, Treasurer
Kent Ervin, Past President
Ted Chodock, CSN Chapter President
Pete Martini, NSU Chapter President
Doug Unger, UNLV Chapter President
Todd Ruecker, UNR Chapter President
Heather Reardon, WNC Chapter President

We feel these are the minimum requirements for an effective CE program. NACEP establishes a baseline from which to build a quality program, but anecdotal evidence suggests that NSHE institutions are falling short in their race to build up FTE from an untapped resource.

To illustrate just a few of the concerns that have been raised, faculty have learned that some CE teachers do not hold master’s degrees, or the degrees they do hold are not from the appropriate discipline, both minimum requirements for teaching transfer courses in the system. Similarly, they are not receiving the level of training and resources that new instructors on campus receive. These issues would be avoided through adherence to NACEP Faculty Standards that require CE faculty to be approved by college faculty and meet the same minimum standards as those required to teach on campus. CE faculty must also be expected to participate in regular training programs with college faculty so that they can enhance their “pedagogy and breadth of knowledge in the discipline.”

Without extensive faculty involvement, it is difficult, if not impossible, to validate that the content and rigor of CE instruction are equivalent to instruction by college instructors. NACEP Curricular Standards point to the need for CE courses to align with the “pedagogical, theoretical and philosophical orientation of the respective college/university discipline” and that college faculty liaisons should regularly visit and observe CE classes to help promote alignment. It is imperative that NSHE institutions provide CE teachers with the resources necessary to teach a course at the same level as their college counterparts. If their teaching load and/or class sizes are higher than those of on-campus faculty, then class sizes should be reduced or instructional assistants should be provided to help support student learning.

Clearly, to meet NACEP standards, both CE teachers and their college faculty liaisons must go above and beyond their normal duties. A consistent system-wide compensation policy should be established to ensure both are adequately compensated. Allowing institutions to pay their individual part-time rate to CE instructors places community colleges at a disadvantage since universities pay a much higher part-time rate per credit. It appears NSHE intends to address this issue. At the July 21, 2023 special meeting of the Board of Regents, a presentation on dual and concurrent enrollment (slide 17) indicated that a policy in Chapter 3, Section 9 of the Procedures and Guidelines Manual sets maximum stipends for instruction. Unfortunately, Chapter 3 ends at section 8. A little housekeeping seems to be in order.

It goes without saying that a successful CE program will provide students the same experience and rigor that is offered to college students. Without that level of quality-control, the higher education system will suffer the consequences as increasing numbers of students discover that they are underprepared to progress through their college programs.

Without system-level coordination and faculty oversight of CE offerings throughout the state, we will continue to see the seemingly unchecked ability of institutions to organize courses anywhere in the state without concern about its impact on other institutions or local monitoring of instructional quality. It is becoming a race among institutions to beat the other to the FTE, which leads to weighted student credit hours (WSCH), which leads to budget impacts. Not surprisingly, in the end it’s all about the money. But, this unregulated competition combined with the erosion of standards for instructor qualifications and curricular standards is turning it into a race to the bottom. The benefits are short-term, but the damage will endure.

The Compensation Gap

Jim New — Mon, 18 Sep 2023 19:41:34 GMT

It's no secret that salaries for CEOs in private corporations across American have grown at a nearly obscene rate for the past 50 years, while rank and file income growth has all but stalled. A 2022 study by the Economic Policy Institute revealed that CEOs are paid 399 times as much as a typical worker as of 2021. In other words, for every dollar the average worker earns, the boss at the top of the organization's food chain is making nearly $400. That is a massive increase from the 1965 ratio of 20-to-1, or even the 1989 ratio of 59-to-1. The AFL-CIO's annual Executive Paywatch report indicated that this discrepancy is 272-to-1 in S&P 500 companies in 2022. Regardless of which methodology or reporting agency you turn to, the message is clear. The executive class grows ever wealthier while the rank-and-file fall further behind. The disparity has grown so much, it is now a leading cause for labor actions in the country. It appears the same dynamic may be playing out in higher education, and there is anecdotal evidence it is happening in NSHE, albeit on a smaller scale.

This caught my attention at the August 29 meeting of the Board of Regents when Regent Carol DelCarlo questioned the jump in salary for the new Interim Chancellor Patty Charlton compared to the salary of her predecessor, Dale Erquiaga. According to DeCarlo's comments, Erquiaga served as acting chancellor with an annual salary of about $300,000. Less than two months after Erquiaga's departure, Charlton's appointment comes with a salary of $378,198 per year, or an increase of 26%.

NSHE Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief of Staff Crystal Abba explained to the Regents that between the time Erquiaga was hired and the time Charlton was appointed, NSHE paid a consultant to conduct a salary schedule study in compliance with Title 2, Chapter 5, Section 5.5 of the Board of Regents Handbook. The study recommended substantial modifications to several salary schedules, mostly at the executive and administrative ranks. One of those recommendations, which were implemented in July 2022, resulted in the starting salary in Grade 1 of the NSHE Executive Salary schedule to be adjusted upward by 21%. For community college presidents and vice chancellors who are placed on Grade 2 of the same schedule, the starting salary increased by an unprecedented 59%.

A quick check of the changes in NSHE salary schedules over the past decade reveals progress has been inconsistent, to be charitable. We compared schedules from the P&GM as it was published in July 2013 with the July 2023 edition. The table below summarizes the scope of changes for various NSHE professional job classifications.

It's important to keep in mind that the only individuals affected by a change to their salary schedule are those whose current salary falls below the new minimum of the adjusted schedule. These changes primarily affect new employees, which means any new faculty hired at a community college are placed in the exact same starting salary as they were 10 years ago.

And, while it's not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison with our examples from the private sector above, the compensation gap at NSHE, based on the starting point in each salary schedule, is also growing. In 2013, the lowest a Chancellor or University President could be paid was $312,546, which is just over 8 times more than the starting point on the community college salary schedule at $37,353. The new minimum salary at the top of this food chain has grown to $378,198, or more than 10 times greater than the stagnant community college starting point. In essence the gap grows wider. In fairness, a faculty salary is based on 10 months, so adjusting the salary to an annual amount still leaves a gap of 8.5 times in 2023.

Realistically, we have very few faculty members, if any, starting at the bare minimum. That wasn't a living wage in 2013, let alone now. But we do have some that do not earn substantially more than that. It's equally unlikely, however, that our next permanent chancellor or any new president will be paid at the bottom of the scale.

Like Regent DelCarlo, the dramatic increase in the Chancellor's lowest-possible salary took us by surprise, too. It stands to reason that massive and inconsistent adjustments to salary schedules like these would have drawn significant attention when it was presented at a Board of Regents meeting, but no one could recall that happening. It turns out that these modifications were never discussed in the public forum of the BOR meetings. Salary schedules for NSHE employees are published in the NSHE Procedures and Guidelines Manual (P&GM). Unlike the Board of Regents Handbook, which requires all revisions to be approved in a BOR meeting, changes to the P&GM only require a memorandum from the chancellor's cabinet to the Board. Student fees are the one exception, requiring a Board vote for any changes.

The Board will soon discuss changes to a policy in the Handbook, governing the development and review of salary schedules. Fortunately, the policy was not passed at the September 8 meeting of the Board due to a technical snag. It is likely going to come up for a vote again in October. The full policy, itself, creates interesting obligations for NSHE, and we are not sure they have lived up to all of them (more on that in another post). We must encourage the Regents to adopt this proposal with the option that requires all changes to salary schedules to be discussed and voted on in the public forum of Board of Regents meetings. Without such transparency, would it be surprising to learn ten years from now that the gap has grown even wider while no one was looking?

Salary schedule adjustments bypass Community Colleges

Jim New — Mon, 11 Sep 2023 17:18:50 GMT

From CSN-NFA Chapter President, Ted Chodock:

On September 8, the Board of Regents discussed a proposal on the Development and Review of Salary Schedules. As a recommended action, the associated briefing paper includes to “recognize any state-approved COLA as part of the factors considered in the annual salary schedule updates” continuing with “Prior to 2018, annual updates to the salary schedules…aligned with the state approved COLA percentage.” This is incorrect. As Interim Chancellor Charlton, who was CSN’s Senior VP of Finance at the time, can confirm, the community college faculty salary bands structure was established in 2013. It has not been revised. In the five years prior to 2018, there were COLA increases in fiscal years 2016, 17, and 18. None of those increases have been aligned with the salary schedule. In fact, the entirecompounded deficiency, from 2013 to the present, is over 31%.

The Board of Regents has a recent history of adjusting salary schedules when deemed necessary. The CBIZ recommended Salary Schedule updates that went into effect on July 1, 2022, for example, increased the minimum salary for community college administrators at the Dean and equivalent level by 28%, for Associate Vice Chancellors by 56%, for Vice Chancellors by 59%, and for the Chancellor by 21%. Certainly, with the minimum community college academic faculty salary now less than 10% of the minimum Chancellor salary, this is the time to act. We can’t recruit quality faculty when Clark County School District bus drivers start at a higher salary.

Board of Regents set to approve long-term disability benefits for faculty

Jim New — Sun, 10 Sep 2023 02:05:54 GMT

UPDATE: September 8. The Nevada Board of Regents approved the proposal by NSHE administrators to reinstate long-term disability insurance benefits for all professional employees. The new policies will take effect in January 2024.

Nevada Regents, at their next regular meeting on September 8, will consider approving a proposal from NSHE administration that would establish a new long-term disability plan for faculty.

Restoration of the disability benefit has been an NFA priority since the state-sponsored plan was discontinued by PEBP during the pandemic-related budget crisis. Over 7,000 NSHE professionals who are not covered by Social Security Disability and are not eligible for PERS early disability retirement were left in the cold. We are grateful to NSHE and the Board of Regents for responding to this critical need.

We encourage NFA members to attend the meeting, if possible, and make public comment to acknowledge this effort on our behalf. The Public Comment period is scheduled to start within 45 minutes after the Board meeting starts at 8:30 AM on Friday, September 8. You may also submit written comments prior to the meeting through the NSHE website.

While we frequently call upon members to speak out against administrative and Board proposals, it is equally important that we publicly acknowledge when NSHE and the Board of Regents are responsive to our needs. We hope you will take this opportunity to encourage the Board to approve the proposal and thank NSHE.

Action from NFA members needed now for FY25 COLA

Jim New — Mon, 04 Sep 2023 02:26:05 GMT

The next regular meeting of the Nevada Board of Regents will be held on September 7 and 8 at the TMCC Dandini campus. The main Board agenda, as well as the committee agendas, include multiple items that are of direct interest to higher education professionals across the state.

Noticeably missing from the agenda, however, is any discussion of the FY25 COLA. As you may recall, Governor Lombardo originally proposed to the 2023 Nevada Legislature cost-of-living adjustments of 8% and 4% for the biennium. Once the proposal emerged from the legislative sausage grinder, however, two separate bills were approved resulting in COLA of 12% in FY24 and 11% in FY25 for state employees, except NSHE professionals whose adjustments were qualified with the phrase “not to exceed,” as in not to exceed 12% and not to exceed 11%.

In June, hundreds of NSHE faculty heeded NFA’s call to encourage the Board of Regents to approve 12% COLA for FY24 despite behind-closed-door advocacy by institutional administrators for adjustments between 8% and 10%. Even though it was summer break, these efforts led to dozens of emails to regents and more than 60 faculty speaking out during the Public Comment portion of the June 30 special meeting of the Board. Regents heard our message that faculty share equally with other state employees when salaries and benefits are cut and we should share equally when salaries and benefits improve. They acknowledged our concerns about falling further behind while costs accelerated, and they understood the difficulty of recruiting and retaining qualified faculty for an effective system of higher education. The Board approved 12% COLA for FY24 but delayed the decision for FY25 until a future date.

Upon returning to campus for fall semester, faculty at the universities were told to prepare for operating budget cuts of $20 million at UNR and $50 million at UNLV. In some quarters, administrators blamed COLA. It appears that a whisper campaign is also underway claiming that an 11% adjustment for FY25 is impossible and promoting a smaller amount, such as the Governor’s original proposal of 4%.

Given the dearth of substantial salary adjustments for the prior two decades, the Governor’s original recommendations of 8% and 4% appeared generous when he first proposed them. Now some administrators seem to believe we should be satisfied, if not grateful, for 4% in FY25 after receiving the largest single-year increase in NSHE history this year. After all, there has never been a biennium in recent history where faculty have received combined cost-of-living adjustments of 16%. It is, undeniably, a step forward. But even after a combined 16% adjustment for the biennium, since FY07, before the financial crisis, NSHE COLAs have lagged inflation by nearly 15%.

Nevertheless, the arguments remain the same. We share in the pain equally with other state employees. We should share in the largess equally, as well. Furthermore, NSHE must compete for faculty on the national level and it is critical that compensation remain competitive. The cost of living in Nevada’s urban cores has increased dramatically in the last decade and inadequate salary adjustments mean we fall further behind.

We understand the budgetary challenges the administrators face at each institution. But the Nevada Legislature clearly established that they expect NSHE institutions to share in these costs through student fee revenue from now on. Significant changes in NSHE budget and spending practices are unavoidable. Accepting a substantially reduced COLA rate this year, allows administrators to just kick that can down the road instead of facing that reality now.

We encourage all NFA members to carry this message to the Board of Regents at each of their meetings until the issue is resolved. We cannot wait for a future meeting when the FY25 COLA is agendized for action. We need to make sure they hear us at every meeting while they are considering how to deal with the issue. If you can, please try to appear at the quarterly BOR meeting and make a public comment, which is scheduled to start within 45 minutes after the meeting starts at 8:30 AM on Friday, September 8. You may also submit written comments prior to the meeting through the NSHE website. Although the meeting will be held at TMCC in Reno, video conference connections will be available at the System Office in Las Vegas and at Great Basin College in Elko. We can make a difference when we all show up with a compelling message.

In Solidarity,

Jim New
NFA President 2023-25

AAUP joins NFA for Amici Curiae brief in Wieland case

Jim New — Fri, 01 Sep 2023 21:33:21 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is the statewide guardian of faculty rights, academic freedom, and shared governance. In ongoing efforts to promote a more positive working environment within the Nevada System of Higher Education, NFA frequently and vigorously defends against abuses of power, the erosion of faculty protections, and denial of due process.

In that spirit, for the first time since the organization was founded in 1983, NFA submitted an Amici Curiae, or “friend of the court” brief to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the pending case of Alice Wieland v. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education. Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in cases with special importance by parties outside the litigation, but who have an “interest” in the outcome of the case. Due to the serious issues involved, the American Association of University Professors has also joined NFA for this potentially precedent-setting case.

Dr. Alice Wieland was a former NFA member and assistant professor of management at the University of Nevada, Reno College of Business. During her seven years at UNR, Dr. Wieland received an impressive array of awards. As a female business researcher and scholar on the tenure track, her research agenda focused on how gender impacts women. The research and its findings, however, caused Dr. Wieland to experience hostility and unfair treatment from faculty and administrators in the College of Business. The culmination of this mistreatment was denial of her tenure and promotion to associate professor, ultimately resulting in dismissal.

Ironically, the denial was based in large part on anonymous comments in her student evaluations that were selectively chosen to hurt her tenure application. Numerous studies have proven that student evaluations are an inaccurate and discriminatory measure of teaching effectiveness, and most demonstrate there is considerable gender bias against female instructors in student comments. The denial of tenure and promotion was described by another professor in a sworn declaration submitted to the U.S. District Court in Nevada as, “…one of the worst cases of bias, vindictiveness, and procedural dysfunction” that he had witnessed in his more than 30 years of service to the university. Unfortunately, the District Court in Nevada ignored this compelling evidence and accepted NSHE’s deficient arguments, granting summary judgment for NSHE and unfairly ending the case, requiring the current appeal.

Given the importance of these issues, NFA and AAUP filed the Amici Curiae brief to explain to the Court our concerns about gender bias in faculty evaluations, appropriate procedures for handling claims of discrimination in an institution of higher education, our viewpoint on how the tenure process should function, and the importance of processes being transparent and fair. The brief addresses procedural and general concerns about academic freedom, shared governance, and due process rather than the details and facts of the case that might still be in dispute.

We hope you will take the time to read the Amici Curiae brief and that you will share this document with everyone you think would be interested in these crucial issues.

The issues involved in Dr. Wieland’s case, as well as other ongoing concerns with NSHE clearly demonstrate the need for bargaining rights for faculty like those in the Collective Bargaining for NSHE Professionals bill (AB224) that was passed by the legislature, but vetoed by Governor Lombardo. It remains critical that bargaining rights be codified in Nevada Revised Statutes to ensure a more healthy and fair work environment. NFA continues to work toward that goal.

Most importantly, if you are a victim of discrimination or witness corruption inside your institution, you need to report such misconduct immediately and document everything. Due to its unique status as a self-governing entity in the Nevada Constitution, oversight of NSHE practices differs from other state agencies, which in the experience of NFA, makes it difficult for individuals to speak out. NFA provides legal defense support to members, so do not hesitate to contact an NFA officer for help.

Shared Governance Ignored In Interim Chancellor Selection

Jim New — Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:52:11 GMT

UPDATE, 8/28/23: Ms. Charlton's Curriculum Vitae has been posted for review.

==============================

UPDATE, 8/24/23: The agenda for the Board of Regents special meeting was posted today. It includes a proposal to appoint the current Officer In Charge, Patty Charlton, as the interim Chancellor. In lieu of a resume or curriculum vitae for Ms. Charlton, the agenda item included pages from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Board of Regents Handbook which describe the various processes for selecting a chancellor, including an interim. The following language pertains:

Prior to making the recommendation of an acting or interim Chancellor, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board shall first meet with major constituencies of the NSHE, including presidents and faculty senate chairs, to receive their suggestions and input for the appointment of an acting or interim Chancellor. Additional constituencies may include, but are not limited to provosts, vice presidents, faculty and other institution staff, vice chancellors and other system staff, student leadership . . .

As mentioned in the earlier post, the Chair and Vice Chair did seek input from some of these constituencies, but it appears to have been limited to the characteristics each group was looking for in the ideal chancellor. It does not appear that the qualifications of candidates under consideration were discussed with these constituencies, at least not with faculty leaders. Even Ms. Charlton's qualifications have not been revealed.

While Ms. Charlton has a record consisting of many years of strong leadership at CSN, this selection process has been conducted almost totally in the dark with only cursory input from constituent groups. It totally ignored the principles of shared governance and robs the position of legitimacy. It just makes the job of righting a listing organization that much more difficult.

==============================

ORIGINAL POST: By all accounts, the Board of Regents appears poised to choose an interim chancellor for the Nevada System of Higher Education at a special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 29, 2023. While the need for a leader at the helm of NSHE has grown critical, the process for selecting one has grown murky.

In a letter to members of the Board of Regents, NFA State Board members expressed concern that transparency and communication are non-existent in the selection process, violating the tenets of shared governance. While the procedures for conducting a national search for any NSHE executive is clearly defined and understood, no such guidelines exist for selecting an executive in an interim capacity. BOR policy allows an individual in an interim position to subsequently be appointed to the permanent position without any further search or vetting beyond their on-the-job performance. Because of this, it is crucial that the selection of an individual for the interim position be equally rigorous and transparent as a traditional national search. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance.

In conversations with our Faculty Senate colleagues, we have learned that members of Board leadership have met with the Faculty Senate chairs as a group, but only to solicit input about what the chairs consider to be desirable characteristics for the interim Chancellor. Apparently, similar meetings have occurred with other constituency groups, such as student government representatives. While this input is essential, it will not meet the standards of shared governance if it is the limit of their involvement in the final selection.

Our concerns are heightened by the persistent rumors that are emerging across the system in the absence of real communication. According to these rumors, there is a short list of individuals already under consideration, and the names that are mentioned are remarkably consistent from one institution's grapevine to the next.

NFA officers have requested full disclosure by the Board of Regents of the finalists for this position as well as a description of the process and criteria used for the selection. We also requested that this information be made publicly available at least two weeks prior to the Board of Regents taking a vote to appoint the interim chancellor. Lack of disclosure will not only lead rank and file employees to assume the appointment is a back-room deal, but it also robs the appointee of the legitimacy that is necessary to restore stability in the Nevada System of Higher Education.

All NSHE faculty members should be alarmed by this disregard of the principles of shared governance, and we urge them to express their concern with Regents and other higher education stakeholders.

August Update – from the Chair of the Government Affairs Committee – Doug Unger (UNLV)

Doug Unger — Fri, 04 Aug 2023 19:57:11 GMT

Happy August! These are the bittersweet days, when we’re doing our best to squeeze the remaining rest and recuperation from the closing chapters of our summer breaks. I hope we’ve all looked at the first pay slip of the new academic year and are happy with the results that the NFA with our labor coalition partners advocated and lobbied for months to the 82^nd Legislature, and then to our Presidents, NSHE, and the Board of Regents to achieve. We succeeded!

Thanks to our members who wrote, phoned, and gave Public Comment. Thanks especially to Past President Kent Ervin, President Jim New, and the NFA State Board for strategies, and to Vice President Shantal Marshal for keeping the June 30^th testimonies organized to tell our stories so eloquently in advocacy for the full 12% COLA pay increase to the Board of Regents. Thank you to all who supported this historic pay raise.

We should remember, too, that even with the 12% COLA and the retention bonuses (for those who earn less than $120k per year), our pay increases are not yet complete. Included in the AB 522 “pay bill” are also “continuity of service” payments. They are mandated to begin with the 8^th year of continuous service to our colleges and universities (or to the NSHE system). There’s a complex ascending scale for this “longevity pay” which should be disbursed two times per year, but should begin with $200 per year starting in the 8^th year of service and increase to more than $2,000 in the 30^th year. The NFA will follow up with NSHE and our institutional administrations about these biannual “continuity of service” payments. We will keep you informed about how and when they will be disbursed.

More importantly, as laid out in the AB 522 “pay bill”, there’s a mandate for a COLA raise “not to exceed” 11% for next fiscal year ’25 for NSHE faculty and professionals (added to and thus compounding the 12% this year). We will need to begin lobbying and advocacy for this raise with our institutional Presidents, NSHE, and the Board of Regents. Outgoing Acting Chancellor Erquiaga exhorted the Regents at their June 30^th meeting that this discussion needs to begin “now.” The NFA’s stance is that faculty and professional employees should be paid salary increases equal to those for all other state employees: 4% + 7% = 11% (as laid out in AB 522). To be most effective and get the happiest results, we will need to do more this academic year to get organized. Please let everyone know that our NFA leaders and members will continue to raise our voices to help make these historic pay raises happen. We should do all we can to recruit more colleagues to join the NFA so as to add to our power.

There’s good news also for our PEBP benefits. The NFA along with the representatives of AFSCME, the RPEN (retirees group) and others pushed for improvements: the $500 increase in our dental benefit (to $2,000 per member); the increases in our HSA/HRA accounts for the self-funded plan and at least slightly better adjustments for the PPO and HMO. Out-of-pocket maximums are significantly lowered (by $1,000 for individuals), and our PEBP basic life insurance benefit is restored to $25,000 per active employee and $12,500 for retirees. We still need to work on cutting the deductible for the HMO (like more standard HMO plans). And we’re still working to restore Long Term Disability insurance (which is only available now as a voluntary policy with additional costs). Still, we’re getting close to seeing PEBP health insurance and benefits at pre-pandemic levels or even better. Your NFA is always working to improve them.

This month, August 13-15, delegates from our Collective Bargaining units at CSN and TMCC plus members of the state Board and I will attend the state convention meeting of the AFL-CIO in Reno. We’re looking forward to coordinating with various state coalitions who support the concerns of Higher Education labor and to building relationships that have proven invaluable to our impact and effectiveness (with AFSCME, the Teamsters, the Culinary Union, and others). We have a lot of work to do, and the NFA Government Affairs Committee is already planning future actions: advocacy for the full 11% COLA increase; tweaks to improvements in benefits and to customer service for PEBP members for fiscal year ‘25; more transparent leadership at NSHE (and please know that, though we haven’t endorsed any potential candidate for Acting Chancellor, we’re watching that leadership transition closely). Plus (of course!) we’ll be working with stakeholders in Higher Education and with our sisters and brothers in the labor coalition to organize and plan for the 2024 elections, which will be crucial for our collective futures.

Thanks again to all who helped to raise our voices to effect meaningful change. The NFA really does and can make a difference. Thanks for being there, in solidarity. Enjoy these last few weeks of summer. Listen to the cicadas singing! Happy August!

Prospects for Collective Bargaining Revisions

Kent Ervin — Fri, 04 Aug 2023 19:18:05 GMT

Prospects for Collective Bargaining Revisions

By Kent Ervin, Past President, NFA

The Nevada Faculty Alliance’s bill to authorize collective bargaining for NSHE professional employees, AB224, was passed by the 2023 legislature on a bipartisan basis—further in the process than in our prior two attempts—but was vetoed by Governor Lombardo along with a record 74 other bills. What are the prospects moving forward?

Because AB224 was vetoed after the end of the 2023 session, it will come back to the legislature in 2025 for a possible override vote. Such votes to reconsider are rare—legislators usually prefer to start fresh with the Governor in a new session. However, the record number of post-session vetoes by the Governor is also unique. An override vote would require two-thirds supermajorities in both houses. Democrats had a 28-14 supermajority in the Assembly in 2023, but with 13-8 were one short in the Senate. There are at least three Senate seats that could flip in the 2024 general election and several Assembly swing seats are in the balance. Even if an override for AB224 is possible by the numbers, it is uncertain how its effective date of July 1, 2023, or the appropriation from the 2023-2025 general fund to support the administration of collective bargaining would be handled.

If an override for AB224/2023 is not in the cards, a new bill could be introduced in the 2025 session. The hearings on AB224 and negotiations with NSHE and other stakeholders resulted in changes that should ease the process, but the bill would likely need to be rewritten if the amendment to remove the Board of Regents from the state constitution is approved by the voters in 2024. An unknown will be the position of the new NSHE interim chancellor and administration. Under Acting Chancellor Erquiaga, NSHE was officially neutral but fought AB224 through unreasonable fiscal notes and evident lobbying with the Governor—despite a majority of the regents being in support of the bill it was never brought for a vote on an official position by the Board of Regents. Prospects for a new collective bargaining bill depend on the makeup of the legislature and on engagement with the Governor.

In Spring 2022, the NFA proposed revisions to the internal NSHE Professional Staff Collective Bargaining Regulations (Title 4, Chapter 4 of the NSHE Handbook) and worked with the Council of Faculty Senate Chairs to get the proposal on the agenda for the Board of Regents. Acting Chancellor Erquiaga put a stop to that before the proposal reached the Board, with the excuse that changes were also being proposed through legislation and would need to be changed again if passed. NSHE policy cannot go as far as statute (for example, providing access to the state Government Employees–Management Relations Board) and Title 4 does not have the force of law, but the current Handbook provisions are obsolete and self-contradictory and need to be updated. Handbook revisions can be proposed either through the Faculty Senates or directly with regents.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance will be engaging will all decision-makers to pursue these options to establish more mainstream standards for collective bargaining for faculty and other professional employees. The NFA Political Action Committee will also be active in promoting candidates who are supportive of collective bargaining.

2023 Legislative Session Report

Kent Ervin — Sun, 02 Jul 2023 00:00:00 GMT

Adjournment sine die of the 82nd Session of the Nevada Legislature was on June 5, followed by two special sessions through June 14. But for NSHE faculty it wasn’t finally resolved until June 30 when the Board of Regents approved the 12% cost-of-living adjustment for NSHE academic and administrative faculty effective July 1.

We thank legislative leadership for the historic compensation package for state employees in AB522, Governor Lombardo for signing the bill, the institutional Presidents and acting Chancellor for recommending the full 12% for faculty (after some pushed for lower percentages), and the Board of Regents for the final approval. But we can also thank our union partners who lobbied alongside us, and our NFA members for actively supporting our advocacy in the legislature, for communicating with their Presidents, and for showing up at the Board of Regents. On June 30 there were over 65 written public comments, an hour of oral comment, and individual regents reported receiving over 100 emails from NFA members and other faculty. Collective action bears fruit!

Kent Ervin's detailed report on the legislative session including a summary and all bills and budget items is available for your information. Our big disappointment was of course the Governor's veto of AB224, collective bargaining for NSHE professional employees—but on this third try it went further than ever before with bipartisan passage by the legislature. The full post-mortem on AB224 is included in the report. Rest assured that NFA will be working on collective bargaining again in the legislature, as well as on ensuring we get our full 11% COLAs on July 1, 2025, with your support.

Historic Compensation and Benefits Enhancements Proposed

Kent Ervin — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 16:04:41 GMT

NFA Member Update on Proposed Compensation and Benefits for NSHE Faculty and Professional Staff

The NFA has persistently advocated for competitive compensation and benefits for NSHE professionals and all state employees during this and past legislative sessions. With very strong revenues in the state budget currently and forecast, and facing an unprecedented state employee retention and hiring crisis, the Governor’s executive budget made a good start with cost-of-living adjustments and retention bonuses. Now the leadership of the Assembly and Senate has doubled up with a historic package of enhancements to mitigate the retention and hiring crisis throughout the state. The Nevada Faculty Alliance is grateful for these proposed and historic improvements, which still require approval of the Legislature and Governor. Details below.

The NFA greatly appreciates the historic proposed compensation and benefits for state employees including NSHE professionals.
Increasing compensation and benefits to more competitive levels is essential for attracting and retaining high-quality faculty and professional staff for NSHE, and to mitigate the high vacancy rates of Classified staff across state government including NSHE.
We strongly urge the Legislature and Governor to fully fund the COLAs and other compensation and benefits enhancements for NSHE professionals. Bridge funding for non-state-funded programs should be provided to cover the compensation increases until other funding sources can be secured.

Proposed compensation and benefits for NSHE administrative and academic faculty (our preliminary understanding is based on the work session discussion on March 30 and is subject to change; changes for Classified staff depend on collective bargaining unit agreements and are not detailed here):

1. Cost-of-living adjustments(additions to base salaries)

2% on April 1, 2023 (SB440)
Additional 10% on July 1, 2023
Additional 4% on July 1, 2024

The resulting cumulative COLA for the biennium is 16.7%.

2. One-time retention bonuses (for full-time NSHE faculty up to a maximum salary, probably $100K to $120K)

$500 for employees as of 3/31/2023 (AB268, signed by Governor)
$500 for employees as of 6/15/2023 (AB268)
$250 per quarter for FY2024 and FY2025 ($1000 per year

3. Longevity Payments (new for NSHE professional employees)

Starting at 8 years of service, $150/year
Additional $50/year for 9 to 14 years of service
Additional $100/year for 15 to 25 years of service
Additional $150/year for 26 to 30 years of service

Maximum is $2350/year for 30 or more years of service

4. PEBP Benefits for FY2024

Same plan design and employee premiums as FY2023
Additional $300 into an HSA or HRA account on 7/1/2023 for all employees on PEPB, from excess reserves accumulated in FY2022.
Additional amounts into HSA or HRA accounts on 7/1/2023 and 7/1/2024 based on dependent tiers: $300 for employee only, $400 for employee plus spouse, $400 for employee plus children, $500 for employee plus family. These amounts would be funded from the state general fund.
By PEBP Board action, the dental annual maximum is being increased from $1500 to $2000.
Long-term disability insurance apparently would not be restored. NFA continues to advocate for the essential safety net of LTD Insurance for state employees, who are not eligible for Social Security Disability.

5. Retirement Contributions

For faculty on the NSHE Retirement Plan Alternative, an increase of the mandatory employee contribution from 15.5% to 17.5% starting on 7/1/2023 (offsetting the 10% COLA on 7/1/2023 for take-home pay by minus 2%) and an increase in the employer contribution into the RPA 401a retirement account from 15.5% to 17.5%.
For faculty in PERS in the Employee/Employer Pay Plan, the employee contribution will be reduced from 15.5% in FY2023 to about 10.0% on 7/1/2023 (increasing take-home pay by an additional 5.5% with no change to PERS retirement benefits). The employer contribution from the State to PERS will increase from 15.5% in FY2023 to about 25.0% on 7/1/2023. (updated 4/15/2023)

Funding and the NSHE budget

The funding of the compensation and benefits package for NSHE is not entirely clear from the public discussion at the work session on 3/30/2023 because the NSHE funding was not broken out. Generally, the Legislature proposes to fund this package for the state General Fund portion of the NSHE budgets (i.e., with the expectation that student fees and tuition for instructional budgets and other fees for self-funded programs should cover the rest). The difficulty for the various institutions to fund the compensation increases for non-state-funded personnel and programs varies, especially for the increases that go into effect immediately near the end of FY 2023 and at the beginning of FY 2024. We urge the Legislature to consider bridge funding for non-state-funded programs with one-time funds.

NFA Statement on SJR7* (removing the Board of Regents from the constitution)

Kent Ervin — Sun, 19 Mar 2023 18:43:22 GMT

Statement of the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance on SJR7*

To the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections

For the SJR7* Hearing on March 21, 2023

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) is affiliated with the American Association of University Professors, the premier national organization advocating for academic freedom, shared governance, and faculty rights in higher education.

The NFA is neutral on SJR7*, the constitutional amendment to remove the Board of Regents and its election from the Nevada Constitution. We have members on both sides, although recent history has swayed more of our members toward support.

We would like to provide some background information.

The NFA is very concerned about academic freedom and the potential for political and partisan interference in curriculum and academic standards. In the past two years especially, academic freedom has been under unprecedented attack by state legislatures and governors around the country.

Question 1, narrowly defeated in 2020, had a clause regarding academic freedom, but as written it would actually have endangered academic freedom. SJR7* is silent on academic freedom. In the 2021 legislative session, we offered an amendment to protect academic freedom, but it gained no traction. The constitutional independence of a governing board provides some protection for academic freedom; however, today we see both elected and appointed boards becoming politicized and they do not necessarily protect the principles we value.

We all have a vital interest in having a fully functioning Board of Regents serving students and Nevada. The Nevada System of Higher Education more often asserts its constitutional authority over personnel issues and its own power structure than in defense of academic freedom or educational policy. Our hope is that we can protect our principles in the future through collective bargaining agreements and contract law.

We are neutral but we reserve the right to change to support as we hear more from our members. We remain willing to work with you to add true protection of academic freedom to the constitution.

Thank you.

###

Contact: Kent Ervin, NFA State President, kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org, 775-453-6837

AB224 hearing a great success

Kent Ervin — Thu, 09 Mar 2023 22:06:31 GMT

Today was a great hearing for AB224, our bill to secure collective bargaining rights for NSHE professionals! Thanks so much to our members who testified or submitted written comments, to the AAUP and AFT for providing great expert testimony, and to our many labor partners including the Nevada AFL-CIO who lined up in support!

AAUP statement in support

AFT legal analysis of the bill

NFA fact sheet

The support was overwhelming and the bill was very well received. Just one hiccup--more than six months after we provided NSHE with the bill language and after multiple outreach attempts to them with no response, late yesterday NSHE submitted a claim that the bill is unconstitutional. That position was, however, eviscerated at the hearing by Kevin Powers, a senior attorney for the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Listen to the hearing here. Hearing starts at 9:52:30, Kevin Powers at 10:08:58.

We now expect the bill to move forward through the legislative process.

NFA Faculty Survey Results

Kent Ervin — Fri, 24 Feb 2023 20:58:16 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance conducted confidential surveys of academic and non-managerial administrative faculty at the seven NSHE colleges and universities between November 2022 and February 2023.

The detailed aggregate and institutional results are linked below:

Summary Results - All Institutions and Comparisons
College of Southern Nevada
Great Basin College
Nevada State College
Truckee Meadows Community College
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
University of Nevada, Reno
Western Nevada College

Key highlights from the surveys include the following:

Faculty are most concerned about low salaries, with 64% of respondents reporting moderate or strong dissatisfaction with their overall compensation and 71% feeling that their compensation compares unfavorably with others in their field at their stage of career.

About half of the respondents expressed dissatisfaction with health care benefits. After improving compensation and lowering PEBP premiums, their highest priority is the restoration of PEBP benefits including Long-Term Disability Insurance.

A strong majority of respondents (79%) are satisfied with retirement benefits, the one bright spot in overall compensation.

Faculty respondents generally report being comfortable with the climate within their own departments or programs (72% overall), suggesting good working relationships with close colleagues. However, there is variability across the seven institutions in how comfortable faculty are with their overall campus climate--67% overall are moderately or strongly comfortable with their campus climate but at two institutions about half of the faculty members report being moderately or strongly uncomfortable.

Faculty members who report they are more comfortable with the campus climate tend to be at institutions whose administrators are perceived to embrace the principles of shared governance and protect academic freedom. Conversely, institutions rated low in campus climates are correlated with dissatisfaction in those areas.

Over half of the faculty respondents have seriously considered leaving their institution in the past two years, with low salaries being the most common reason followed by limited advancement opportunities. Contributing reasons include a lack of a sense of belonging, the high cost of living and housing, and a lack of institutional support. Faculty at institutions that rate low on campus climate overall list the climate and tensions with administrators among reasons to consider leaving.

Finally, at the four institutions without faculty collective bargaining units (GBC, NSC, UNLV & UNR), a supermajority of 83% of respondents moderately or strongly support formation of a bargaining unit to negotiate for improved compensation, benefits, and working conditions.

The survey responses will inform our advocacy efforts at the legislature for higher COLAs, for full restoration of benefits, and for our bill to secure collective bargaining rights in state law.

Our short faculty survey is strongly indicative of differences in campus climate among the seven institutions, but does not eliminate the need for comprehensive campus climate studies and 360° evaluations of administrators, which should be conducted by external consultants as part of the periodic presidential reviews by the Regents. Such studies could delve into the specific groups of faculty who feel the campus climate is unwelcoming or uncomfortable and why.

We would like to thank everyone who responded to the survey and provided written comments. Your input is incredibly valuable to us, and we have read and considered all of the comments. As always, we remain committed to working in solidarity with members of our faculty alliance to ensure that our voices are heard and our needs are met.

AB224 Collective Bargaining for NSHE Professionals

Kent Ervin — Thu, 23 Feb 2023 16:35:35 GMT

Assembly Bill 224 will secure collective bargaining rights for NSHE professional employees in state law. AB 224 was introduced on February 23 with a bipartisan group of thirty cosponsors!

AB224 Collective Bargaining Bill Summary

AB224 on NELIS (Legislative Bill Tracking Site)

To help support AB224 and other NFA legislative priorities, please sign up for the NFA Legislative Action Team.

NSHE Budget Hearing--NFA Testimony

Kent Ervin — Tue, 21 Feb 2023 19:00:00 GMT

Public Comment, Joint Senate Finance and Assembly Ways & Means Committees, 2/21/2023

by Kent Ervin, State President, Nevada Faculty Alliance

Re: Nevada System of Higher Education Budget

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is the independent statewide association of professional employees at NSHE. Along with our national partners, the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers, we work to advance higher education for the common good.

Higher education fosters a responsible citizenry, promotes upward social and economic mobility, and trains the workforce for Nevada’s economic advancement. Our public colleges and universities are the talent pathway for workforce development. That includes not only career and technical training for trades, but also the professional workforce education for Nevada’s future—teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers, scientists, accountants, managers, policy-makers, journalists, writers, and so forth.

There has been a long-term trend, both nationally and in Nevada, of lower state support for public higher education and higher student fees and tuition. Between FY2007 and FY2022 in Nevada, state-appropriated funding per student FTE (full-time-equivalent) declined by 34% after inflation (including the federal ARPA funds used to restore positions in FY2022 ). During the same period, resident student fees per student FTE increased 65% above inflation. (Please see the chart of state and student revenues per student FTE on page 2.) The contribution to the total cost from the state per student has declined from about two-thirds to one-half.

The Governor’s recommended budget brings NSHE’s state-appropriated base budget back to FY2019 levels, which bakes in those long-term declines. It restores the 12% cuts to operating budgets in the current biennium. The additional funding for graduate teaching assistantships is important—their current stipends are below subsistence levels. We also appreciate the one-time funding to cover pandemic-related enrollment declines at CSN, GBC, and TMCC. However, we have to point out that the operating budget does not address the high inflation over the past two years, so we will still be stretching to do more with less.

We are encouraged that the Governor has proposed a study of the funding formula. With a $5M price tag, the study should not only study the costs of providing courses, but also the support that today’s students need and the resources required to provide higher education for the common good and Nevada’s economic future.

Thank you.

On an inflation-adjusted basis, state-appropriated funding per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student fell by 34% from FY2007 to FY2022, while resident registration fees rose 65% above inflation. Revenues per student FTE from non-resident tuition and self-supported program fees were about flat over the same period after inflation.

###

Contact: Kent Ervin, NFA State President, kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org, 775-453-6837

PEBP Benefits Restoration

Kent Ervin — Fri, 17 Feb 2023 18:30:46 GMT

Public Comment, Joint Senate Finance and Assembly Ways & Means Committees, 2/17/2023

by Kent Ervin, State President, Nevada Faculty Alliance

Re: Public Employees’ Benefits Program Budget

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is the independent statewide association of professional employees at Nevada’s public colleges and universities. We work to empower our members to be fully engaged in our mission to help students succeed.

To be fully engaged, state employees need robust health care benefits to keep healthy and productive The Public Employees’ Benefits Program is essential for recruiting and retaining state employees. While uncompetitive salaries are the most pressing concern of our members, benefits are next.

PEBP benefits were drastically cut after the Great Recession. We slowly clawed some of them back just to have benefits cut again during the pandemic. Now that the state’s economy and revenues are roaring back, the benefits should be fully restored to pre-pandemic FY2020 levels:

Restore Long-Term Disability Insurance, which was completely eliminated.
Restore basic Life Insurance, which was cut by 40%.
Restore pre-pandemic deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket maximums.
Restore pre-pandemic employee premiums, which were raised by 50%.

We also support raising the Medicare retiree contributions to Health Reimbursement Accounts to cover Medigap insurance inflation, as proposed by AFSCME Retirees and RPEN.

Longer term, state funding of the employee health insurance plan has not kept up. As shown in the chart on the next page, the total rate for the basic high-deductible plan for state employees (single-employee tier) has increased only 8% over the dozen years from FY2011 to FY2023, while average per-capita health care costs have risen 69%. Only about 66% of the average cost of health care for an individual is now covered by the PEBP premium. Although PEPB has instituted some cost-saving efficiencies, largely the additional burden is falling as higher out-of-pocket medical and prescription expenses on the employees who are most vulnerable—employees who have chronic conditions and need treatment to remain productive on the job, employees who suffer a major health crisis in a year, and employees who become total disabled because of an injury or diagnoses but now have no income safety net after the elimination of Long-Term Disability Insurance.

Thank you.

Before 2014, the PEBP plan premium matched the average per capita cost of health care, but now it only covers about 66%. State employees are paying higher out-of-pocket medical and prescription costs.

Source: PEBP annual rate tables, CMS National Health Expenditures Tables, AON 2023 Global Medical Trends Report.

###

Contact: Kent Ervin, NFA State President, kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org, 775-453-6837

NFA Public Comment on the State Retirement System

Kent Ervin — Mon, 13 Feb 2023 21:00:44 GMT

Public Comment, Joint Senate Finance and Assembly Ways & Means Committees, 2/13/2023

by Kent Ervin, NFA State President

All of our classified colleagues at NSHE and about 15% of faculty are members of PERS. Faculty on NSHE’s retirement plan alternative receive the same contribution amounts as PERS per statute. The retirement plan is essential for recruiting and retaining state employees.

Nevada PERS has one of the strongest investment programs in the country. Using a disciplined approach with low-cost investments and a lean investment staff, PERS has exceeded its investment goals and market benchmarks over the long term.

Nevada PERS’s unfunded liability percentage is about in the middle among the 50 states. In 2021, PERS’s actuaries took a deep dive into the assumptions and changed them to be more fiscally conservative. That was the responsible thing to do but it is the primary reason that the PERS contribution rate is going up next year. This will put PERS on a firmer footing over the next decades. But like getting a shorter-term mortgage and increasing monthly payments, it increases the pain now to pay off the debt faster. Fortunately, this increase is happening at a time when the state budget can absorb the increase.

With uncompetitive salaries and cuts to health care benefits, the retirement program is the one positive left for state employees, but the retirement contributions have become a further drag on state employee salaries. The State should cover more of the PERS contribution for its employees, as do many of the local governmental employers. Thank you, Chair Monroe-Moreno, for asking for options.

Finally, we support PERS’s budget enhancement requests to keep the retirement system functioning well.

Governor's Budget for NSHE Professionals

Kent Ervin — Sat, 11 Feb 2023 20:54:04 GMT

Summary of the Governor’s Recommended Budget for FY2024-FY2025

for NSHE Professional Employees

Nevada Faculty Alliance, 2/11/2023

The Governor’s budget is the starting point for legislative action. The Nevada Faculty Alliance is advocating for improvements in compensation and benefits for NSHE professionals and all state employees.

COMPENSATION

Cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) of 8% on 7/1/2023 and 4% on 7/1/2024.
“Retention bonuses” of $500 per quarter, 1/1/2023 through 6/30/2025.
NSHE CFO Andrew Clinger confirmed that the COLAs and the retention bonuses include NSHE classified and professional employees (Board of Regents, 2/3/2023, audio at 1:04:01).
Increased retirement plan contributions of 2% for the employee and 2% for the employer on 7/1/2023, offsetting the first-year COLA. For PERS members, pay is reduced by 2% with no change in retirement benefits. For employees on the NSHE retirement plan alternative, take-home pay is reduced by 2% but contributions into the 401a account are increased by 4% of salary.

BENEFITS

The Public Employee Benefits Program will largely have the same plan design as for FY2023, which represents a partial restoration of the drastic cuts to PEBP benefits during the pandemic. Major differences for the next biennium versus the pre-pandemic FY2020 plan include:

Elimination of Long-Term Disability Insurance (leaving no safety net for faculty who have no Social Security Disability and no PERS early disability retirement).
Reduction of the HSA contribution for the employee from $700 to $600 and elimination of the $200 per dependent HSA contribution (high-deductible plan).
Reduction of basic life insurance by 40% from $25000 to $15000 for active employees.
Increased co-pays, a new $100 deductible, and 20% co-insurance for some services for the HMO/EPO plans.
An increase of the annual dental maximum from $1500 to $2000.
Addition of a cancer concierge service (expected to produce cost savings).

The low-deductible plan added in FY2023 will be continued. Employee premium contributions are unknown until the March PEBP rate-setting meeting but are not expected to rise dramatically.

NSHE BUDGET

Restores the 12% operating budget cuts from the last session due to the pandemic ($74M).
Negative enrollment caseload reductions of $16M are offset by $14.2M in one-time funds to CSN, GBC, and TMCC for enrollment recovery and to UNR for Sierra Nevada University enrollment
$9.2M enhancement to UNLV Medical School for class size increase.
$20M budget enhancement for graduate assistant stipends at UNLV and UNR.
$2M for added WSCH formula state support for summer school courses for teacher education.
No major building capital projects are funded for NSHE. A total of $70M for deferred maintenance and infrastructure.
For the seven formula-funded instructional budgets (CSN, GBC, NSC, TMCC, UNLV, UNR, & WNC), the state-appropriated funding resources will decline from pre-pandemic levels after considering inflation and increased retirement and benefits contributions.
Further details are in the NSHE Budget Overview.

www.nevadafacultyalliance.org

Contact: Kent Ervin, kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org

NFA public comment on Governor's NSHE Budget

Kent Ervin — Tue, 31 Jan 2023 06:11:43 GMT

Public Comment, Legislative Commission Budget Subcommittee, 1/27/2023

By Kent Ervin, State President, Nevada Faculty Alliance

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is the independent statewide association of professional employees at NSHE colleges and universities. This is our 40th anniversary year. Since 1983, we have been working to empower our members to be fully engaged in our mission to help student succeed.

We are encouraged by the Governor’s recommended budget for NSHE. The restoration of the pandemic cuts to operating budgets is essential. The boost to graduate assistant stipends is essential for their progress toward degrees. The other enhancements are important. NFA strongly supports full funding of the Governor’s budget for NSHE, to provide for the workforce pipeline for Nevada including career and technical education but also professional teachers, nurses, engineers, scientists, doctors, dentists, accountants, managers, lawyers, public-health & hospitality workers, policy-makers, future faculty, and so on.

But GovRec does not fix the long-term sustainability of higher education for Nevada’s students. The funding per Weighted Student Credit Hour in the report just presented is 6% lower than in FY2020 after adjusting for inflation. That degradation of WSCH funding puts pressure on NSHE to raise student fees, which no one wants. Therefore, we also support the study of the funding formula to provide for sustainably for higher education as a common good.

State employment is in crisis with unprecedented vacancy rates. At NSHE, we can’t keep faculty and staff. The overall turnover rate is 14%/year. The woefully inadequate compensation for state employees including NSHE faculty and professional staff must be addressed. The 8% + 4% Cost of Living Adjustment in GovRec is a good start. But comparisons with our peers indicate the COLA needs to be more than doubled just to bring salaries up to average. We must support our human capital.

Thank you.

###

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is the statewide independent association of professional employees at the colleges and universities of the Nevada System of Higher Education. The NFA is affiliated with the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers/AFL-CIO. The NFA/AAUP represents faculty collective bargaining units at the College of Southern Nevada, Truckee Meadows Community College, and Western Nevada College, with advocacy chapters at Great Basin College, Nevada State College, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the University of Nevada, Reno. The NFA advocates for higher education as a common good, academic freedom, and empowering our members to be fully engaged in our mission to help students succeed.

Furlough reimbursements

Kent Ervin — Sat, 24 Dec 2022 01:06:00 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance thanks Governor Sisolak and the Interim Finance Committee for approving repayment of faculty and staff furlough salary cuts in Spring 2021, and has sent a letter of thanks to the NSHE System and NSHE Payroll Services at Business Center North for processing the repayments on an accelerated schedule to get the checks out today (Dec. 23), before the winter break. The NFA has advocated for compensation and benefits cuts to be restored using federal American Rescue Plan Act funds for many months, since the federal funds were announced in March-April 2021.

New members of the Board of Regents

Kent Ervin — Sat, 19 Nov 2022 23:50:06 GMT

The NFA congratulations and welcomes the newly elected members of the Board of Regents. We look forward to working with them in our mission to empower faculty members to help students succeed, to advance affordable higher education, to promote academic freedom and shared governance, and to use collective bargaining to help achieve these goals.

RD 6 Heather Brown

RD 7 Susan Brager

RD 8 Shelly Crawford

RD 11 Jeffrey Downs

RD 13 Stephanie Goodman

For members' convenience, we have collected the responses of the winning candidates to our pre-election questionnaire here:

New Regents' Responses to 2022 NFA Candidate Questionnaire

While we don't agree with every position of every new Regents, we know they all support higher education as a common good and we appreciate that they have all engaged with the NFA.

Final election results:

University Board of Regents, District 6

Candidate	Votes
Brown, Heather (NP)	44,477 (62.6% )
Dakduk, Jeanine (NP)	26,569 (37.4% )
Total Votes	71,046

University Board of Regents, District 7

Candidate	Votes
Brager, Susan (NP)	41,710 (58.4% )
Crete, David "Coach" (NP)	29,764 (41.6% )
Total Votes	71,474

University Board of Regents, District 8

Candidate	Votes
Crawford, Michelee "Shelly" (NP)	38,307 (54.1% )
Rice, John Patrick (NP)	32,485 (45.9% )
Total Votes	70,792

University Board of Regents, District 11

Candidate	Votes
Downs, Jeffrey (NP)	34,560 (54.1% )
Laden, Steve (NP)	29,350 (45.9% )
Total Votes	63,910

University Board of Regents, District 13

Candidate	Votes
Goodman, Stephanie (NP)	42,091 (60.6% )
Moran, John (NP)	27,366 (39.4% )
Total Votes	69,457

NFA Endorsements for General Election 2022

Kent Ervin — Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:12:02 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance Political Action and Governmental Relations committees have vetted candidates for office in the 2022 General Election through questionnaires, interviews, and other research. The NFA-PAC endorses candidates who share our values and who support higher education as a common good, college and university affordability, academic freedom, and faculty rights including collective bargaining. Please vote for our endorsed candidates!

2022 NFA Endorsement List (pdf)

For further information about individual candidates, you can view their responses to NFA's candidate questionnaires:

Mail-in ballots are distributed in early to mid-October (depending on county), early voting is October 22 to November 4, and Election Day is November 8.

What's My District? (Address Lookup)

Check or update voter registration

Legislative Candidates Respond to NFA Questions

Kent Ervin — Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:49:00 GMT

UPDATE: 2022 NFA Endorsements

The Nevada Faculty Alliance sent a questionnaire to candidates for Nevada Assembly and Nevada Senate. Their responses to questions about higher education and faculty issues are in the table linked below. We encourage NFA members to consider candidates' positions on higher education when you decide how to vote in the general election.

What's My 2022 District? (address look-up)

Legislative Candidate Response Table (pdf) (updated 9/11/2022)

The table is ordered by Assembly District number, then Senate District number. Blank boxes indicate no response for that question. Missing candidates mean they have not responded to our questionnaire.

Statewide and Congressional Candidates Respond to NFA Questions

Kent Ervin — Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:44:49 GMT

UPDATE: 2022 NFA Endorsements

The Nevada Faculty Alliance sent questionnaires to major-party candidates for statewide and federal offices in Nevada. We asked just a few questions on matters of importance for higher education and faculty. The candidates' responses are below. We encourage NFA members to take candidates' views on higher education issues, and their responsiveness to NFA's questionnaire, into account when making decisions for the General Election.

Governor

Steve Sisolak

Attorney General

Aaron Ford

Sigal Chattah

Secretary of State

Cisco Aguilar

Treasurer

Zach Conine

Controller

Ellen Spiegel

Congress District 1

Dina Titus

Congress District 3

Susie Lee

Look Up Your Congressional District Here

(Any additional responses will be posted when received.)

General Election Candidates for Board of Regents

Kent Ervin — Wed, 10 Aug 2022 21:29:44 GMT

UPDATE: 2022 NFA Endorsements

Heather Brown (RD 6)
Susan Brager (RD 7)
John Patrick Rice (RD 8)
John Moran (RD 13)
(No endorsement in RD 11. Both candidates are qualified, but have different views on topics of importance to faculty. We encourage members to view their questionnaire responses or view the candidate forum video, links below.)

***

The NFA gave each candidate for the Board of Regents in the general election an opportunity to revise or update their responses to our questionnaire for the primary election.

Look up your Regent District here

Questionnaire Responses:

Regent District 6, Heather Brown and Jeanine Dakduk (Henderson and southern Clark County)

Regent District 7, Susan Brager and David “Coach" Crete (western Las Vegas area, Summerlin)

Regent District 8, Michelee "Shelly" Crawford and John Patrick Rice (Elko, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine, and northern Clark counties)

Regent District 11, Jeffrey Downs and Steve Laden (Sparks, northern Reno, northern Washoe, Humboldt, and Pershing counties)

Regent District 13, Stephanie Goodman and John Moran (west Las Vegas, Red Rock Canyon)

Videos of forums with the candidates prior to the primary election are available at: https://www.nevadafacultyalliance.org/NewsArchive/12768874

Board of Regents Candidate Information

Kent Ervin — Thu, 05 May 2022 18:02:04 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance invited all candidates for the Board of Regents to candidate forums to hear from them about their qualifications and positions on issues of importance to faculty, students, and NSHE institutions.

Look up your Regent District here

Videos of the forums and written questionnaire responses are available here:

Regent District 6 Forum Video with Heather Brown and Karl Catarata (Henderson and southern Clark County) RD6 Questionnaire Responses

Regent District 7 Forum Video with Susan Brager, David “Coach" Crete, M.J. Ivy, Hieu Le, Aury Nagy (western Las Vegas area, Summerlin) RD7 Questionnaire Responses

Regent District 8 Forum Video with Jonathan Baltera, Michelee "Shelly" Crawford, Aaron Manfredi, Elmer Porter, John Patrick Rice, and Stacy Smith (Elko, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine, and northern Clark counties) RD8 Questionnaire Responses

Regent District 11 Forum Video with Jeffrey Downs, John Gwaltney,* and Steve Laden (Sparks, northern Reno, northern Washoe, Humboldt, and Pershing counties) RD11 Questionnaire Responses

Regent District 13--no forum (west Las Vegas, Red Rock Canyon). RD13 Questionnaire Responses (updated 5/24)

*Candidate Gwaltney's audio level is very low--raise your speaker volume to listen to his responses.

Candidates for Regents--Responses to NFA Questionnaire

Kent Ervin — Sun, 17 Apr 2022 19:10:51 GMT

There are five seats on the Board of Regents up for election in 2022. The primary election is on June 14 with early voting starting May 28. The primary will narrow the field to two candidates for each race going forward to the general election in November--unless one candidate receives >50% of the vote in primary in which case that candidate is declared elected and there is no general election.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance Political Action Committee (NFA-PAC) sent a questionnaire regarding NSHE and faculty issues to each candidate's email address. Sixteen of the 21 candidates have responded. Candidates' answers to our questions are provided in the documents linked below:

District 6 – southern Clark County

District 7 – western Las Vegas area, Summerlin

District 8 – Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine, and northern Clark

District 11 – North Reno, Sparks, northern Washoe, Humboldt, Pershing
District 13 (updated 5/24)– western Las Vegas area, Red Rock Canyon

The NFA-PAC plans to conduct candidate forums and may choose to endorse candidates for regent. If you have questions you would like to ask at the forums or you have feedback on candidates for the NFA-PAC, please email Kent Ervin at kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Petition for Safe NSHE Campuses

Kent Ervin — Tue, 28 Dec 2021 20:01:08 GMT

Petition for Safe NSHE Campuses

This is an open petition by faculty, staff, students, and family members of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), sponsored by the Nevada Faculty Alliance (www.NevadaFacultyAlliance.org).

PETITION TO Governor Sisolak, NSHE Chancellor Rose, Presidents Helens (GBC), Hilgersom (TMCC), Pollard (NSC), Sandoval (UNR), Whitfield (UNLV), and Zaragoza (CSN), Officer-in-Charge Dalpe (WNC), and members of the Legislative Commission of the 81st Legislature of the State of Nevada, the NSHE Board of Regents, the Nevada State Board of Health, and the NSHE COVID-19 Task Force:

● BECAUSE the shared goals of students, faculty, and staff of NSHE colleges and universities are to teach in person in a safe manner and to avoid another transition to remote instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic;

● BECAUSE in August 2021 the Board of Health issued an emergency regulation to require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 for students registering for Spring 2022 classes; and subsequently the Board of Regents of the state of Nevada approved mandatory vaccinations for all NSHE employees as a condition of continued employment after December 31, 2021;

● BECAUSE on December 21, 2021, the Legislative Commission failed by a 6–6 vote to approve the Board of Health’s permanent regulation on vaccinations as a requirement for student attendance at NSHE institutions and thus allowed the student COVID-19 vaccination mandate to expire;

● BECAUSE widespread vaccination is the most effective way to prevent serious illness and death and to reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and because the available vaccines are remarkably safe and effective against all current variants, including the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine which has received full FDA approval (bit.ly/3enwNM9) and is thus no longer experimental;

● BECAUSE NSHE university students have long been required to show proof of immunization for other infectious diseases (with medical and religious exemptions), and, additionally, NSHE students who are not vaccinated are able to register for online or remote classes;

● BECAUSE 1,125 universities and colleges nationally as of 12/22/2021 (bit.ly/32nGxDR) are requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccinations for students and/or employees, many requiring boosters and robust testing protocols;

● AND BECAUSE we are outraged that six legislators on the Legislative Commission put political considerations ahead of the sound advice of medical experts and ignored the clear statutory authority of the Board of Health over public health regulations, and have put the health and safety of NSHE students, faculty, and staff at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and have made our campuses less safe as workplaces and for in-person instruction.

Therefore, WE, the undersigned faculty, staff, students, and family members of the Nevada System of Higher Education:

● DEMAND that the student vaccination mandate be immediately reinstated for Spring 2022 classes, under the emergency powers of the Governor if necessary, following the advice of the Board of Health of the state of Nevada and the Governor’s medical team;

● DEMAND that the Legislative Commission reconvene to vote to accept the authority and the public health recommendations of the Board of Health in the interests of the increased health and safety of our NSHE campuses and the health and safety of the greater community of our state;

● DEMAND that the Board of Regents independently adopt the recommendations of the NSHE COVID-19 Task Force and the Board of Health to require vaccinations of all NSHE employees and of all NSHE students taking in-person classes (with allowances for medical and religious exemptions), and that the Board of Regents allow the colleges and universities to take all other appropriate public health measures;

● AND DEMAND that the Chancellor and Presidents implement strong, science-based measures against infection from COVID-19—including free surveillance and diagnostic testing, face-coverings, and permitting remote or online instruction and work—and that these measures be continued until the community risk from COVID-19 has been deemed by public health authorities to have subsided.

View signature list at https://forms.gle/7rnBaLasT1Ztu7Mc8

Petition for a Safe Fall Semester

Kent Ervin — Sat, 07 Aug 2021 18:00:00 GMT

Members of the NSHE Community Petition for a Safe Fall Semester

Open petition sponsored by the Nevada Faculty Alliance (www.NevadaFacultyAlliance.org)

Update: Over 1270 members of the NSHE community have signed this petition. This petition has been closed to new signatures. To view the signatures, please go to at https://forms.gle/MV761ZDk5EpnWpXP8 . [December 2021: A new Petition for Safe NSHE Campuses has been started.]

To the members of the Nevada State Board of Health, the NSHE Board of Regents, Chancellor Melody Rose, and institutional Presidents:

• Full in-person instruction resumes at the colleges and universities of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) in August 2021 for the Fall semester.
• The shared goals of faculty, students, and the NSHE administration are to teach in-person in a safe manner and to avoid another transition to remote instruction due to the pandemic.
• The coronavirus delta variant has surged in Nevada leading to renewed indoor mask requirements for businesses and on NSHE campuses.
• Widespread vaccination is the most effective way to prevent serious illness and reduce transmission from all current variants of the coronavirus. The available vaccines are remarkably safe and effective.
• Over 650 universities and colleges nationally (https://bit.ly/3Ck5kFH), including large public education systems in many states experiencing lower transmission rates, are implementing mandatory vaccinations for students and/or faculty and staff, many under the Emergency Use Authorization without waiting for full FDA approval.
• Governor Sisolak has ordered state employees including NSHE faculty and staff to show proof of vaccination or else undergo weekly COVID testing (https://bit.ly/2VspFIr).
• As part of their employment duties, faculty and staff work with the much larger number of students in close quarters where social distancing is difficult and often impossible.
• Although faculty and staff will all be vaccinated (or tested weekly), the vaccine is not 100% effective, nor are masks, so the presence of unvaccinated students on campus, even if masked, will result in an entirely preventable transmission of this deadly disease from students to other students, faculty, and staff.
• The current spread of the delta variant has been described by the CDC as a pandemic of the unvaccinated (https://bit.ly/37kKfwG).
• Students tend to be in age groups with lower vaccinations rates (https://bit.ly/2VAfRvP).
• NSHE students are already required to show proof of immunizations for other diseases as a preventive public health measure (with exemptions for bona fide medical or religious reasons).
• Chancellor Rose issued a statement on May 6, 2021, indicating that NSHE was planning for mandatory vaccinations and that "NSHE is asking all students and their families to be prepared for this possibility.” (https://bit.ly/3rTYd2a)
• Full FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine is reportedly expected imminently, within weeks.
• On August 2, 2021, NSHE legal counsel advised that only the State Board of Health is authorized to require vaccinations for NSHE university students. (https://bit.ly/2VmaAbw)

We, the undersigned members of the NSHE community, respectfully request the Nevada State Board of Health to consider mandatory vaccinations for college and university students based on sound medical evidence and to issue emergency regulations giving guidance and authorization to NSHE. We further request that NSHE and its institutions implement strong proven measures against the further spread of COVID-19 including mandatory student vaccinations until the community public health risk has subsided.

View signatures at https://forms.gle/MV761ZDk5EpnWpXP8

NFA Statement on COVID

Kent Ervin — Thu, 29 Jul 2021 00:14:30 GMT

The state Nevada Faculty Alliance has released a statement advocating for mandatory COVID vaccinations and other strong measures for safe in-person instruction in the Fall Semester:

NFA Statement on COVID Precautions

2021 Legislative Priorities and Positions

Kent Ervin — Wed, 26 May 2021 15:00:02 GMT

6/4/2021 Update: NFA 2021 Legislative Session Summary

NFA has prepared fact sheets on our legislative priorities and various bills and budgets. The links here will be updated throughout the session.

2020 NFA Candidate Endorsements Statewide

Kent Ervin — Thu, 08 Oct 2020 20:00:40 GMT

Nevada Faculty Alliance PAC

2020 Election Endorsements

Board of Regents
	Regent District 2	*Bret Whipple*
	Regent District 3	*Swadeep Nigam*
	Regent District 10	*Joe Arrascada*
Senate
SD 1	*Patricia Spearman*	SD 7	*Roberta Lange*
SD 3	*Chris Brooks*	SD 11	*Dallas Harris*
SD 4	*Dina Neal*	SD 15	*Wendy Jauregui-Jackins*
SD 5	*Kristee Watson*	SD 18	*Elizabeth Becker*
SD 6	*Nicole Cannizzaro*
Assembly
AD 1	*Daniele Monroe-Moreno*	AD 21	*Elaine Marzola*
AD 2	*Radhika Kunnel*	AD 23	*Brent Footz*
AD 3	*Selena Torres*	AD 24	*Sarah Peters*
AD 4	*Connie Munk*	AD 25	*Jill Tolles*
AD 6	*Shondra Summers-Armstrong*	AD 26	*Lisa Krasner*
AD 8	*Jason Frierson*	AD 26	*Teresa Benitez-Thompson*
AD 9	*Steve Yeager*	AD 28	*Edgar Flores*
AD 10	*Rochelle Nguyen*	AD 29	*Lesley Cohen*
AD 11	*Beatrice Duran*	AD 30	*Natha Anderson*
AD 12	*Susan Martinez*	AD 31	*Skip Daly*
AD 14	*Maggie Carlton*	AD 34	*Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod*
AD 15	*Howard Watts III*	AD 35	*Michelle Gorelow*
AD 16	*Cecelia González*	AD 37	*Shea Backus*
AD 17	*Clara Thomas*	AD 41	*Sandra Jauregui*
AD 18	*Veneicia Considine*	AD 42	*Alexander Assefa*
AD 20	*David Orrentlicher*

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (www.nevadafacultyalliance.org) is an affiliate of the American Association of University Professors (www.aaup.org), whose mission is to advance academic freedom, enhance shared governance, and promote the economic security of faculty and graduate students. The NFA membership includes academic and administrative faculty at all eight institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education. The NFA Political Action Committee, which is comprised of NFA members in northern and southern Nevada, is proud to make these political endorsements. We will be encouraging the winning candidates to fight with us to address the various issues related to higher education in Nevada.

2020 Election candidate endorsements for northern Nevada

Kent Ervin — Mon, 14 Sep 2020 01:13:27 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance has endorsed the following Northern Nevada candidates:

NSHE Board of Regents:

District 10 Joseph Arrascada (NP)

Nevada State Senate:

District 15 Wendy Jauregui-Jackins (D)

Nevada State Assembly:

Sarah Peters (D) (incumbent)

Jill Tolles (R) (incumbent)

Lisa Krasner (R) (incumbent)

Teresa Benitez-Thompson (D) (incumbent)

Natha Anderson (D)

Skip Daly (D) (incumbent)

-------------------------------------------

Approved by the NFA State Political Action Committee on August 29, 2020. The Nevada Faculty Alliance (www.nevadafacultyalliance.org) is an affiliate of the American Association of University Professors (www.aaup.org), whose mission is to advance academic freedom, enhance shared governance, and promote the economic security of faculty and graduate students. The NFA membership includes academic and administrative faculty at all eight institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education. The NFA Political Action Committee, which is comprised of NFA members in northern and southern Nevada, is proud to make these political endorsements. We will be encouraging the winning candidates to fight with us to address the various issues related to higher education in Nevada.

NFA 2018 ELECTION ENDORSEMENTS

Sun, 14 Oct 2018 18:41:41 GMT

CSN FACULTY SENATE OVERWHELMINGLY URGES CSN TO HONOR BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:18:18 GMT

CSN FACULTY SENATE OVERWHELMINGLY URGES CSN TO HONOR BARGAINING AGREEMENT

On Friday Sept 14, CSN Faculty Senate voted by a margin of 28-3 to urge CSN to honor all settled tentative agreements.

NFA President Robert Manis explained to Senate how in August, CSN had approached NFA with an offer to end the bargaining impasse by offering an approximate $1000/ person bonus which could be split into two parts, along with raises in summer pay, B+ contracts, overload pay, and clinical hours.

However, hours before NFA could consider this proposal, CSN stated it was withdrawing from an agreement settled a year ago to allow market hires a path to tenure for the reason that it modified NSHE code. Revoking a settled TA is a virtually unprecedented violation of labor law. The reason is that if a previously settled tentative agreement is allowed to be revoked, all the others (of which CSN and NFA have settled 15) could be held hostage for leverage on other issues, lab hours being one of the major ones outstanding

Moreover, NSHE TItle 4, Chapter 4 Section 13.2-3 specifically allows the modification of code by collective bargaining contracts. Furthermore, prior to making the agreement, NFA showed how market hires were paid less than faculty and in fact were, in many cases, not offered the chance to choose the tenure track option, which is itself a violation of code.

The significant issue, however, is whether any agreement, once settled, can be held hostage for leverage. In fact, what then would prevent CSN from renouncing their latest offer if this is allowed to stand?

CSN Bargaining goes to impasse

Sun, 15 Jul 2018 03:12:22 GMT

Bargaining at CSN reached impasse as CSN continued its refusal to bargain over salary in violation of labor law. The process now moves to fact-finding. For more info see the following article.

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/csn-faculty-trying-to-negotiate-a-pay-raise-hit-impasse-with-administration

jUNE 30 DEADLINE APPROACHES FOR BARGAINING AT CSN

Sun, 17 Jun 2018 18:26:55 GMT

On June 8th, the Nevada Faculty Alliance imposed a deadline for the College of Southern Nevada to make significant progress towards agreement on matters related to compensation, by midnight June 30.

These compensation-related items include lab pay, overload pay, and pay equity (compression adjustments which have historically been funded at the institutional level.

It's the opinion of our lawyers at the NFA’s national affiliate the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) that the failure to make any tangible counter-offer on these topics constitute “bad faith” surface bargaining, an Unfair Labor Practice.

During the same time period, the NFA will decide whether to file an unfair labor practice in District Court, or to declare an Impasse and refer the matter to a Fact-finder as provided in Nevada System of Higher Education code, should there be no agreement or significant enough progress.

The college claims it has no money to make any agreement, which NFA disputes. They have also falsely alleged to the Chancellor and Legislators that NFA has asked for merit pay and/or Cost of living allowances funded by the legislature which is also untrue.

NFA hopes that the imposition of a deadline will make the college take the compensation issues more seriously, since there’s been no progress even after 19 months. Should they not, having done our research, we expect success whether through the Courts or Fact-finding.

Collective bargaining negotiations continue at CSN

Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:29:46 GMT

Updates can be found on the negotiations blog: https://nfacsnnegotiations.blogspot.com/

PEBP benefits changes for 2018-2019

Thu, 07 Dec 2017 00:05:25 GMT

Kent Ervin, NFA Legislative Liaison, provides the following update regarding PEBP benefits changes for 2018-2019:

A summary of the Public Employees’ Benefits Program Board actions from the November board meeting is available on the PEBP website. The Board accepted most all of Executive Officer Damon Haycock's recommendations for plan year 2019 changes, effective July 1, 2018. That includes (1) replacing the northern HMO with an Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO) with similar features and using over $10M of excess reserves generated by the High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) to cover the associated increased risks for self-funding the EPO; and (2) not approving a $1 or $2/month per year of service additional employer contribution to the HRA (Health Reimbursement Account) for retirees on the Medicare Exchange. These two items were linked in the staff recommendation to the board because the extra reserves allocated for the EPO did not leave enough funds for increasing the HRA contribution for Medicare retirees. Also, the board expanded PEBP's subrogation powers via regulation (although with coverage of the participant's out-of-pocket costs from any recovery). Several minor enhancements to the HDHP were approved as outlined in the summary. Additional requirements were added for “earning” the supplemental $200/year HSA/HRA contribution for HDHP participants. Other proposed HDHP plan benefits or increased HSA/HRA contributions were rejected, also because of potential costs of the EPO.

NFA’s positions on these issues are available in our public comments to the PEBP Board posted at http://www.nevadafacultyalliance.org/LatestNews. In particular, NFA spoke against using excess reserves generated by the HDHP program and participants to establish the new EPO plan.

The northern HMO/EPO decision is essentially irrevocable because the northern HMO contract will be terminated in January effective June 30, 2018. The other decisions are not quite set in stone because the final rates and plan features will be addressed at the January and March board meetings. NFA recommends that you review the plan design changes and make your opinions known:

Dr. Chris Cochran chris.cochran@unlv.edu (southern NSHE representative on PEBP Board)

Dr. John Packham jpackham@med.unr.edu (northern NSHE representative on PEBP Board)

Patrick Cates pcates@admin.nv.gov (PEBP Board Chair)

Damon Haycock dhaycock@peb.state.nv.gov (PEBP Executive Officer)

NFA testimony to PEBP on subrogation

Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:16:35 GMT

The following testimony was provided to the PEBP Board by NFA Legislative Liaison Kent Ervin, on behalf of NFA:

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) is the statewide association of faculty at all eight NSHE institutions, most of whom participate in the Public Employees’ Benefits Program along with other state employees. We are the state affiliate of the American Association of University Professors.

The NFA appreciates the efforts of PEBP to protect program interests via subrogation efforts when a third party may be responsible for medical expenses incurred by PEBP. We also strongly agree with the part of the regulation that says the out-of-pocket medical costs for the participant should be covered first and in whole from any recovery.

We are however concerned that the subrogation actions by the lawyers hired by Healthscope can at times be overly aggressive, particularly when the party being pursued is the participant or a close relative or their own insurance companies. When a participant buys homeowners or automotive liability insurance, they are doing it to protect themselves, not to protect PEBP or to lower PEBP premiums for others. The examples provided in the Board packet sound innocuous—involving traffic accidents with an unrelated third party at fault. However, the proposed regulations allow subrogation actions against, say, the grandmother of a PEBP participant’s covered child when a simple accident (neither intentional nor negligent) occurred in her home. Should PEBP and by extension the State as employer really be pursuing such a case? It is questionable whether the applicable statute actually was intended to apply to first party coverage, since it refers to legal liability rather than contractual liability created by purchase of an insurance policy.

We recommend that the Board restrict the subrogation efforts to third party coverages only. A minimum alternative would be to create a policy to evaluate the merit of cases against participants or their close relatives. The decision to pursue a subrogation case should not be primarily based on money potential by Healthscope’s “vendors”—their hired lawyers—as it is described on page 12 of the Health Claims Auditors report (agenda item 4.3).

Thank you.

NFA testimony to PEBP on HMO plan options

Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:15:20 GMT

The following testimony was provided to the PEBP Board by NFA Legislative Liaison Kent Ervin, on behalf of NFA:

The NFA greatly appreciates the hard work of the PEBP staff and the PEBP Board to maintain our health insurance program in the face of rising costs and budgetary constraints. It is a difficult task to balance diverse interests in a program with many moving targets.

Regarding the HMO options (agenda item 10), we recommend caution. Although we understand that the HMO option is in distress due to rapidly rising costs, it is difficult to evaluate the proposed self-funded Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO) alternative because neither estimates of the rates nor the methodology to set the rates have been provided. The Board should ask for a better understanding before proceeding. We are also concerned about the rushed implementation of an entirely new program.

Our biggest reservation is that the higher risks requiring a $10M to $15M increase in the Catastrophic Reserves are proposed to be absorbed by Excess Reserves from the CDHP program. Those Excess Reserves were created on the shoulders of CDHP participants and, arguably, retirees who were moved along with their higher risk pool to the Medicare Exchange. The Excess Reserves from the CDHP should not be used to fund the Catastrophic Reserves for a new EPO plan. Instead, if an EPO is implemented, it should be priced to fund its own share of the Catastrophic Reserves over an appropriate phase-in period of several years. To reduce the rate impact, the confidence level for the EPO catastrophic reserves could be phased in, reaching the desirable 95% level after a few years. That is what would necessarily happen with a completely new self-funded program, or if there were no excess reserves in another program. The existing Catastrophic Reserve does provide a buffer in case of poor EPO experience during the phase-in period.

Thank you.

NFA testimony to PEBP on CDHP plan design changes

Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:12:11 GMT

The following testimony was provided to the PEBP Board by NFA Legislative Liaison Kent Ervin, on behalf of NFA:

Thank you again for your hard work in managing our health benefits program. With the CDHP plan, we again see a situation of unallocated reserves well in excess of the actuarial prediction. While that is certainly more pleasant to deal with than a shortfall, it means that the CDHP participants have not received all the benefits that they could have received with the level of funding from both employee and employer contributions. While retroactive changes are not possible, the excess reserves need to be used to “pay back” equitably those participants that helped create it.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance recommends the following priorities for use of excess reserves, highest priorities first, beyond continuing existing PY18 plan features and the recommended cost-containment strategies (which we support):

1) Employee contributions to CDHP premiums should not increase in dollar amount for FY19 over FY18. An unknown amount might be needed for rate stabilization.

2) Maintain/restore the $2-per-month contribution for retirees on the Medicare Exchange. The Exchange retirees are the only group who were not taken care of at all with legislative action in 2017, and they have arguably contributed to the build-up of the reserves by removing higher risk older individuals from the CDHP risk pool. Estimated cost $5.43M. Continuing this funding needs to be a high priority request at the next legislature.

3) Add the preventive 3D mammography, at the low cost of $0.22M, as a base plan feature.

4) Reduce the deductible and maximum out-of-pocket cost for CDHP participants. This helps most those who actually have high health care needs during the plan year (as opposed to increasing the HSA/HRA contribution for everyone). Specifically, we recommend reducing the deductible to the IRS minimum for a HDHP of $1350 (individual, double for families) and reducing the maximum out-of-pocket cost from $3900 to $3000, for an estimated total cost of $6.92M. The deductible would increase with the IRS minimum in future years, the out-of-pocket could be kept to at least twice the deductible, and this is one of the easiest design features to adjust in case of future shortfalls.

5) Restore a vision benefit, at a maximum estimated cost of $1.22M assuming 100% utilization. Workers and retirees need good, fully-corrected eyesight to do their jobs and live comfortably. This should be a base benefit.

6) Use the remainder of excess reserves to increase HSA/HRA contributions as a one-time spend-down. A $300/year increase in the HSA/HRA would cost $7.09M. We prefer the no-strings-attached option because future funding for a matching program is uncertain. It could be delayed until January 2019 in case of unanticipated contingencies.

That represents a total of $20.88M, which roughly matches the available funds, not including rate stabilization if required.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input.

NFA stands up for appropriate, competitive faculty compensation

Mon, 02 Oct 2017 17:30:11 GMT

Successful opposition to salary memo

On July 24th, 2017, then-Acting Chancellor Jane Nichols issued a memo to the Council of Presidents calling for a freeze on various types of internally-funded salary adjustments.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance opposed this memo. We spoke to legislators, Chancellor Thom Reilly, and ultimately raised the issue in testimony at the Board of Regents.

NFA efforts proved successful, as Chancellor Thom Reilly has now issued a clarification memo rescinding most of the Nichols' memo.

Resolution on salary

At it's recent Sep. 9th meeting, the NFA State Board voted unanimously to approve the following resolution regarding faculty compensation:

"NFA supports putting NSHE community colleges back on the step system for faculty salary increases, and that these increases be funded by the legislature, consistent with K-12 and state employees.

NFA supports merit pay for NSHE universities and the state college, funded by the state or by the institutions."

NFA will advocate for this viewpoint in all appropriate forums. To that end, we have submitted a list of three names to NSHE for consideration as possible nominees to the legislature's AB 202 committee, which will study faculty compensation along with the affordability and accessibility of higher education for Nevada students.

Our recommended nominees are:

Jeff Downs, WNC

Glenn Miller, UNR

Sandra Owens, UNLV

NFA testifies against salary memo

Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:40:12 GMT

At the September Regents' meeting, NFA delivered the following testimony opposing then-Acting Chancellor Jane Nichols' memo ordering a freeze on various kinds of internally-funded faculty salary adjustments:

Good morning Regents. My name is David Steel, S-T-E-E-L. I am the Executive Director of the Nevada Faculty Alliance, an organization representing faculty with members at all NSHE institutions, and the collective bargaining agent for faculty at TMCC, WNC, and CSN.

I am here to express NFA's opposition to a memo issued by then-acting Chancellor Jane Nichols on July 24, 2017, ordering that NSHE institutions put a freeze on certain types of internally-funded salary adjustments. I am attaching the memo for the record.

Internally-funded salary adjustments represent a small fraction of overall salary movement for faculty. However, this small portion is important, as can be seen in former Chancellor John White's March 2017 memo to Governor Sandoval's office, which showed how NSHE institutions have repeatedly made use of these processes over the last several years.

Our first point of opposition to the memo is that such a dictate from the system office is unduly restrictive on the autonomy of the institutions to act as they see necessary regarding faculty salary.

Our second point of opposition is that this memo has stalled our ongoing collective bargaining negotiations, of which we have two. At one school, it caused Administration to rescind without substitute the salary proposal they had made.

Our third point of opposition is that the memo instructs the institutions to act contrary to the Procedures and Guidelines Manual. Chapter Three calls for an equity review of faculty salaries to be conducted on a biannual basis. But we've already had one institution state that it will not do a mandated equity study because of this memo.

Our fourth point of opposition is that Jane Nichols used AB 202 as justification for the salary freeze. AB 202 is a 2017 bill that calls for studies regarding various aspects of NSHE, including one of faculty compensation. We spoke with sponsors of the bill AB 202, as well as other legislators who voted for the bill. They clearly expressed that it was not their intention for the bill to be used as a rationale to freeze internally-funded salary adjustments for faculty.

Our final point in opposition of this memo is that we NFA, the bargaining agent for faculty at three NSHE institutions, were not consulted before-hand. Neither, as far as we can tell, were any faculty senates.

To conclude, this memo ordering a freeze on various types of internally-funded faculty salary adjustments: (1) handcuffs institutional autonomy; (2) interferes with collective bargaining negotiations; and (3) goes against the Procedures and Guidelines Manual.

We have spoken to Chancellor Thom Reilly about this matter. He has taken it under consideration, but has not yet formally responded. NFA asks that the Nichols memo be rescinded or at least mitigated, by Thom Reilly or if not, then by the Regents, so that the institutions can proceed with providing salary incentives to improve faculty retention, morale, and success.

Legislative Wrap-Up

Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:58:04 GMT

The 2017 Session of the Nevada Legislature adjourned on June 5 and Governor Sandoval has until Friday, June 16 to sign or veto bills. My full legislative wrap-up summary is linked here. NFA’s final bill watch list is here.

One outstanding bill of faculty interest is SB200, which promotes computer science education in high schools (good), but mandates that NSHE accept a computer science course as substitute for math or science credits for college admission (bad for college math preparation especially for STEM majors and an overreach of legislative authority over curricular issues). Contact the Governor here.

Governor Sandoval will hold bill-signing ceremonies at UNLV on Thursday 6/15 (SB457, SB548, SB 553) and at UNR on Friday 6/16 (AB69, AB522, SB546).

Thank you very much for your support during the session and for contacting Senators and Assemblymembers on legislative issues.

Best regards,

Kent Ervin, Legislative Liaison

Nevada Faculty Alliance

Kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org

Legislative Update 6/7/2017

Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:20:02 GMT

NFA’s full post-session bill watch list is posted here. Bills of interest on the Governor’s desk for approval or veto are listed below.

The big news from 11:50 pm on the final day of the session is the passage of SB368, which adds a 1% COLA each year of the biennium for all state employees including NSHE classified staff, academic faculty and administrative faculty, on a party line vote in the Senate and a few Republicans supporting in the Assembly. This is in addition to the 2% each year in AB517 and already signed into law. Contact the Governor to urge him to sign SB368 (and to take action on other bills listed below). Deadline for signatures is June 16, but action may happen any day.

Other bills on Governor’s desk as of 6/6 awaiting signature or veto (BOLD for split votes or signature uncertain):

AB94 NV Grow Program. $125K to CSN.

AB407 Audit of Cooperative Extension and designates UNLV and DRI in addition to UNR as Land Grant institutions. Hearing 5/24 Passed Assembly 30-12, Passed Senate 15-6, north/south split.

AB475 Kickstart program for College Savings Plan--accounts for kindergartners. Amended to add eligibility for graduate credits to Nv Pre-paid Tuition Program.

AB511 $20M appropriation to Millenium Scholarship fund.

AB522 $300K for NevadaTeach at UNR.

SB200 Allows computer science/tech courses to count toward math requirement for H.S. graduation, college admission, and Millenium Scholarship. NSHE opposed to changing college admission requirement which would reduce math preparation.

SB306 $300K to CSN for prison education pilot program.

SB391 $3.5 M for Nevada Promise scholarship for community college students, with community service requirements.

SB457 NSHE must award credit toward degrees for military training per a standards organization.

SB478 Provisions for handling allegations against state workers including NSHE. Adds notice requirements. Changes time limits.

SB546 Capital improvements projects statewide including UNR Engineering, UNLV Hotel Mgmt, CSN/NSC health science bldg, others. Failed 2/3 supermajority 12-9 in Senate. Passed re-vote 15-6 in Senate on 6/4 with Marijuana Tax/Opportunity Scholarships compromise. Passed Assy 34-8. To Governor.

SB548 $1M for Nevada Teaching Institute to garner philanthropic gift. Not certain from hearing at which NSHE institution.

SB551 PEBP employer contributions authorization, includes increases to cover rising medical costs.

SB553 UNLV Engineering Bldg planning & design $1.75M match from general fund . Amended on final day to add $25M match for UNLV Med School building to anonymous donation. Reportedly part of deal for passage of SB546.

Best regards,

Kent Ervin, Legislative Liaison

Nevada Faculty Alliance

Kent.Ervin@NevadaFacultyAlliance.org

Legislative Update 5/28/2017

Sun, 28 May 2017 18:50:27 GMT

Dear colleagues:

With a just 10 days left in the Legislative session, time and money are running out for funding of fair compensation for faculty and other state workers. The end game is all about Education Savings Accounts (a.k.a. vouchers). Many lobbyists in the building think their pet bill is the big bargaining chip, but I don’t know of any single cause that is as important to Democrats as ESAs/vouchers seem to be to Republicans. Improved state employee compensation including faculty merit is looking less likely but can still be addressed in the end-of-session compensation bill, which is being drafted now. The NFA is advocating for higher COLAs for all state employees as well as funding of faculty merit. Please contact decision makers with the contact information and talking points at this link.

Our complete NFA bill watch list is linked here. Bills of particular interest or recent action:

AB16 & AB407 Cooperative Extension unfunded mandate and north/south split. AB407 was heard on 5/20 Assembly Ways & Means with extensive testimony. New hearings could be scheduled at any time.

AB188 Expands Silver State Opportunity Grant eligibility down to 12 credits (from 15 currently). Passed Senate with 2 Republican votes and sent to Governor.

AB202 Interim study of higher education affordability and faculty compensation. Bipartisan passage, to Governor.

AJR5 Removes Regents from Constitution. Amended in Senate LOE Committee to add academic freedom clause. Passed. Will come back to Legislature in 2019.

SB384 Amended to make PERS info confidential except name, pension amount, and last employer, as favored by Governor. Passed on party lines, to Governor.

SB486. Collective bargaining for state Classified employees. NFA testimony in support of including NSHE employees.

SB502. Adds 2^nd NSHE representative to PEBP Board and refines RFP procedures for PEBP and Nevada Deferred Comp. Passed unanimously in both houses and sent to Governor.

Best regards,

Kent Ervin, Legislative Liaison

Nevada Faculty Alliance

Kent.Ervin@NevadaFacultyAlliance.org

Legislative Update 5/20/2017

Sun, 21 May 2017 17:01:49 GMT

Dear colleagues:

The NSHE budgets closed this week with only modest changes versus the Governor’s budget. The faculty merit pool is not funded, but state employee compensation including merit can still be addressed in the end-of-session compensation bill. The NFA is advocating for higher COLAs for all state employees as well as funding of faculty merit. Please contact decision makers with the contact information and talking points at this link.

Good news on capital improvement projects: UNLV Hotel School Building furnishings and UNR Engineering Building funded. Planning and design for CSN/NSC Health Science building funded. Planning and design for NSC Education building approved but not yet funded.

Our complete NFA bill watch list is linked here. Governor Sandoval has indicated he is more likely to veto bills without bipartisan support in Legislature, so partisan bills are likely to survive only with an end-of-session deal. Bills of particular interest or recent action:

AB16 & AB407 Cooperative Extension unfunded mandate and north/south split. In Assembly Ways & Means; hearings could be scheduled at any time.

AB188 Expands Silver State Opportunity Grant eligibility down to 12 credits (from 15 currently). Needs bipartisan support in Senate.

AB202 Interim study of higher education affordability and faculty compensation. Passed, to Governor.

AB390 Whistleblower act and NSHE SAGE Commission. Died on 5/19 deadline.

AJR5 Removes Regents from Constitution. Amended in Senate LOE Committee to add academic freedom clause. To Senate floor.

SB384 PERS retiree privacy. Held for vote in Assembly for possible amendment. Needs bipartisan support.

Best regards,

Kent Ervin, Legislative Liaison

Nevada Faculty Alliance

Kent.Ervin@NevadaFacultyAlliance.org

5/20/2017

Legislative Update 5/7/2017

Mon, 08 May 2017 16:26:51 GMT

NFA Legislative Update 5/7/2017 by Kent Ervin

While our biggest push during the final weeks of the Legislature needs to be on faculty compensation, there are other bills with important impacts good and bad. See our full bill watch list here. Regarding the priority bills under consideration this week listed below, please take a few minutes to express your opinion on the Share Your Opinion page, contact your own Legislators, or contact the legislative committee members listed at the committee links below. NFA positions below are those approved by the state board.

Hearings scheduled

AB202(R1) Interim study on affordability for students at NSHE colleges & universities. Includes study of faculty compensation. Passed Assembly 41-1. Hearing Tuesday May 9 in Senate Education Committee. NFA supports. SUPPORT AB202 as amended 4/19/2017 on the Share Your Opinion page.

AJR5(R1) Constitutional amendment to remove Board of Regents, its authority, duties, and election requirement from Nevada Constitution. The Board would still be in statute, but its composition, election, and duties could be changed by any future legislature. NFA opposed. Passed Assembly 38-4. Hearing Monday May 8 in the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. OPPOSE AJR5 as amended 4/24/2017 on the on the Share Your Opinion page.

AB390(R1) Companion bill to AJR5. Spending and Governmental Efficiency (SAGE) commission for NSHE. Expands whistleblower protections for state employees who expose false statements by state officials and employees to Legislators. Passed Assembly 42-0. Hearing Monday May 8 in the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. NFA opposes the SAGE commission because of past negative experience with business-oriented SAGE commissions. NFA opposes the current over-broad bill language on whistleblower protection (taken literally would prevent supervisory action to influence the behavior of any state employee), although the basic concept is good. Select AB390 as amended 4/24/2017 on the Share Your Opinion page.

Heard, committee votes needed

SB384(R1) Makes confidential the personal information about PERS retirees, including names, except ID number, employer, retirement date, years of service, annual pension. 18% of NSHE active faculty are covered by PERS. Would prevent future publishing of names with pension amounts of PERS retirees. NFA supports. Needs to be passed out of the Assembly Government Affairs Committee. Support SB384 as amended 4/20/2017 on the Share Your Opinion page.

SB502(R1) As amended, adds 2nd NSHE representative to PEBP Board and fixes RFP procedures for PEBP and the Deferred Compensation Program. NFA opposed original version of SB502, but we worked with our public employee coalition partners and the Department of Administration to create a good bill. SUPPORT SB502 as amended 4/24/1017 on the Share Your Opinion page. Needs to be passed out of the Senate Finance Committee.

Hearings not scheduled yet

AB16(R1) and AB407(R1) Cooperative Extension reorganization and funding. Exempt and referred to Assembly Ways & Means Committee with no hearing date set. NFA has serious concerns about the unfunded mandate in AB16, although increased funding for Cooperative Extension programs would be good in principle. NFA is opposed to how AB407 would impinge on faculty employee rights, causing terminations of southern Extension faculty under financial exigency by July 1 with no assurance of rehiring by a new Southern Cooperative Extension program. Select AB16 as amended 4/24/2017 and AB407 as amended 4/24/2017 on the Share Your Opinion page.

The best way to contact Legislators is by phone, or e-mail from a personal account preferably outside of regular work hours. On merit pay and other compensation issues in particular, also encourage friends of our colleges and universities to contact their legislators in support of faculty and students.

Best regards,

Kent Ervin

Nevada Faculty Alliance Legislative Liaison

Kent.ervin@NevadaFacultyAlliance.org

Candidate statements for 2017 State Officers election

Tue, 25 Apr 2017 04:10:49 GMT

President

Rob Manis, CSN

Fellow NFA members,

As all of you know, higher education has been under assault for years by those who wish to outsource, privatize and corporatize our jobs. At the same time our wages have been stagnant and our benefits getting worse and worse. We need to reverse those trends, difficult as it may be.

I have been an NFA member since I was hired at CSN in 1998, and have been CSN Membership Chair and Chapter President. In the last four years, I have helped turn around the chapter and together we recruited over 100 new members culminating in winning collective bargaining rights in 2016.

I have also been active in the state NFA board for nearly four years, serving as state Vice President and Legal Coordinator for the last two.

I have a Ph.D in Sociology from UC Santa Barbara, and prior to coming to Nevada taught Organizational Development for 6 years as an adjunct at the McLaren Business School at University of San Francisco. I believe my academic background and experience will also come in handy in continuing to move the state organization forward.

I am progressive in my politics and will fight hard to preserve the rights of faculty in higher education against those who would abridge or corporatize them. But I am also experienced in working with people of all political agendas and believe in a “big tent” where we all can work together to advance the interests of all students, faculty members and their families in Nevada.

I will fight hard to increase the clout of NFA, to improve lobbying and support membership growth and collective bargaining in any chapter that is interested.

Vice President

Jeff Downs, WNC

Hello, my name is Jeff Downs and I am a tenured Mathematics faculty member at Western Nevada College. I have been a member of the Nevada Faculty Alliance since 2004, when I was hired at WNC, and a chapter president for three years.

In 2012, when serving WNC as the Faculty Senate Chair, I was part of the team that worked with the Regents and the Chancellor to allow a vote at WNC to bring Collective Bargaining to our college. I am currently second chair on the Collective Bargaining renegotiating team. I believe in the principals of Collective Bargaining and believe Faculty Rights need to be protected and expanded, regardless of Collective Bargaining status.

I would appreciate the honor of serving as a State Vice President to help grow the NFA, represent the State Board in the North, and support the next State President. I hope you will consider voting for me.

Shari Lyman, CSN

I am honored to be nominated for Nevada Faculty Alliance State Vice President.

I have been a member of the CSN NFA Chapter since 1990 both as a part-time Economics and Mathematics instructor and now as a full-time tenured professor of Economics, Women’s Studies, and Latin American Studies.

I teach onground, online, and hybrid classes in the 16-week, 8-week, and 4-week formats.

I served as the CSN NFA Chapter President from 2008 to 2010.

I served as NFA State Treasurer from 2011-2015

I continue to be an active member of CSN NFA and AAUP.

Also, I serve on the CSN Women’s Alliance, the Social Sciences Pedagogy Committee, and various other college committees, department committees, and community organizations such as 4-H, Boy Scouts of America, Moapa Valley Community Education Advisory Board, and the Clark County School District Attendance Zone Advisory Commission.

I value my membership and leadership experiences with NFA due to the work and support NFA provides for its members and all faculty members in Nevada’s System of Higher Education.

As Vice President I will serve the NFA members throughout NSHE as an advocate for academic freedom, shared governance, and legal defense. I will advocate on behalf of positive work and learning environments that include access, inclusion, and diversity for all faculty, staff, and students.

I will continue to work actively with the institutions, administrations, NSHE, and the State of Nevada legislators to support, fund, and promote higher education for all of Nevada.

I am committed to the fundamental mission of NFA to ensure academic freedom, shared governance, and economic security for all of Nevada’s higher education faculty and staff for the benefit of our students.

Treasurer

Jennifer Nelson, CSN

Despite having no opponent in this race for State NFA Treasurer, I write this candidate statement to affirm that I do not take your vote for granted. Instead, I take this opportunity to brief you on some of my accomplishments from my current term in this office. From retiring an AAUP back dues debt one year early and controlling operational expenses to preparing and presenting accurate, clear semi-annual financial reports and realistic budgets to support State Board planning and decision-making, I have maintained our organization’s sound financial condition. To update State NFA’s adherence to fiscal best practices for non-profits, I have written and received State Board approval for financial operating policy that delineates procedures for planning, approving, reimbursing, and annual budgeting of NFA chapters’ events and activities. As your steward of the dues you pay to NFA and AAUP, I pledge to continue putting forward my best effort to manage State NFA’s finances effectively. I hope I have earned your vote.

Thank you,

Jennifer S. Nelson, Ph.D.

Secretary

Andrea Brown, CSN

I would like to respectfully express my hope to continue to serve as NFA Secretary for the 2017-2019 term.

I have been an AAUP member for 10 years and joined Nevada Faculty Alliance in 2013 shortly after joining the Department of Human Behavior at the College of Southern Nevada. As a full time faculty member, I have been a member of a variety of department and college-wide committees including, hiring and convocation. Furthermore, I have provided a number of professional development workshops and conference presentations related to instruction, student success, diversity and inclusion.

I was elected NFA-CSN Secretary in 2014 and re-elected in 2016. Over the past three years, I have developed strong working relationships with chapter leadership. As a NFA-CSN member, I have been a member of the political action committee and met with legislators to advocate for faculty and ascertain their support for legislative efforts that benefit higher education in Nevada. Additionally, I have been a member of the NFA-CSN Organizing Committee for collective bargaining where I gained invaluable insight into organizing, and along with other dedicated faculty--contributed to our collective bargaining victory.

My service to NFA has been rewarding and has provided me with invaluable learning and training experiences. I am hard-working, dedicated and committed to our cause. If re-elected, I will continue to push our organization forward. Thank you for your consideration.

Legislative Update 4/23/2017

Sun, 23 Apr 2017 23:41:33 GMT

The deadline for passage of bills in the first house is Tuesday April 25. For complete information on bills we are tracking, please see our updated bill watch list. Contact your Senator or Assemblymember now to try to influence the marathon voting on Monday and Tuesday. Telephone calls are best, or e-mails from your personal address. Also register your opinion online on the latest versions of bills (include your address to allow tracking by district).

Our primary issue of faculty compensation including merit steps will come to the fore with the Economic Forum revenue projections on May 1 and budget hearings shortly thereafter. Bills of particular interest with 4/25 deadlines are listed below.

SB502 As amended with help of NFA and its public employee coalition partners, adds second NSHE representative to PEBP Board and removed bad 'advisory' board provisions. Clarifies RFP procedures for PEBP and Nevada Deferred Compensation Program. NFA in support of amended bill.

SB391 Nevada Promise Scholarship for community college students. Supplements other financial aid programs.

AJR5 Constitutional amendment would remove Board of Regents, its authority, duties and election requirement from Nevada Constitution, making NSHE just another state agency subject to legislative and executive branch oversight. NFA opposed.

AB407 Splits Cooperative Extension north/south, transferring three counties form UNR to UNLV. Designates UNLV and DRI in addition to UNR as Land Grant institutions. NFA has serious concerns about faculty employment rights with expected terminations of southern UNCE employees and about lack of shard governance consultation in institutional reorganization. Advocated by Lincy Institute. Opposed by UNR and UNCE.

AB390 Whistleblower protections for state employees who report that state officials lied to legislators, former legislators, and their employees and former employees. Spending and Governmental Efficiency (SAGE) commission for NSHE. Amended to remove $20000/yr stipend for Regents.

AB16 Requires NSHE or UNR to provide higher funding for matching county funds for Cooperative Extension. No funding in current bill. NSHE fiscal note is $10M unfunded mandate for UNR (and UNLV if AB407 becomes law).

AB188 Would expand Silver State Opportunity Grants for community college students, eligibility reduced to 12 credits (as amended, from 15 currently). NFA supports.

Best regards,

Dr. Kent M. Ervin

Legislative Liaison, Nevada Faculty Alliance

kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org

4/23/2017

UNLV-NFA and UNR-NFA Faculty Forums a Success

Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:23:08 GMT

The UNLV and UNR NFA Chapters held Forums April 18th and 19th entitled "Is faculty merit pay gone for good? Should we consider collective bargaining?" The Forums were well-attended with good discussion.

Dr. Kent Ervin, NFA Legislative Liaison gave an update on the legislative session. He explained NFA's advocacy for merit pay and how this is an uphill struggle. NFA Executive Director David Steel and AAUP Western Regional Coordinator Jason Elias spoke about faculty collective bargaining at research universities.

Lively discussion ensued. One thing is certain: Nevada faculty are sick and tired of falling to the bottom of the priority list for funding.

Candidate statements for NSC-NFA elections

Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:27:08 GMT

President

Dr. Roberta Kaufman, Associate Professor, School of Education

I am seeking the position of NFA president at Nevada State College for a number of reasons. Higher education in Nevada needs strong faculty voices on campus and across the state who are committed to being present at the table and advocating for members and non-members at Executive Committee meetings, Provost Council, Executive Budget Committee meetings, advisory at Faculty Senate meetings and other such state-wide meetings as appropriate with colleagues considering policies and practices of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) that impact academic or administrative faculty.

As past chair for NSC's Faculty Senate, I am aware of the various concerns faculty face on campus and in the state. In this capacity, I served as a spokesperson on campus seeking to listen first and negotiate effectively in the ongoing attempt to navigate faculty concerns. Additionally, I was able to develop a working relationship with other faculty senate chairs, NFA officers, institutional administrators and faculty. My background, including knowledge of NSC’s policies on workload, promotion and tenure; Board of Regents focus on efficiency and effectiveness; and equity issues across university, state college and community colleges is a conduit to NFA presidential responsibilities.

It is vital to have faculty leadership positions staffed by representatives of the various schools and units on campus in order to get multiple perspectives. This helps to strengthen and ensure the success of the organization. I am an active member of NFA at Nevada State College recruiting members, attending meetings and social events sponsored jointly by NFA and Faculty Senate. As a recently tenured School of Education faculty it is my desire to engage with and encourage new faculty to become involved in all facets of the campus community which includes building capacity through governance.

Thank you for your consideration.

Roberta

Dr. Leila Pazargadi, Assistant Professor of English

Dear NFA members,

Since joining the Nevada Faculty Alliance in 2012, I have enjoyed serving you as an NFA member, Vice President of Membership, and Member-at-Large of the American Association of University Professors. I wholeheartedly believe in the philosophy, strength, and power of academic unions and their advocacy work, which is why I wish to run for NFA President for the upcoming 2017-2019 term. As President, I hope to strengthen the power of our chapter’s advocacy by:

· further developing policies and protocols for faculty advocacy during grievances and disputes

· streamlining an efficient response from NFA to assist faculty during grievances and disputes

· promoting the formation of a Collective Bargaining Chapter, which would allow us to consult CBC lawyers to create and better negotiate our contracts, challenge “at will” termination clauses, and confront salary/equity issues

· providing workshops and hang-out opportunities to strengthen our camaraderie and advocacy presence

· increasing chapter lobbying of NSHE, the governor, and state legislators to push for pre-determined objectives, such as better healthcare coverage, retention of COLA, and reinstatement of merit pay, to name a few

I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you,
Leila

VP of Communications

Laura Decker, Lecturer of English Composition

My name is Laura Decker, and I am in my second full-time year of teaching at NSC. Previous to NSC, I taught part-time at CSN and worked full-time as Learning Specialist for the TRIO Student Support Services Grant Team there, where I worked to support first-generation college students. As evidence of my dedication to a population, I have also taught for two years for NSC's Nepantla program, which is also geared toward first-generation students. In total, I have 6 years of full-time experience as a college faculty member between Texas and Nevada, across two-year and four-year institutions. I am interested in serving as the NSC-NFA VP of Communications for a few reasons. First, I have been an active union member in the past, helping with basic organization for the Culinary 226 union. I really enjoyed learning about the issues that culinary members face in their positions within the hospitality sector as well as assisting in their efforts for fair pay, equitable working conditions, and a viable presence in the negotiating process. Second, as a faculty member myself, I care about working for positive faculty relations and understand that faculty can be most effective when their voices are acknowledged. Finally, one of my strongest skills is writing and specifically disseminating information to large groups, which makes me a strong candidate for your next NSC-NFA VP of Communications

VP of Membership

Vikash Patel, Lecturer of Biological Sciences

I accept the nomination of Vice President of Membership for NSC NFA chapter. It is an honor to be part of this alliance and to actively take on a significant role that can assist in building a strong alliance in both quantity and quality. I believe that this platform can nurture a sustainable level of employee/employer relationship with accountability. I would make a strong candidate for this position because I truly care about our work environment. When we harness a great working community, we can synergistically create qualitative efficiencies, productivity, and well-being that benefits both the individual and institution. Working at Nevada State College since January 2012, I have continuously built rapport with staff, faculty, and administrative leaders. From the facilities personnel to the Dean, I consider all employees as team members. My goal is to continue to build more and better relationships with all team members, serve our alliance to increase membership, and to increase involvement of current members.

More than 1,000 students sign petition supporting NFA-CSN bargaining team

Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:55:54 GMT

Hire more Counselors? Better pay for faculty? CSN students say: yes!

NFA-CSN activists and bargaining team members spent several days tabling, discussing the collective bargaining negotiations and asking students to sign a support petition.

The students shared all kinds of feedback about their experiences at CSN with the NFA-CSN tablers. Tablers described some of the working conditions at CSN, and how the bargaining could improve those conditions.

There was tremendous support for NFA-CSN bargaining from students: they signed the petition at a rate of more than one a minute, resulting in over one thousand signatures so far.

NFA testimony at 3/2 Board of Regents meeting

Mon, 06 Mar 2017 21:57:35 GMT

Board of Regents, 3/2/2017

Good morning, Chair Trachok and Regents. For the record my name is Kent Ervin and I am representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance.

We would like to thank Chancellor White and NSHE for giving NFA the opportunity to present our views on faculty compensation at Tuesday’s budget hearing. The Board has repeatedly stated that your highest budget priority is having NSHE faculty compensation treated the same as other state employees. We are very appreciative of the 2% COLAs in the Governor’s budget, which allows salaries to keep pace with inflation. Unfortunately, the COLAs have been misstated at the legislature as a substitute for merit pay, which was funded for classified staff but not faculty. COLAs are not a substitute for merit. Our performance-based merit award system rewards and promotes academic excellence. Merit is essential for recruiting and retaining high quality faculty, and for preventing salary inversion due to new hires coming in at higher competitive market salaries than continuing faculty who have performed excellently. NFA asks for your strong support at the legislature for restoration of merit pay, even if that means a compromise from NSHE’s request of 100% from the general fund.

I would also like to call the Board’s attention to “understatements” in the NSHE base budgets in the executive budget. While the Governor’s budget for NSHE is indeed positive over all, the touted full funding of caseload growth and CTE and capacity enhancements is simply not true because of arbitrary reductions of the base by up to $35M. Rather, a portion of those enhancements and formula funding are either carveouts from existing program budgets or else using student funding. That subverts the intent of the new WSCH formula and the spirit of the agreement that student fee growth would not be offset by general fund reductions. At best, it is a non-transparent method for redirection of program funding in the executive budget.

Please provide appropriate direction to the Chancellor when you discuss legislative actions and the budget. We ask for your proactive support for restoring a sustainable merit pay system along with COLAs. Thank you.

NFA Board approves values statement

Thu, 09 Feb 2017 23:22:47 GMT

At its January 2017 meeting, the NFA State Board passed the following values statement:

The Nevada Faculty Alliance urges members to "act to maintain safe and respectful work and learning environments" and to be aware of laws "that pertain to harassment and assault based upon sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, national origin, military status or obligation, religion, or marital or family status."

As members, we will therefore continue to bear these legal protections in mind and support them. We will also bear in mind that, in our increasingly diverse society, some of our colleagues and our students may be subject to incidents of hostility or violence. We will therefore seek ways to support and ensure the safety of all our colleagues and our students in our educational and workplace settings.

Political update: Governor's budget, and PEBP

Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:21:03 GMT

NFA political update, by Kent Ervin, NFA Legislative Liaison

Governor’s Sandoval’s executive budget has good news for NSHE, but less good news for faculty compensation and benefits. Thanks to the improved economy and revenue estimates, the 5% cuts requested last spring were cancelled and NSHE is slated for additional funds. Enrollment caseload growth will be funded through the Weighted Student Credit Hour (WSCH) formula; the next phase of the UNLV Medical School will be funded with a $13M increase; rural community colleges will lose the one-time bridge funding from the last biennium but the community colleges will gain with a higher WSCH formula for Career and Technical Education; $10M is provided for new programs related to economic development goals; the Engineering Building at UNR receives a $41.5M state match through a lease-purchase arrangement; and the Hotel College building at UNLV will be finished and furnished. For further details see “NSHE praises Gov. Sandoval's Executive Budget recommendation” and NSHE’s presentation to the legislature.

Faculty compensation

The Governor’s State of the State address also emphasized compensation for state employees: “From 2010 through 2015, state employees endured furloughs, pay cuts, benefit reductions and loss of merit and longevity pay. For some, these reductions have been the equivalent of a 30 percent loss of wages and benefits. Tonight, I want to recognize the enormous contributions our state employees have made to help get the state back on track and acknowledge the dedicated work they have performed for the people of Nevada during this demanding economic period. Last session we were able to eliminate furloughs, restore merit pay, and provide a modest cost of living adjustment. This session, my budget includes a four percent cost of living adjustment and increased funding for health benefits to recognize the shared sacrifice and dedication of our state employees.”

The NSHE Chancellor and Board of Regents have stated: “In order to recruit and retain the highest quality faculty and staff necessary to fulfill our mission and best serve the State of Nevada, all full‐time employees of the Nevada System of Higher Education should be treated in the same fashion as all other state and major employee groups with respect to cost of living and merit increases appropriated by the state. Improving faculty and staff compensation is the Board of Regents’ highest priority.”

In the Governor’s proposed budget, there is a 2% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in both years of the biennium for both classified staff and faculty. Classified employees will be eligible for annual merit step increases (3.5%–4.8%) if they have not reached the maximum of their range (after 9 steps). COLAs will keep faculty salaries from further losses in purchasing power (about 10% on average between 2009 and 2017, see attached charts). However, the Board of Regent’s request for a 2.5% merit pool for performance-based raises for faculty was not funded. Thus, despite the strong support for NSHE programs in the Governor’s budget and his mention of restoring merit pay, as well as it being NSHE’s “highest priority”, NSHE faculty members were again singled out as the only rank-and-file state employees not receiving funding for merit pay. From the mid-1980s through 2015, faculty merit was always funded whenever classified steps were funded by the legislative. It is particularly disappointing that NSHE officials are “delighted” with the executive budget even though it does not treat faculty compensation the same as other state employees, their stated highest priority.

Healthcare benefits

The executive budget’s “increased funding for health benefits” covers expected inflation only for PEBP’s “base” plan—the horribly reduced benefits level back in 2011. Per PEBP staff that is insufficient to maintain current 2016-2017 plan benefits. The changes in benefits approved by the PEBP Board as of 1/19/2017, mostly one-time funding from “excess reserves”, are shown in the table below.

In addition, the employee premiums for the PEBP HMO plans will increase by 7-9% for the preferred plans with HHP (north) and HPN (south), which have broader provide networks and do not require referrals to see a specialist. As a new option, PEBP will offer cheaper alternative HMO plans, with increased premiums of 1-2%. The alternative HMO plans have narrower provider networks and are not available in many of the rural counties.

At this juncture, NFA will need to pursue restoration of performance-based merit pay and retention of health benefits through the legislature and the Board of Regents. You may contact Governor Sandoval to ask about his budget priorities at http://gov.nv.gov/Contact/Email-the-Governor/, or find your legislator at http://mapserve1.leg.state.nv.us/whoRU/ and Regents contacts at http://system.nevada.edu/Nshe/index.cfm/administration/board-of-regents/current-regents1/.

Benefit (high-deductible PPO plan only)	Current 2016-2017 plan year	Approved by PEBP Board for 2017-2018 only (as of 1/19/2017)	After July 1, 2018, unless changed by PEBP (“base plan”)
Deductible	$1500 single/ $3000 family	$1600 single / $3200 family	$1900 single / $3800 family
Co-insurance	Participants pays 20% after satisfying deductible	Participant pays 20% after satisfying deductible	Participant pays 25% after satisfying deductible
Dental	$1500/yr maximum	$1500/yr maximum	$1000/yr maximum
Annual vision exam	Up to $120, no co-pay	Up to $120, $25 co-pay	none
Life insurance	$25K active / $10K retiree	$20K active / $10K retiree	$10K active / $5K retiree
HSA/HRA employer contributions	$1100 + $300 per dependent (up to 3)	$700 + $200 per dependent (up to 3) + $200 incentive after annual physical exam, blood lab tests, dental exam, and dental cleaning	$700 + $200 per dependent (up to 3)
HRA cap (does not apply to HSA)	None	HRA balances above $5000 to be taken back by PEBP	uncertain
Preventive drugs	Participant pays 100% up to deductible	20% co-insurance for select preventive drugs via mailorder or from preferred pharmacy network, 100% for other drugs	uncertain

Note: Dr. Ervin’s legislative updates represent his own interpretations. Official positions by the NFA state board will be identified as such. Individual questions about compensation or benefits should be addressed to your institutional HR/benefits office or to PEBP. To receive regular updates, join the Nevada Faculty Alliance www.nevadafacultyalliance.org.

You can see charts depicting NSHE salary trends prepared by Dr. Ervin here: NSHE_salary_trend_charts_20170105b.png

NFA testimony at PEBP meeting

Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:55:26 GMT

The following statement was delivered to the PEBP Board at the 11/17 meeting, by Kent Ervin, on behalf of NFA:

Good morning. My name is Kent Ervin E R V I N. I am an active participant and today I am speaking on behalf of the Nevada Faculty Alliance, which represents NSHE faculty statewide. My comments are for the record.

We are concerned that the plan changed proposed in Agenda item 9 represent a significant reduction of benefits and net compensation. While we appreciate that so-called “excess reserves” are being used to maintain some of the so-called “enhancements”, the net effect is a reduction of benefits. Excess reserves are simply savings by PEBP due to overaggressive past cuts in benefits and poor cost projections, and enhancements are simply partial restoration of those benefits. The 2015-2017 plan design, including those enhancements, should serve as the base model moving forward. Changing plan design year-to-year is confusing for participants and likely contributes to the extremely bad streak of actuarial cost predictions over the past 5 years.

Regarding the specific proposed cuts, the worst for participants is the increase in deductibles from 1500/3000 to 1600/3200 or higher, well above the HSA minimums for HDHP plans, and the possible decrease of the 80/20 coinsurance rate. These regressive cuts hit hardest those participants who have the highest health needs and the lowest incomes. The HDHP out-of-pocket maximums are unaffordable for our starting classified employees.

Decreasing HSA/HRA contributions has the same net effect as increasing the deductibles, and is also highly regressive. The reduction or elimination of HSA/HRA contributions for dependents is unfair because the rates and employee premiums are set based on the four tier groups, not the number of dependents. Effectively, you are decreasing the net deductible as the number of dependents increase. The HSA contributions should be a constant percentage of the deductible for all tier groups.

The two options for supplemental HSA contributions each have problems. Treating HSA matches differently from HRAs in unfair to those ineligible for HSA. Tying HSA contributions to a revived wellness program flies in the face of firm legislative guidance not to fund a wellness program and risks legislative pushback on the PEBP program.

The idea of taking back HRA balances over $5K is penalizing those who have carefully saved up most for future needs, which the proposal encourages for HSA participants. Furthermore, it will fail to realize savings because those participants will spend down their balances as soon as this scheme becomes known.

Decreasing life insurance to $5K for retirees and $10K would be restoring cuts from previous levels prior to the great recession, $10K/25K. $5K isn’t even enough for a basic funeral.

We are also highly concerned about the changes to retiree subsidies. Would retirees lose their Part B reimbursement?

Finally, the current proposals do not reflect the potential impacts of a flat state subsidy or a 5% reduction along with the medical cost trends. You as board members should insist on a report on the full cost of maintain the current plan design including so-called enhancements. Then we can start from there to address budget realities. The participants and legislators deserve to see the actual state of affairs, rather than have those hidden until it is too late in the process to make informed decisions.

Thank you. I look forward to working with all of you on behalf of the Nevada Faculty Alliance and NSHE participants.

A message from new NFA legislative liaison Kent Ervin

Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:14:11 GMT

Dear colleagues:

I would like to introduce myself, Kent Ervin, as the legislative liaison for the Nevada Faculty Alliance for the 2017 session of the Nevada legislature. I am a Professor in the Chemistry Department at UNR, starting here in 1990. For NFA, I will be following legislative issues and representing all faculty state-wide to the best of my ability. Here is a post-election update.

The Nevada Legislature experienced a blue wave in the election, changing the party leadership of both houses:

Nevada Senate 11-10 Democratic

Nevada Assembly 27-15 Democratic

The Democratic majorities mean equal pay and Lily Ledbetter bills and a strengthening of legal redress for employment and civil rights protections--bills that were quashed in the Assembly in 2015 after support for weakened versions in the Senate--will have a good chance of passing. A campus carry bill, which was opposed by NFA last session, is much less likely to be viable.

Regardless of party affiliations, however, support of higher education is not at the top of priority list for a majority of legislators, and there are old and new legislators who have an incomplete (to be kind) understanding of what university and college faculty do. Changing that is our major challenge.

What we hear about the Governor's budget, to be presented in January, is not encouraging. Estimates of projected budget deficit range from $400M to $800M, after accommodating case-load growth in Medicaid, K-12 education, and higher education. It is rumored that the Governor's budget is unlikely to include either COLA or merit/steps for state employees, in which case those would have to be added and funded later. Any tax increases would require a two-thirds majority, and it would be a huge surprise if the Governor proposes any. This means a difficult session for the budget.

We will carefully monitor Bill Draft Requests about reforming or restructuring NSHE.

At it's meeting on 11/17/2016, the PEBP Board will be considering benefits changes and cuts to meet the Governors request for flat and 5% lower budgets. This will be a big battle just to maintain what we have now.

The next big event to watch is the Economic Forum revenue projections in early December.

NFA members will receive periodic updates such as this during the legislative session. I appreciate all feedback. NFA will be seeking your input to your local legislators on issues of critical concern--hope you all will help.

Best regards,

Kent Ervin

NFA endorsements for 2016 election

Thu, 20 Oct 2016 20:11:33 GMT

NFA's Southern and Northern Political Action Committees have completed their endorsement processes for the upcoming election. We spoke to many candidates about the need to increase funding for higher education, particularly faculty compensation. Our endorsements are as follows:

South

Senate:

District 1: Patricia Spearman

District 3: Tick Segerblom

District 4: Kelvin Atkinson

District 5: Joyce Woodhouse

District 6: Nicole Cannizzaro

District 7: David Parks

District 11: Aaron Ford

District 18: Alexander Marks

Assembly:

District 1: Daniele Monroe-Moreno

District 3: Nelson Araujo

District 4: John Piro

District 5: Brittney Miller

District 6: William McCurdy II

District 7: Dina Neal

District 8: Jason Frierson

District 9: Steve Yeager

District 10: Chris Brooks

District 11: Olivia Diaz

District 12: James Ohrenschall

District 14: Maggie Carlton

District 15: Elliot Anderson

District 16: Heidi Swank

District 17: Tyrone Thompson

District 18: Richard Carrillo

District 20: Ellen Spiegel

District 21: Ozzie Fumo

District 28: Edgar Flores

District 29: Lesley Cohen

District 34: Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod

District 37: Sean Lyttle

District 42: Irene Bustamante-Adams

North

Senate:

District 13: Julia Ratti

District 15: No endorsement was made in this race, due to the excellent credentials of both Heidi Gansert and Devon Reese. Both candidates have very good, but different, credentials to serve in the Nevada Senate. Heidi Gansert has extensive experience with legislative matters and knows the NSHE budget process well, having worked for UNR for the past three years. Devon Reese is an articulate, up and coming attorney who voices very strong support for higher education, and is looking for ways to increase funding for the Nevada System of Higher Education.

Assembly:

District 24: Amber Joiner

District 25: Jill Tolles

District 27: Teresa Benitez Thompson

District 30: Mike Sprinkle

District 31: Skip Daly

Regents

District 6: Michael Wixom

District 7: Mark Doubrava

District 8: Cathy McAdoo

District 9: Sara LaFrance

District 11: Jason Geddes

A message from NFA President Jim Strange

Tue, 04 Oct 2016 23:07:15 GMT

A Message from Nevada Faculty Alliance President Jim Strange

October 3, 2016

I hope everyone’s Fall semester is off to a good start and proceeding smoothly. I wish to tell you about some of the good things the Nevada Faculty Alliance has going on across the state.

Collective Bargaining

Faculty at CSN voted to certify collective bargaining in April. This successful campaign was a team effort between NFA members and other faculty at CSN, state NFA led by Executive Director David Steel, and the AAUP. Currently CSN-NFA is assembling its bargaining team and has formally requested to bargain with the CSN administration. Join me in wishing them the best in their effort “at the table.”

WNC is preparing to enter negotiations for the renewal of their Collective Bargaining Agreement. The overall relationship with the WNC administration is good, and all are hopeful for constructive negotiations.

Collective bargaining training was held Sep 9th and 10th at CSN. Mike Mauer from the AAUP led the training. David Steel is planning to give negotiation training to chapters in the north based on these training sessions.

Preparation for the 2017 Legislative Session

The NFA currently has a promising lead on a lobbyist for the 2017 legislative session. Top priorities are faculty compensation and benefits and the NSHE Funding Formula. The NFA will be watching for any initiatives put forward by Governor Sandoval or the legislature which could potentially impact working conditions at the universities and colleges.

Political Action Committees: Preparing for the November Elections

The NFA Political Action Committees north and south have given a series of endorsements for both NSHE regent and state legislative races. The northern endorsements are complete, the southern vetting process is ongoing.

PAC members have questioned candidates on issues relating to higher education, from funding, including faculty pay, to the potential restructuring of NSHE. So far, SPAC endorsed candidates, all of whom have spoken face-to-face with PAC members, are:

Senate:

District 3: Tick Segerblom

District 5: Joyce Woodhouse

District 6: Nicole Cannizzaro

District 11: Aaron Ford

District 18: Alexander Marks

Assembly:

District 3: Nelson Araujo

District 4: John Piro

District 6: William McCurdy II

District 8: Jason Frierson

District 9: Steve Yeager

District 10: Chris Brooks

District 15: Elliot Anderson

District 17: Tyrone Thompson

District 20: Ellen Spiegel

District 21: Ozzie Fumo

District 29: Lesley Cohen

District 34: Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod

The NFA northern PAC has also been active. Endorsees:

Assembly:

District 24: Amber Joiner

District 25: Jill Tolles

District 27: Teresa Benitez Thompson

District 30: Mike Sprinkle

District 31: Skip Daly

Senate:

District 13: Julia Ratti

District 15: No endorsement was made in this race. Both candidates have very good, but different, credentials to serve in the Nevada Senate.

Regents endorsements:

District 6: Michael Wixom

District 7: Mark Doubrava

District 8: Cathy McAdoo

District 9: Sara LaFrance

District 11: Jason Geddes

Advocacy/Legal Defense

Chapters and members of the state board have been handling various issues and cases over the last few months. Most of them deal with disputed evaluations, support through grievances, and workload disputes.

NFA Vice President Rob Manis and David Steel conducted a legal defense training at NSC on September 17. This training covers the types of legal support and methods for assisting NFA members and fellow faculty with various labor issues that can arise.

Organizing/Recruitment

Steven Cohen has been hired as an organizer to work UNLV. David Steel has met with him several times, put him through training, and has given him materials. We are still searching for a recruiter for UNR. We gained 21 new members in the month of September. David will be discussing new membership goals at the next meeting of the NFA State Board.

I want to thank you for your continued support of the Nevada Faculty Alliance. Through your support we are able to help improve our professional lives and those of fellow NSHE faculty.

Northern PAC active

Mon, 26 Sep 2016 22:44:24 GMT

The NFA northern PAC has endorsed the following:

Assembly:

District 24: Amber Joiner

District 25: Jill Tolles

District 27: Teresa Benitez Thompson

District 30: Mike Sprinkle

District 31: Skip Daly

Senate:

District 13: Julia Ratti

District 15: No endorsement was made in this race. Both candidates have very good, but different, credentials to serve in the Nevada Senate.

Regents:

District 8: Cathy McAdoo

District 9: Sara LaFrance

District 11: Jason Geddes

Message from new NFA-UNLV President Sandra Owens to NFA-UNLV members

Tue, 20 Sep 2016 18:16:27 GMT

Dear NFA-UNLV Chapter Members,

Welcome back for the fall 2016 semester! During the summer we held elections and I am pleased to announce our slate of new chapter officers:
Sandra Owens, President https://www.unlv.edu/people/sandra-owens;
Al Izzolo, Vice President https://www.unlv.edu/people/al-izzolo;
Barbara Luke, Treasurer https://www.unlv.edu/people/barbara-luke;
and Nate Bynum, Secretary https://www.unlv.edu/people/nate-bynum.

We are all long time members of the chapter and we are honored and eager to serve you. We are inviting all members and potential members to our first chapter meeting of the semester. The meeting will be held at noon on Friday, September 23, 2016 in the Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Dean’s Conference Room, 5th floor. Come to the meeting to discuss our/your plans for the chapter, and to enjoy a lunch that will be catered by Stefano’s Greek and Mediterranean Cuisine.

This year our UNLV chapter and NV state activities will continue to be focused on advancing the academic freedom, shared governance and financial security of full-time and part-time faculty and academic staff through advocacy, organizing, and nurturing strong alliances http://www.nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA-UNLV has a membership seat on the UNLV President’s Advisory Council (PAC) http://www.unlv.edu/president/advisory-council and we will continue to be active participants in the PAC discussions and decisions of the UNLV President and his cabinet members. At our membership meeting we will discuss items that members what me to bring to the next PAC meeting. In August the NFA state board met in Reno and among other items we accepted the endorsement recommendations from the members of our Southern and Northern Political Action Committees. Come to the meeting to learn the details of the endorsed races and the various amounts of money we have thus far donated to individual candidates. We will also have a couple of as yet unendorsed candidates attend the meeting.

As your new NFA - UNLV chapter president I am committed to improving the employment experiences of our faculty via confidential consultations, supportive advocacy, and policy change. And I invite you to contact me in confidence regarding any matter that may be of concern to you or your colleagues. We want to hear about the problems, solutions, questions, and successes related to your working conditions as UNLV faculty, academic professionals and graduate students. Thank you in advance for your time and energy to be focused our NFA activities in the coming year.

In Solidarity,

Sandra Owens, NFA - UNLV President Sandra.owens@unlv.edu (702) 612-6371
David Steel, NFA Nevada Executive Director (Dsteel@Nevadafacultyalliance.org) Steven Cohen, NFA - UNLV Part-time Organizer (CohenS3@Unlv.nevada.edu)

CSN-NFA Bargaining Team candidate statements

Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:29:48 GMT

Candidates were informed that they could make a short statement that would be available to voters. The following are the statements that were received, by alphabetical order of last name:

John Aliano

My name is John Aliano, Program Director for Videography & Film. I have worked at CSN for six years and feel I can be an asset to the bargaining team and NFA. As we move forward with collective bargaining it is important to advocate for many interests represented by a variety of classifications within the CSN community. I have been an active participant in numerous meetings thus far and will continue to support the best interests of our hard working faculty.

Regards,
John

Jerry Hodges

My name is Professor Jerry Hodges and I have been at CSN for some 23 years. I have been very involved in college service over these many years and have been a strong advocate for faculty over my tenure at CSN. If elected as a member of the bargaining team, I will continue to be a strong advocate for faculty in the collective bargaining process.

Aminul KM

I believe in shared governance. We can make Collective Bargaining a part of shared governance in this beautiful institution of CSN. I will work with the administration on our behalf to make sure that we have proper health and salary benefits. Even though CSN is the one of the biggest community colleges in the U.S, our benefits are less than our peers. Our salaries are below national median, and our health benefits are even worse. How could one of the biggest community colleges in the country doesn’t even fall in the top 500 in salaries and benefits? With inadequate compensation and poor benefits, we are having trouble recruiting the best teachers and retaining scores of our excellent colleagues. A strong CB team can improve our salaries, benefits, and overall environment, and make CSN one of the premier institutions in the nation.

Aminul KM

Mathematics

Joseph Miller

I believe that the collective bargaining team will play a critical part in the future of CSN, and members of the team should have broad background in terms of the experiences at CSN. A short summary of my experiences is below:

• Over the years I’ve been a part-time instructor, emergency hire instructor, tenured track, and tenured faculty. I started in 1999 as a part-time instructor.

• At times in addition to teaching I’ve served as a Program Director and Department Chair. In both of those positions I strongly advocated for the interests of the Program faculty or Department faculty when in those positions.

• I’ve served in the Faculty Senate for close to 10 years.

Jennifer Nelson

Collective bargaining at CSN gives academic faculty, counsellors, and librarians new status in the shared governance of this college. Through our representatives at the bargaining table, we are made equal parties with our administrators in the processes of contract negotiation. The training for negotiation I have completed over the last two months has by no means made me a perfect candidate for your bargaining team. What I offer is professionalism and over 15 years' experience with faculty issues at CSN, seen from the perspectives of the classroom as a tenured professor, the Faculty Senate as an Arts & Letters representative, and NFA leadership (currently, as chapter VP and state board Treasurer). If elected as a negotiator, I will work tirelessly to support the negotiating team's efforts to bring the best possible contract to you for ratification. Thank you in advance for your vote.

Jennifer S. Nelson, Ph.D

T. Raghu

NFA Colleagues,
I have been a professor of philosophy in the department of social sciences at CSN, West Charleston campus, for twelve years. I currently serve at CSN in the Workload & Evaluation Committee, the Strategic Futures Task force appointed by President Richards, and the departmental program review committee. I strongly supported the NFA in its attempt to win the Collective Bargaining election. I have attended the CAPE session on "Faculty Rights and Processes under Collective Bargaining" and, of course, the NFA Collective Bargaining training session. I am strongly committed to achieving expertise in all relevant policies and procedures impacting faculty rights and interests. Ensuring a healthy, supportive, and productive work climate for faculty at CSN is one of my top priorities. Another priority is inclusion, without which diversity is a charade. If elected to your bargaining team, I will work to the best of my ability to alleviate and eliminate work climate factors at CSN which undermine faculty rights, interests, morale, and meaningful participation.
I look forward to your valuable support in this election. If you have any questions, pl. do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail or by phone.
Best,
Thill Raghu

Steve Soltz

Dear fellow NFA members,

I am running for a position on the bargaining team, which will be negotiating your contract terms with CSN. I have been involved with the effort to gain collective bargaining rights since it began. I was never a union man. But the circumstances that have come about regarding our pay and benefits over the last eight (8) years have made it such that I saw no other way to make change, other than collective bargaining. I can assure you that if I am chosen as a member I will do my part to see that the faculty are given the best contract that can be done, under the constraints of Nevada and NSHE law.

Respectfully,

Steve Soltz

Ingrid Stewart

Dear Colleagues

The other day I overheard a conversation between my friends Ray and Steve. Ray asked what Steve’s son is doing for a living. Steve said, “Well, he wanted to be a teacher, but I talked him out of that. Teachers don’t make any money. Now he works in marketing and makes over half a mil a year.”

I felt degraded! After all, isn’t it the teachers who educated this marketing manager as well as the doctors and lawyers and such? Therefore, shouldn’t teachers at least earn a salary they can be proud of and that the public respects?

I would like to be a part of the NFA negotiation team to try to bring back some pride in being a teacher. I understand that I must be professional in my dealings with the administration, be respectful, and have integrity.

Now, the other side might say that teaching is a labor of love and teachers shouldn’t bankrupt the system. But if the Clark County Commissioners don’t worry about that when they sent a $750 mil request for public funds to the Governor to build a Raider’s Stadium, I won’t even worry about our much humbler requests. According to Channel 8, about 65% of publicly funded stadiums are no longer used after some period of time whereas our profession keeps on giving.

Sincerely,

Ingrid Stewart, Ph.D.

David Wangsgard

My name is David Wangsgard, and I would like to serve on the collective bargaining team. I currently serve on the NFA executive board as the chair of Membership and Organizing. For the past two years, I have been deeply involved in our efforts to achieve collective bargaining at CSN. I would like to see these efforts through to the successful negotiation of a robust contract for CSN faculty.

In solidarity,

David Wangsgard

Glynda White

Dear Faculty,

I ask for your vote to become a member of the CSN/NFA-AAUP Bargaining Team. See below a few pertinent facts, my qualifications and reasons for seeking this position.

I am a professor and lead faculty of Business and Employment/Labor Law in the Department of Business Administration. I have been at CSN for over twenty years. My many years of teaching at CSN have allowed me to serve on many college committees, interact with faculty in interdisciplinary areas and, afforded me the opportunity develop new courses for the department.

In 1998 I developed the Employment Law course which includes a component of Labor Law with collective bargaining. The class introduces to students this area of workplace law as they prepare to enter the business environment. I am currently teaching this class.

I hold the Juris Doctor degree and, a trained lawyer. My work experience includes working in law offices in different states, EEOC, Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) and the US Department of Commerce, specifically Economic Development of Administration (EDA).

I am seeking to become a member of the bargaining team because I believe in Academic Collective Bargaining. I have good skills in persuasion and advocacy for the best interest of the unit. It is my position that an effective labor-management plan provides a positive and productive workplace climate for all parties. Academic Collective Bargaining is a method to bring about equality, genuine shared decision making and improved conflict resolution.

I know how to bargain in good faith and I am a strong advocate. And I want to represent you!

Thank you for your vote!

Southern PAC active

Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:45:56 GMT

The NFA southern PAC has been active this election cycle, interviewing and endorsing candidates.

Senate:

Joyce Woodhouse

Nicole Cannizzaro

Alexander Marks

Aaron Ford

Tick Segerblom

Assembly:

Ozzie Fumo

Elliot Anderson

Nelson Araujo

Tyrone Thompson

Steve Yeager

Lesley Cohen

Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod

John Piro

Jason Frierson

Ellen Spiegel

Chris Brooks

William McCurdy II

The NFA northern PAC has also been active. We will be releasing a full list of endorsements prior to the election.

NFA-UNLV table at new faculty orientation

Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:59:12 GMT

Cross-posted from NFA-UNLV blog:

http://nfaunlv.blogspot.com/2016/08/nfa-unlv-table-at-new-faculty.html

NFA-NSC launches new chapter website

Thu, 18 Aug 2016 00:28:16 GMT

The Nevada State College NFA Chapter has launched a new chapter website. It can be found at: http://www.nfa-nsc.org/

Bylaws amendments pass

Mon, 11 Jul 2016 17:46:17 GMT

The results of the bylaws election are in, and the revisions have passed with 93% voting "yes." Thanks to all who took the time to look over the changes and vote on this matter.

NFA Bylaws Amendment Election

Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:34:34 GMT

The NFA State Board has initiated a full membership election to ratify changes to the NFA bylaws. These changes were approved unanimously by the NFA State Board at the Spring 2016 meeting.

The election will be held shortly. A two thirds majority "yes" vote will be required to enact the changes. On behalf of the State Board, I encourage everyone to vote.

Changes and explanation:

Article V.F.2, Quorum: Currently, a requirement for a quorum is one board member from the universities, one from the community colleges, and one from the state college. This has proved problematic because there is only one state college, meaning that the absence of one individual could prevent a quorum. The proposed amendment is to change this requirement to one board member from a northern institution and one from a southern institution.

Article V.B, Composition of the Board: The proposed amendment moves legal defense coordinator, legal defense evaluator, and past president from voting to non-voting members of the State Board. This was felt appropriate because none of these positions derive from a current election. They are preserved as non-voting members of the Board because they can offer valuable insight and continuity of experience.

Article V.D, Vacancies: The proposed amendment clarifies that vacancy in the Chapter President position is to be filled by the chapter itself, and not the State Board. This is current practice but the wording in the bylaws was unclear. It also clarifies that vacancies in the State Executive Board are to be filled by the Executive Board itself, also current practice.

VII.D, VII.F, VII.G, Committees: These are various tweaks to committee composition, intended to make the committees more functional.

You can view the full text of the bylaws, with the proposed additions in red and deletions struck through, by clicking the following:

NFA Bylaws with Proposed Revision 6 19 2016.doc

NFA position on merit pay

Wed, 08 Jun 2016 22:00:07 GMT

After the last legislative session, NFA applauded the compensation increases that were given for faculty, while stressing the need for full funding of merit, as had been our position during the session. We argued that if the state did not fund merit, the system or the institutions should.

The following was NFA testimony to the Regents, delivered by NFA President Jim Strange shortly after the end of the legislative session. We continue to adhere to this position and fight for merit.

Statement:

The Nevada Faculty Alliance urges the NSHE Board of Regents, Chancellor Klaich and the Institution presidents to fund a 2.5% merit increase for NSHE professional staff for each year of the coming biennium. Awarding of merit should proceed according to policies approved at each institution. Awarding of meritshould under no circumstances be detrimental to existing professional positions.

• Since 2008, NSHE professional staff have endured reduced salaries due to reductions to base pay, furloughs, and a lack of merit pay funding or COLA, while experiencing higher workload.

• All NSHE employees should be treated equally in terms of merit funding. Nevada classified employees received a merit (step) increase of 2.5% in each year of the coming biennium, whereas NSHE professionals received no merit increase. Awarding merit unequally to NSHE employees will not be beneficial to morale, and could negatively impact our service to students and communities.

• As Nevada recovers economically, it’s only fair for NSHE professionals be recognized and compensated for their sacrifices during the recession.

• Nevada is losing its regional competitiveness in its ability to attract and retain high quality professional staff. This has left NSHE institutions at risk of not achieving the levels of student success, transformational research, commercialization of technologies and workforce development which are crucial to Nevada’s economic future.

• Community college faculty have recently moved from the traditional step system for salaries, and revised evaluation systems to accommodate a true merit-based salary system. Failing to award merit in the first year of full implementation of the new true merit system would be detrimental to morale and call into question the validity of the new system.

CSN faculty win collective bargaining election

Mon, 18 Apr 2016 21:39:11 GMT

In an election held in late March and early April, full-time faculty at College of Southern Nevada voted for collective bargaining, 263-126. On April 15th, the American Arbitration Association counted the votes and certified the result.

"We are very proud and excited that our colleagues at the College of Southern Nevada have chosen to stand together and form a union with AAUP. We look forward to working with them to ensure faculty has a strong voice on campus," commented Howard Bunsis, Chair of the AAUP Collective Bargaining Congress.

"We look forward to sitting down at the table with the administration in the fall to discuss faculty working conditions and student learning conditions," said David Steel, NFA-AAUP Executive Director.

NFA State Board passes Position on Part-Time Faculty

Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:17:11 GMT

NFA Position on Part-Time Faculty

Whereas part-time faculty contribute professional knowledge and experience in their disciplines to higher education in Nevada, provide vital support to students’ learning and degree-seeking or other program-completion goals, and collaborate with full-time faculty and other NSHE colleagues in common cause to fulfill their institutions’ mission; yet, whereas in recent decades, part-time faculty have seen greater institutional reliance on their services be rewarded by increasing levels of economic exploitation and unprofessional treatment accompanied by decreasing levels of work and career support; and, whereas this widening gap of inequities dividing part-time and full-time faculty threatens the commonality of professional interests shared by all classifications of faculty--academic freedom, shared governance, protection of tenure rights, and employment due process--

Be it resolved that Nevada Faculty Alliance will advocate on behalf of part-time faculty by promoting on campus, before the Regents, and in the state legislature those policies, programs, and values that will improve pay, working conditions, and other key aspects of contingent employment in NSHE colleges and universities. NFA further resolves to invite its part-time faculty members into the advocacy process, as consultants and voters in determining priorities for activism, and to represent agreed-upon proposals as a strong voice for our colleagues who, in just concern for reprisal or retribution against them for supporting their own cause, are willing to be so represented. NFA believes that strengthening our alliance with part-time faculty can in time reverse the trend in NSHE toward hiring disproportionately high numbers of non-tenure-track faculty and will preserve the traditional model and values of tenure, the keystone to academic freedom in higher education.

In accordance with this resolution, we adopt the following five-point program as a guide to our advocacy work on behalf of part-time faculty employed at NSHE institutions:

Pay

1. Part-time faculty salaries should be incrementally raised until such time as part-time faculty are paid a salary proportional to that paid full-time tenure-track faculty of the same qualifications for the same classroom work, bearing in mind that full-time faculty perform numerous non-teaching duties. If part-time faculty are required to do non-teaching work, they should be compensated for those tasks

Working conditions

2. Part-time faculty should receive a full orientation and should be eligible for professional development opportunities. They should be provided suitable office space, office supplies, and library and other campus privileges, and should have access to secretarial and technological support services including computers and copying machines. Part-time faculty may have to cobble together several jobs to sustain themselves and, therefore, NSHE institutions should provide them with priority parking or discounts on parking permits where appropriate to help offset their time demands and to help them meet their teaching duties

Categorization

3. Part-time faculty should be defined as employees of the college or university, not as independent contractors. Accordingly, they should have unemployment insurance available to them when they are not on the college payroll.

Seniority

4. Part-time faculty who have passed a probationary period should achieve a form of seniority, including longer contracts and priority in class assignment over less senior part-time/adjunct faculty. Part-time faculty with a successful track record in teaching should be given special consideration in evaluation for full-time positions for which they are qualified.

Collective bargaining

5. Part-time faculty should have the right to choose collective bargaining.

NFA statement on administrative faculty policies being heard by the Board of Regents

Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:30:55 GMT

Nevada Faculty Alliance

Statement on the Proposal to Reduce the Notice of Dismissal of

Administrative Faculty

Glenn C. Miller, President, UNR Nevada Faculty Alliance, for the

Nevada Chapter of the Faculty Alliance

The NSHE Regent Agenda lists a discussion item regarding the reduction of notice for dismissal ofadministrative faculty from up to a year to 30 to 45 days. The Nevada Faculty Alliance strongly opposes this change in policy for the following reasons.

1. Administrative faculty are critical to the functioning of each unit of the NSHE and need to have the ability to make decisions and recommendations that are thoughtful and independent, even if they do not always agree with the respective central administration. Administrative faculty are highly trained professionals and the decision on whether they should be terminated should have a high barrier. Most go through national searches, and can be dismissed early following their hiring, or even later if severe issues arise, similar to academic faculty. But, reducing their job security based on the whim of an upper administrator is entirely wrong. These people have functions that are critically important in many functions of the university, from protecting students from harm, or ensuring that we are in compliance with local, state and federal laws. We should not have them looking around to determine if they are going to do something that is not supported by the upper administration, and have a threat of being dismissed within 30-45 days.

2. What is the problem that is being solved by this new dismissal policy? This has worked well for many years, although we know that the administration of several (if not all) of the NSHE units would have liked to have this policy in place during the difficult recession times. But, we survived those very difficult times, and there is no reason to change the policy at this time. For the remainingadministrative faculty on state-funded positions who make decisions that are critical to the operation of the university, we need to maintain a high barrier for their dismissal. 30-45 days is not a high barrier.

3. Hiring highly qualified people in these positions will be increasingly difficult if they are subject to the whims of the upper administrations. While a president, provost or dean may be in their positions for a long time, they change on a regular basis, and a highly qualified person may be reluctant to come to UNR if they know they can be dismissed on a whim in 30-45 days for no reason if a new supervisor is hired. The best people will come to the best institutions of higher education when they know they will have time to find a new position of the current position is untenable. If there is not security in a position, then they simply are unlikely to come to units of the NSHE.

4. This policy change will increase the ability of the central administration of each unit to increase what faculty perceive as a top-down management style. If administrative faculty need to look over their shoulder each time to determine if their decisions are supported by the upper administration, they are unlikely to make difficult decisions that are correct, but controversial. At UNR when the funding formulas were changed and now depend on student tuition, many administrative faculty were converted from a 1 year dismissal policy to 30-45 day. We have seen administrative faculty dismissed following that conversion. Two examples- one was the very able legal staff who helped faculty secure patents for intellectual property. They went form 1 year dismissals to 30 day dismissal contracts, although they were generously give 60 day dismissals. One administrative faculty member who had worked for 25 years in the seismology department came up against a new administration, and she was dismissed with the simple statement that the funds supporting her position were being redirected. She had never been criticized for her scientific ability or her work ethic, but had a strong personality. She was dismissed under the 30 day policy.

The regents simply should not change the policy for new administrative faculty. It is contrary to the notion that a unit of Nevada’s higher education system has independent minds working for teaching, research and service to one that has a top down management with narrow vision that one view of the world is how higher education will be delivered. Diversity of opinion is a critical component of higher education and we all need to protect this core vision.

Statement from NFA member

Thu, 02 Jul 2015 01:45:14 GMT

"I would like to thank you and the other members of the NFA leadership for the advice and counsel during the last academic year regarding Faculty-in-Residence workload issues. I appreciated receiving objective and fact-based opinions that assisted in resolving the issue amicably."

Prof X, UNLV

Legislative wrap-up

Tue, 16 Jun 2015 01:53:50 GMT

By David Steel, NFA Executive Director

The 2015 legislative session has come to a close. There were several victories for faculty, including a restoration of base pay via the elimination of furloughs. NFA would like to thank the many members who gave their time and effort in the session.

Here are the results on the legislative priority issues adopted by the NFA State Board January 2015 (no order):

* End furloughs

Furloughs, which amount to a 2.3% salary deduction, are set to end July 1, 2015.

* Ensure adequate NSHE funding, particularly the merit pool

NFA sought a merit pool amounting to a 2.5% increase each year of the biennium. No money was initially included in the proposed budget for faculty raises. NFA along with faculty senates and NSHE fought to change this. The final result was that, although merit was not funded, faculty will receive a 1% across the board raise in July 2015 and a further 2% in July 2016.

The legislature also found money for bridge funding for WNC and GBC, the UNLV law school, the UNLV medical school, the UNLV hotel college building, as well as new need-based scholarships. Further, the State increased the retirement contribution by 1.25%, which although meaning a decrease in immediate compensation as faculty mandatory contribution will increase by the same amount, ultimately increases overall compensation.

While the overall result of the session was a substantial increase to the higher education budget, NFA continues to believe that full funding of merit is an important objective that will boost Nevada's regional competitiveness in hiring as well as faculty morale. Faculty have seen slashed and stagnant wages for years since the Great Recession. The increases granted in this session, while a welcome change, will not return NSHE faculty salaries to their former ranking vis a vis those of faculty in other states. Accordingly, NFA President-elect Jim Strange presented a statement authorized by the NFA State Board to the NSHE Regents on June 11^th, calling for merit to be funded either by NSHE or at the institution level.

* No outsourcing distance education

No plans to outsource distance education were proposed in the session.

* Preserve or enhance PEBP benefits

PEBP rates will increase starting July 1, 2015, with the amount depending on coverage level, from $2.74 per month for employee only PPO CDHP coverage to $27.80 per month for a family coverage HMO plan. The wellness program, which previously allowed the possibility a $50 per month benefit, was also eliminated.

* Preserve payroll deduction and arbitration rights for public employees

The proposed bill AB 182 would have eliminated both payroll deduction and arbitration rights for public employees. NFA along with many other organizations representing state employees opposed the bill. In the end, AB 182 was defeated. The more moderate collective bargaining reform bill, SB 241, which passed, will not impact these core features.

* No campus carry

Early in the session, AB 2, which would have allowed guns in vehicles on campus, and AB 148, which would have allowed guns on campus, appeared to have significant momentum. AB 2 was amended into AB 148, which passed the Assembly. NFA testified against both bills, and was the only party to introduce statistical evidence into the record. The evidence showed that campuses in states with campus carry were not made safer by the introduction of guns to campus.

AB 148 died in the Senate, and AB 487, which reprized AB 148, met a similar fate.

Reactions from NFA leaders:

“The composition of the legislature made this session an uphill struggle for faculty. There was a threat that the Governor's proposed budget would be gutted by a mutiny in his party, and prospects for enhancements to the Governor's budget seemed dim, particularly in the realm of faculty salaries. Campus carry appeared a fait accompli. Yet in the end there was some money given for faculty above the Governor's initial budget, and campus carry was defeated. As an organization we did what we could and I think we can be proud of the result, given the circumstances.”

- NFA Executive Director David Steel

“This 2015 legislative session turned out fairly well in the end for NSHE faculty, even though it was something of a white knuckle ride though most of it. We are disappointed in the lack of merit funding for NSHE professionals. Next session the NFA will focus on improving its lobbying presence and continue fighting for a proactive agenda on behalf of NSHE faculty.”

- Incoming NFA President Jim Strange

“I commend the legislature and especially the Governor for funding higher education, ending the furloughs, and a token Cost of living raise. Yet with so many of the faculty still paid at 2009 wages, with weak health insurance, and inadequate retirement plans, I can't help thinking we are only placing cookies before a chimney in the hope that Santa will bring us a New Nevada rather than truly funding a system where well-compensated professionals develop our state's workforce into one that can support a balanced economy.”

- Incoming NFA Vice President Rob Manis

“The most famous (or infamous) bill was AB 148, the pet project of Michelle Fiore, assemblywoman from southern Nevada. NFA testified against the bill, held rallies at UNR and UNLV, prodded the new UNLV President into issuing a strong statement against the bill, lobbied legislators, and worked with students, the university administration and the Chancellor's office to stop the bill.”

- NFA-UNLV Chapter President John Farley

NFA-UNR report

Mon, 09 Mar 2015 23:12:05 GMT

by Glenn C. Miller, UNR NFA President

Merit pay, salary compression and pay equity continue to be major concerns at UNR, as they are in most units of the NSHE. While all would agree that the Governor’s budget has some distinct enhancements for education overall, the lack of merit pay in the budget has long term consequences for maintaining competitive salaries for both academic and administrative faculty. This concern is magnified when state classified employees are receiving step increases.

Since about 1985, merit has been a priority for the NFA, when Jim Richardson and others negotiated that merit increases should be part of the governor’s budget. Prior to that time, pay for faculty in the NSHE was comparatively low, compared to similar public institutions throughout the country. Following the establishment of merit, salaries rose to the point that NSHE faculty salaries were consistently above the average in these surveys, up until 2009, when salary increases effectively stopped. Thus, the absence of salary increases in the governor’s budget is an unwelcome precedent for faculty.

The UNR NFA Board met with President Johnson and Provost Kevin in mid-February to express those concerns. Both the President and Provost had similar concerns about merit pay and were very supportive of efforts by both the NSHE lobbying team and others to promote the need for restoration for merit. They indicated that the lack of merit would continue to erode the ability of UNR to hire and retain high quality faculty and also indicated that the lack of merit that would probably need to be addressed by the Regents, or individual units of the NSHE, even if the legislature does not restore merit.

Salary compression and equity is becoming problematic also, as faculty who arrived prior to 2009 have not seen consistent salary increases, and new faculty are being hired at pay grades that are very close to what faculty make who have been working here for 5 years or more. The president and Provost also recognize this problem and indicated that this will also receive focus, although it will cost additional money that is now in short supply.

As Administrative Faculty were dismissed or moved to other sources of funding during the lean times in recent years, many found that they had been moved from State funding to less secure funding (from tuition, fees or other non-state money). Administrative faculty on state funds are given a one year notice for termination, except in unusual circumstances, while faculty on non-state funds are given as little as a 30 day notice, even if they have worked at the university for 20 years. These changes have dramatically reduced job security. In at least three cases over the past 3 months, administrative faculty have been dismissed with 60 days or less notice. Since state money has been reduced by over 30%, and each institution is now allowed to retain out-of-state funding, the proportion of administrative faculty on 30 day notices is expected to increase, compared to when the Nevada State budget included many of these positions under state funding. Even if an administrative faculty member was hired on state funds, if they were switched, they were most often given a contract with a thirty day dismissal provision.

NFA testimony on the campus carry bill, AB 148

Sat, 07 Mar 2015 03:44:18 GMT

Good morning. My name is David Steel, Executive Director of the Nevada Faculty Alliance. I am here to express the NFA’s opposition to the campus carry bill AB 148.

Campus is a relatively safe place. For example, in 2013 the number of aggravated assaults on campus at UNR was 0, as compared to 338.4 per 100,000 population off-campus in Reno. Statistics for murder, forcible rape, and robbery are similarly disparate.

The argument may be that, no matter how good the campus safety situation is, campus carry could improve it. However, the statistics for states that have campus carry show that it does not. In Utah in 2003, there were 8.8 forcible rapes on campus per 100,000 students. In 2004 campus carry was introduced and in the following decade the average forcible rapes per 100,000 students has been 11.3. The result is similar for other types of crimes, and the same pattern holds for other campus carry states. So there is no evidence that campus carry improves safety.

The United States grants rights to gun owners, but these in and of themselves do not justify campus carry. Take for example the University of Virginia's position adopted October 1824 that “No student shall, within the precincts of the University... keep or use weapons or arms of any kind, or gunpowder.” That decision is notable because among those on the Board that took it were Thomas Jefferson, the second President and principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, the fourth President, known as “the father of the Bill of Rights.” These founding fathers clearly did not believe this restriction to violate the rights they institutionalized.

We also believe that AB148 is likely to have unintended financial consequences for higher education and local law and medical agencies in terms of personnel, equipment, and the oversight of implementing and accounting for the bill. Where would this additional funding come from as we are just beginning to restore funding to state agencies?

It is for these reasons that the NFA is strongly opposed to AB 148.

Thank you.

President's Update

Thu, 26 Feb 2015 02:28:56 GMT

by Angela Brommel, NFA President

Today is National Adjunct Walkout Day in solidarity of part time faculty all across the nation. The NFA didn't organize a walk out, but we have been walking the halls to hear the stories of members and future members. Since David Steel joined us as Executive Director we have added 60 new members -- and new members keep signing up. David also hired a part time faculty member in the north as an organizer to help reach our colleagues on all tracks. At the January State Board meeting we also voted to hire another organizer in the south. We also have one more open position for an organizer in the north. The state board also has a seat for part time faculty representatives. Our current faculty leader in that seat is Art Lynch. A huge thank you to our organizers, state and chapter leaders for fighting the good fight for all of us. Solidarity!

Guns on campus?

Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:57:26 GMT

Guns on campus?

by John W. Farley, President UNLV chapter of NFA and Tim Bungum, Professor, UNLV Dept of Health Promotion

A number of bills have been drafted or proposed in Carson City that might result in more guns on campus. Current Nevada law allows anyone with a concealed carry permit to bring a gun onto an NSHE campus only if the gun owner has the explicit permission of the college or university president. In practice, the president delegates that decision to the campus chief of police. The UNLV chief of police explained to a meeting of the UNLV Faculty Senate that if an incident occurs, the campus police chief wants his officers to be the only armed force on the scene. The task of the university police would be hindered, not helped, by the presence of other armed individuals. In real life, as opposed to the movies, it is not always easy to distinguish immediately a good guy from a bad guy.

While NFA has not developed a position on every proposed bill, in the past NFA has strongly supported the existing law, and strongly opposed changing the law to make it easier to bring a gun on campus. In the last legislature, NFA, the NSHE presidents, and the Chancellor and the Board of Regents were all in agreement on this issue.

A useful perspective that has too often been absent from the debate is the public health perspective, aimed at harm reduction. David Hemenway is a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, where he directs the Injury Control Research Center. His research on gun violence was reported in his 2006 book, Private Guns, Public Health. Hemenway seeks pragmatic solutions that reduce the number of gun deaths, rather than assigning blame. His is a public health perspective, not a crime perspective. Hemenway found that homicides are frequently impulsive acts, in which the convenience and ready availability of guns allows a confrontation that otherwise would result in a black eye or broken tooth to results instead in a tragedy.

The Hemenway book has a chapter on guns in school, including the following important points:

1. Our schools are safe, but not as safe as schools in other similar countries.

2. 30-35 students are killed by guns in a typical school years (at school).

3. All school killings involved guns (in one study).

4. About 6000 kids a year are expelled for bringing guns to school.

5. Kids who bring guns to school are more apt to smoke, receive poor grades and have guns in the home.

6. All kids who killed at school had easy access to guns.

7. College males who own a gun are more apt to engage in reckless behavior involving alcohol, drive while intoxicated, distrust the police, damage property and sustain an alcohol-related injury.

8. In places with more guns, more students report being victims of gun threats than in other places.

9. Surveys show that most people believe that they will be less safe if more people have guns.

10. Most states that made carrying laws more permissive showed slight increases in homicides.

A summary of the entire Hemenway book includes three documented findings:

1. Arming citizens appears to increase rather than decrease lethal violence.

2. Permissive gun laws appear to be detrimental to the health of the public.

3. More than 90% of adults in one survey expressed the desire to outlaw guns on campus.

Top reasons to join NFA

Wed, 25 Feb 2015 03:16:48 GMT

Courtesy of the UNLV NFA Chapter:

Top Reasons to Join the Nevada Faculty Alliance

• The NFA protects the rights of faculty and professional staff to have free and

open investigation, speech and thought.

• The NFA advocates for those rights to the administration.

• The NFA provides an effective voice for faculty and higher education in the

Nevada Legislature.

• The NFA is an advocate and watchdog for decent faculty salary and benefits.

• The NFA provides legal advice for members and non-members when faculty

rights are in question. The NFA provides legal services to members whose rights

have been violated.

• The NFA was involved in the original establishment of the NSHE merit pool, and

continues to advocate for competitive salaries for faculty.

• The NFA is the Nevada affiliate of the American Association of University

Professors, the longest existing national organization for advocacy of faculty.

• The NFA has great people in the organization who uniformly feel that the

university is critically important to a functioning society.

• NFA members receive the AAUP ACADEME and the NFA Alliance that keeps

members up to date on national and state trends in faculty employment issues.

• The more members we have, the more power we have. Join us!

Congratulations to CSN's Joel Tierno: article published in Academe

Tue, 09 Dec 2014 00:26:43 GMT

Nevada professor and NFA member, Joel Thomas Tierno has an article in the most recent edition of Academe that refutes claims that students are customers. Professor Tierno teaches at CSN.

"Tierno debunks the metaphor that colleges are businesses and students are customers." -- UNLV-NFA President John Farley

"Special shout out to CSN faculty and NFA member Joel Tierno whose Academe article on the topic of 'Students are not our customers and Schools are not businesses' shreds that lame analogy once and for all." -- CSN-NFA President Rob Manis

You can read the article here:

http://www.aaup.org/article/how-many-ways-must-we-say-it#.VIYLbT-UGGp

CSN Chapter Update

Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:55:03 GMT

by Rob Manis, CSN-NFA Chapter President

The CSN Chapter of NFA is going through a period of growth and increased assertiveness. Over the last 14 months nearly 50 new members have signed up, reversing several years of attrition and neglect. Outgoing chapter president Adrian Havas did a fine job of raising morale and turning the organization around. During the last year and half we have conducted three major surveys that have helped us with that turn around by clarifying what members want.

The first, conducted in May of 2013 of NFA members found a high level of disillusionment with NSHE, the Admin and NFA itself. The clear message was that faculty did not feel anyone was standing up for them enough, and they wanted NFA to take a stronger role in advocating for them. The follow-up survey in February 2014 found a much improved view of the new direction of NFA, where an amazing 90% of members said CSN-NFA was on the “right track”.

We followed that up with a survey of all faculty (members and non-members alike) in June of this year. Over 200 people responded. The responses were interesting:

The old CSN faculty evaluation system was preferred to the new one passed by Faculty Senate last year by 37%-25%

Faculty rated the three top CSN administrators as only satisfactory (modal category). A plurality distrusted CSN administrative hiring 45-28%, and an audit of CSN finances was favored by a huge 77-6%.

Additionally opinion was negative toward both NSHE and PEBP, while the most popular choice to fix PEBP was the state NFA proposal to expand PEBP board to include 5 employee members.

NFA is seen by all faculty as ‘about right’ by 48%, but many more see it as too weak rather than too militant by 38%-14% . Faculty say they support collective bargaining by a surprisingly large margin. 51-17%.

My goal as the new chapter President is to gain another 50+ members over the next year and to explore possible paths to collective bargaining, a major task in an institution of over 500 faculty.

NFA members politically active

Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:38:55 GMT

by David Steel, NFA Executive Director

NFA members have been active both before and after the November election, meeting with candidates and discussing NFA's political priorities.

Top priorities of NFA include access to quality affordable healthcare, ensuring that furloughs are lifted, and opposing any plan that irresponsibly outsources distance education. NFA promotes quality higher education in Nevada, and we see faculty working conditions as inextricably linked to that goal, as they are students' learning conditions.

From L to R: NFA Director David Steel, CSN-NFA President Rob Manis, CSN-NFA officer Andrea Brown, and assemblyperson Nelson Araujo

CSN-NFA President Rob Manis and Assemblyperson Melissa Woodbury

Western Nevada College Faculty Win First Collective Bargaining Agreement

ANGELA BROMMEL — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:09:43 GMT

After nearly two years of negotiations, the faculty of Western Nevada College ratified their first collective bargaining agreement by a vote of 42 yes, 2 no, with 8 not voting. The contract will significantly improve working conditions for faculty, and return faculty to the forefront of the academic decision making process at WNC.

WNC is the second Nevada college after Truckee Meadows Community College to move to collective bargaining.

“This is a huge step forward for WNC faculty. We will now have a much stronger voice in college decisions, and will have additional protections for academic freedom, shared governance and due process”, said James Strange, chief negotiator and Nevada Faculty Alliance Vice President.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance represents academic and administrative faculty, and graduate students in the Nevada System of Higher Education.

The CBA was signed by representatives of the Nevada Faculty Alliance and the WNC administration, and forwarded to the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents for final approval on the consent agenda. The Board approved the CBA unanimously at the June 5th, 2014 meeting.

Contact: Jim Strange, NFA State Vice President
775-434 4842
strangewnc@gmail.com

4/24/13 @ 4pm: Higher Education Budget

ANGELA BROMMEL — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:20:46 GMT

Tomorrow the NSHE budget is on the work session agenda for the 4:00pm meeting of the subcommittee of the Senate Finance/Assembly Ways and Means Joint Subcommittee on K-12/Higher Education/CIPS.

NFA State Board Election

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:35:13 GMT

The NFA State Board Election began today. An email has been sent to NFA members with a link to the election survey.

Voting will end Saturday, April 27th, at 11:55p.m. Tabulation of the results will be done by the NFA legal defense chair, Professor Peter Bayer. Winners will be announced on Tuesday, April 30th.

The following is a list of offices and the candidates who are running for each:

NFA state board candidates:

President, Angela Brommel NSC
Vice president, Jim Strange WNC
Treasurer, Shari Lyman CSN
Secretary, Leah Wild UNR
Adjunct Representative, Jeannine Klein NSC

Cancelled: Saturday, April 20th Meeting on Higher Ed Budgets

ANGELA BROMMEL — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:32:17 GMT

The Saturday, April 20th meeting of the Senate Committee on Finance and Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, Joint Subcommittee on K-12/Higher Education/CIPS has been cancelled.

NFA State Board Election

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:06:41 GMT

A Message from the Past President

State board NFA officers serve two year terms. June 30, 2013 will mark the end of the term for those officers elected in 2011. Thus, it is necessary for nominations and the election of new officers to take place soon.

Please note that the nomination process and collection of statements from candidates will begin April 14, 2013 and end April 20^th at 11:55 PM. You may nominate an individual, or self- nominate, but please confirm that the nominee accepts before forwarding any names.

Candidate statement should be forwarded to: admin@nevadafacultyalliance.org Subject line: “Candidate Statement for State Board Officers”

Nominations should be forwarded to: peter.bayer@unlv.edu Subject Line: “Nominations for State Board Officers”

Candidate statements will be made available and the election will commence on April 22^nd and end at 11:55 PM on April 27^th. The results will be reported on April 30, 2013.

A link to an online survey will provide a confidential mechanism by which votes will be cast. Tabulation of the results will be done by the NFA legal defense chair, Professor Peter Bayer.

The following officer positions are open for nomination:

NFA state board president

NFA state board vice president

NFA state board treasurer

NFA state board secretary

NFA state board part-time faculty representative

Thank you,

Scott Huber, Past President

Governance and Contigent Faculty

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:33:34 GMT

This week the AAUP released a statement outlining additional protections for contingent faculty, often called "adjunct" faculty. This report follows a draft that the AAUP released in June 2012.

This report suggested expanding the voting and governance rights of tenure-track faculty to all faculty who teach and/or conduct research. With many universities moving toward a majority of faculty who fall into the contingent category, the AAUP urges greater inclusion and protections.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is currently looking for more adjunct/part-time members to participate in governance. If you are a part-time NFA member and would like to become more involved in your NFA, please contact NFA President Angela Brommel or your chapter president. Contact information can be found through the link below.

The AAUP Report...

The Inside Higher Ed Article...
State and Chapter President Contact Information...

Sandoval gives the State of the State

Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:20:24 GMT

Governor Sandoval presented his State of the State address on Wednesday, January 15 in Carson City. In his address, he promised to restore merit and bring much needed funds into higher education in Nevada. But is his plan enough? Click on the links below to read a piece in the Review Journal. Below you will also find links to the text of both Governor Sandoval's speech and Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis' response.

Review Journal article...

Click here for the Governor's Speech...
Click here for Sen. Mo Denis' Response...

Professors and Teaching: Proving an Old Adage Wrong

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:35:02 GMT

A new book challenges what has been thought of as common knowledge: professors do not make good teachers, especially professors at research institutions.

A qualitative study of 55 professors representing a range disciplines, teaching excellence, and demographics were interviewed in depth on their approach to teaching in higher education. Contrary to how many professors are viewed, the studied demonstrated that for those working in higher education teaching is an iterative process that one professor likened to the movie "Groundhog Day." Many professors reported a continual adjusting and improving of courses over years, while others stated their concern for teaching quality often caused them to overprepare.

Read the full article...

Special Board of Regents Meeting this Friday at UNLV

Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:05:58 GMT

The Board of Regents will hold a special meeting this Friday, January 11 from 9:00 am in UNLV's Student Union. Click the link below to access this meeting's agenda.

http://system.nevada.edu/Nshe/index.cfm/administration/board-of-regents/meeting-agendas11111/

Assessment and Student Motivation

Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:10:52 GMT

A new study from researchers at the Educational Testing Service (one of the major providers of assessment tests) demonstrated the importance of student motivation in assessing what a student has learned throughout their college career.

This study showed that students, who were told their assessment test would be shared with university professors, scored significantly higher than those who believed that only the research team would view their scores.

This study raises important questions not only for assessment but also for other standardized low-stakes tests.

Read the full article...

A Year in Review: The Politics of Educational Technology

Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:14:37 GMT

2012 saw many changes in the politics of ed-tech. The year began with regular Internet users and the titans of Internet technology defeating SOPA and PIPA. As the year progressed, we saw a marked upsurge in lobbying dollars spent by such companies as Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. At the state level, ALEC has taken aim at education including advocating the penalization of students who take more than four years to complete college.

Examining these and other happenings in ed and ed-tech, this article from Inside Higher Ed reviews what we've seen in 2012.

Read the full article...

The AAUP Undergoes Restructuring

Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:41:48 GMT

As of January 1, 2013 the AAUP will be restructured into three entities: the AAUP Foundation, The AAUP Collective Bargaining Congress, and the AAUP.

The AAUP Foundation, a 502(c)(3), will conduct fundraising for education and support programs. The AAUP-CBC will function as a labor union advocating for unionization and collective bargaining, while the AAUP, a 501(c)(6) professional organization, will support "advocacy" chapters.

State conferences will remain unchanged with this transition.

Read full announcement...

Confidentiality and Representation: the AAUP weighs in

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:56:52 GMT

The AAUP released a new policy that argues against the appropriateness of blanket confidentiality agreements for faculty serving on committees engaged in shared governance.

While there has been a trend recently toward requiring faculty to sign confidentiality statements when serving on these committees, the AAUP contends that such blanket agreements hinder faculty's ability to represent the concerns and interests of the colleagues on behalf of whom they are to act.

Read the full article...

NFA PAC ENDORSEMENTS: FEDERAL CANDIDATES

ANGELA BROMMEL — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:02:39 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance wishes to remind our members and community supporters that the complete NFA PAC endorsements can be found in the fall issue of The Alliance and in the online edition found on our website.

The following candidates for the U.S. Senate and Congress have a proven record of excellence when advocating for higher education in Nevada. Each has exhibited a proven commitment to seeking out input from faculty as key stakeholders in quality, public higher education.

Shelley Berkeley for Senate

Former regent an and longtime support of the NSHE and NFA, Congresswoman Shelley Berkeley has a record of working to keep college affordable – and to support, in particular, veterans seeking to return to college – and merits our endorsement.

Dina Titus for Congress (1)

During her prior term in congress longtime UNLV faculty member and NFA member Dina Titus showed her commitment not only to our issues but to us as constituents, and we enthusiastically back her campaign to return to congress.

John Ocegura for Congress (3)

The former Nevada State Assembly Speaker and former student of no fewer than four NSHE campuses, Ocegura has taken positions in support of the president’s agenda for college affordability and degree completion.

Steven Horsford for Congress (4)

As Nevada Senate Majority Leader, Horsford showed himself to be a passionate and deeply intelligent advocate for students and quality public education. In 2011 he led the successful campaign to reduce the deep cuts proposed to NSHE.

Horsford has a proven record of commitment and achievement in keeping higher education more affordable for Nevada families. Not only has he long been a strong voice for keeping costs to students down but he also took the lead in the legislature and accomplished what others tried for years but could not -- he passed a bill to study the system of financing higher education which had remained unchanged for decades. Then he took the lead as chair of the study committee to make higher education in Nevada more efficient and more productive.

This year, he brought clear thinking, careful management and a shrewd eye for detail as chair of the most important state level discussion of higher education policy in a generation, the interim legislative funding formula study committee. Throughout the process, he sought input from faculty across the state, and in his campaign he has made a priority of advocating for college access and affordability. Even if his opponent had not called for the extreme position of calling for the abolition of the federal Department for Education – and with it all of federal financial aid (which is the case) – Horsford would be the clear choice for Nevada’s new fourth congressional seat.

There has been no legislator more committed to making college more affordable in Nevada and no candidate in this year's election better prepared to take this fight for access and affordability to Washington.

Partnership to Benefit Unemployed Nevadans

Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:58:00 GMT

The Maxine S. Jacobs Foundation, the Nevada Department of Employment, Rehabilitation, and Training (DETR), and Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) will be announcing a public-private collaboration that will provide scholarships to qualified unemployed Nevadans. Funds will come from the Maxine S. Jacobs Foundation, recipient recruitment will be provided by DETR, and screening and instruction will be supplied by TMCC.

Details on this scholarship program will be presented on October 2 at 10:00am at the V. James Eardley Student Services Center, Red Mountain Building on the TMCC Dandini Campus. Questions may also be directed to Kate Kirkpatrick at 775-673-7206 or kirkpatrick@tmcc.edu.

NFA PAC announces federal endorsements

(Past member) — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:11:43 GMT

The NFA Political Action Committee is a state entity, but it can and regularly does make endorsements in federal races when there is a clear choice on higher education issues. This year, the NFA endorses the following candidates.

Barack Obama for President. The Obama administration has made college affordability and national investment in higher education a priority since it entered office. The American Recovery and Revitalization Act of 2009 included hundreds of millions of dollars in federal support for public higher education in Nevada, which helped cushion the blow of the Great Recession on our students and institutions. Then, in March 2010, the president supported and signed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which redirected about $6 billion per year from subsidies to commercial banks to subsidize student loans into direct lending and into Pell Grants, which put students ahead of banks. This bill also included important reforms of student loans, limiting repayment in any given year to 10 percent of personal income, and forgiveness of debt remaining after 20 years of ontime payments (10 years in the case of public service workers). The administration has also been strongly supportive of community college students, with tax credits to offset tuition for retraining.

Perhaps even more importantly, the Obama administration has stressed educational quality by imposing rules that require institutions eligible for student loans and federal aid to document that they prepare their students for "gainful employment" and that a sufficient share of their students are able to repay their student loans – thereby cutting down on the predatory practices of for-profit colleges which have become notorious for recruiting under-qualified students to receive federal loans, but providing no valuable education or job training.

The Obama Department of Education also has strongly supported the college completion agenda, which has guided the System in the development of its new funding formula.

In a second term, President Obama has proposed a new fund to support innovation in higher education, while also proposing to tie federal financial aid to limits on tuition increases. As an organization committed to quality public higher education and the faculty who deliver it, NFA is proud to endorse Barack Obama for re-election.

Shelley Berkeley for Senate. Former regent and longtime supporter of the Nevada System of Higher Education and NFA, Congresswoman Shelley Berkeley has a record of working to keep college affordable and to support, in particular, veterans seeking to return to college merits our endorsement.

CD-1: Dina Titus for Congress. During her prior term in congress, longtime University of Nevada, Las Vegas, faculty member and NFA member Dina Titus showed her commitment not only to our issues but to us as constituents, and we enthusiastically back her campaign to return to congress.

CD-3: John Oceguera for Congress. The former Nevada State Assembly Speaker and a former student of no fewer than four NSHE campuses, Oceguera has taken positions in support of the president's agenda for college affordability and degree completion.

CD-4: Steven Horsford for Congress. As Nevada Senate Majority Leader, Horsford showed himself to be a passionate, articulate and deeply intelligent advocate for students and for quality public higher education. He took the lead in 2011 in the successful campaign to reduce the deep cuts to NSHE that had been proposed by Governor Brian Sandoval. This year, he brought clear thinking, careful management and a shrewd eye for detail as chair of the most important state level discussion of higher education policy in a generation, the interim legislative funding formula study committee. Throughout that process, he repeatedly sought out input from faculty across the state, and in his campaign he has made a priority of advocating for college access and affordability. Even if his opponent had not taken the extreme position of calling for the abolition of the federal Department of Education – and with it all federal financial aid (which is the case) – Steven Horsford would still be the clear choice for Nevada's new fourth congressional seat.

NFA PAC announced its endorsements for NSHE Board of Regents

(Past member) — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:28:11 GMT

Our Political Action Committee has endorsed candidates in each of the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents' races currently on the ballot. With so many important issues facing NSHE and its faculty, this year more than ever we undertook our considerations with great care, research and consultation with board officers and members. We urge all who support quality, affordable public higher education in Nevada -- and the faculty and staff who deliver it -- to support the following candidates:

District 1: Cedric Crear. Regent Crear earned our endorsement in his first campaign for the board in 2006, and we are pleased and honored to extend our continuing endorsement for his re-election this year. Crear has been a leader on issues important to faculty such as diversity, equal opportunity and transparency, and he has been a consistent voice on the board for the System to pursue vigorously restoring competitive compensation and adequate health benefits for NSHE faculty and staff. He has always been accessible to the NFA and to faculty generally, and we expect he will become an even more significant voice for our concerns in his second term.

District 4: Stavan Corbett. We are pleased to endorse Corbett, currently the president of the state school board and a career advocate for education, particularly for higher ed outreach to the Las Vegas community. He has worked at both the College of Southern Nevada and the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and during the campaign, he has been diligent in his effort to prepare to address the issues currently facing the board, attending board meetings regularly as well as meetings of the legislative funding formula study committee. He has emphasized to us, in his written questionnaire and in his interview, that he would work to support all NSHE institutions and help each institution take on and achieve its specific mission. This is an open seat, the first in NSHE's history to have a majority Latino electorate, and Corbett's election would make the board more representative of the Nevada population.

District 12: Andrea Anderson. We endorsed longtime NFA member Andrea Anderson, who served as an administrator at CSN for many years, in her first campaign in 2010, and we are pleased to extend a continuing endorsement this year, as she campaigns for a full 6-year term. She is very familiar with many of the concerns faculty face, especially issues of compensation and health coverage, and she has been very accessible to faculty leaders and the NFA on a wide range of issues.

District 8: Michon Mackedon. Mackedon is a recently retired faculty member from Western Nevada College and a well-known and widely admired community leader in Carson City and the surrounding region. She would bring a fresh voice to the board, combining a career's worth of commitment to quality, affordable higher education in northern Nevada with an appreciation for our crucial principles of academic freedom and shared governance

TMCC Is Hopeful for the Future

Julia Hammett — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:11:27 GMT

The Collective Bargaining Team of the Truckee Meadows Community College chapter of NFA spent several weeks in the spring of 2012 in contract negotiations with the TMCC administration. Negotiations with TMCC’s administration were forthright and productive throughout the process. The NFA negotiating team included Scott Huber (former chapter and state NFA president), Bill Newhall (former chapter president), Jim Richardson (NFA state lobbyist) and me.

The main features of the contract were a number of clarifications regarding the roles of department chairs, the composition of faculty search committees, ensuring equitable treatment of faculty teaching “fast-track courses” and a consolidation of all “additional assignments” under one set of guidelines. All of the items negotiated were based on the desire to increase equity, transparency and accountability in the contract on behalf of all faculty at TMCC. At the beginning of July TMCC and NFA signed their newly revised 2012 contract.

One outstanding issue remains to be negotiated in the coming year regarding occupational program coordinators so that their compensation is consistent and more equitably reflects workload. Program coordinators are currently developing a formula proposal that will be comparable to the one that exists in the contract for department chairs. TMCC President Sheehan has agreed to revisit this issue in one year’s time and give it more careful consideration when the Program Coordinators’ proposal is complete.

In May 2012, TMCC elected new officers for two-year terms. Besides me (president), they are Bill Newhall (vice president), Julie Muhle (secretary) and Jamie Campbell (treasurer). In the coming year, our chapter will focus on growing membership numbers, reestablishing several key committees (membership, bylaws, and communications) and working with our colleagues throughout TMCC to rebuild our sense of community at the college.

Like other institutions in the NSHE system, TMCC has suffered losses of faculty and staff over the last several years, with very few new or replacement hires. Such losses have been challenging, not only from the standpoint of teaching effectiveness and increasing workloads, but also as a psychological hardship on the rank and file.

We began our Fall 2012 year with a reception on Aug. 20th in honor of three recently tenured faculty and eleven newly hired tenure-track faculty. That was followed by a “Teach-in” on the newly revised contract.

Regents approve 2013-2015 budget request to include restoration of faculty, staff salaries

(Past member) — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:43:51 GMT

Last Wednesday, the legislative Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education held its final scheduled meeting at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, beginning with public comment at 9 a.m. It reviewed the work of its three subcommittees, which studied, respectively, the Nevada System of Higher Education's proposed alternative formula, the proposed performance pool and the prospect of pursuing local funding for the state's community colleges.

Last Friday, even before the committee completed its work, the Board of Regents held a special meeting to approve NSHE's budget request to the governor for the 2013-2015 biennium. That budget request is based, to some degree, on the Chancellor's base formula proposal, in that it uses the allocation outcomes generated by one of the many simulations that the System has run during the committee's deliberations.

The regents' action seems to have confused several of the local news reporters, who covered the meeting and reported both the projected allocations and the "per-pupil funding" values as if the allocation levels were already adopted and as if enrollment/course completion figures were fixed and stable from year to year.

But the biggest news concerning the NSHE budget request, which none of the printed stories picked up on, is that when one considers the actual request to the governor, no campus is actually projected for anything close to a cut – because the amounts actually requested for all campuses (in columns 2 and 3) include, per the governor's instructions, restoration of the 2.3-percent pay cut for all faculty and staff, the restoration of the 2.5-percent loss of compensation due to the furlough/unpaid leave, and the restoration of a performance-based merit pool equal to 2.5 percent of total payroll on each campus.

We are pleased to note, in passing, that the chancellor's budget proposal treats the money requested to restore and enhance salaries, as we had encouraged in earlier posts, as direct allocations to each campus' base budget, to be allocated over and above the formula-determined allocations.

This is very welcome news for all faculty and staff, who must now prepare to justify and advocate for this potential restoration of compensation in the 2013 legislature.

Friday's action is not a particularly surprising development, as it suggests more or less what many have expected about the 2013 budget request all along: that it would be based upon figures not directly generated by any formula, old or new, and would closely resemble the share of the NSHE budget allocated to each campus in FY '12.

Thus, with the Regents' budget request out of the way, the study committee has a very real opportunity in its final meeting today to look not at the very near-term of the 2013 allocations, but rather at the longer-term principles underlying the formula, and to recommend ways to clarify and resolve the technical issues of discipline weighting, course completion definition, and the implementation of the performance pool. It should do so not with an eye towards the upcoming legislative session but rather to the one after that.

... And the one after that. And the one after that.

Funding formula update: Agreement emerges, but there's work left to do

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:41:31 GMT

As the legislative committee reviewing the Nevada System of Higher Education's formula for funding its institutions prepares for its final scheduled meeting next Wednesday, some consensus is emerging on the policy principles that new formula should embrace. Work remains, for the committee and eventually the legislature, to put those principles into practice by hammering out the all-important technical details of how the formula actually builds a budget for NSHE institutions.

The three subcommittees of the legislative committee studying the state's funding of higher education have completed their work on the funding formula, the performance funding pool and local funding for community colleges, respectively.

The subcommittees reviewed the latest version of the Nevada System of Higher Education's proposal for an alternative formula, including version 20 of the proposed performance pool and the report and recommendations of the committee's consultant, SRI International. Each subcommittee will report to the full committee at its final meeting next Wednesday, Aug. 29.

The committee's work has generated little press attention, but the Las Vegas Sun did run a story on the most recent round of subcommittee meetings, which offers a good run-down with a headline that advertises, with a bit of sensationalism, "heated debate" over the new formula.

For those observing the process closely, a solid degree of consensus has emerged on most of the major policy questions, and it is important to underscore those principles, as distinct from any projected allocation. After all, the governor and legislature will assuredly tinker with proposed allocation amounts, but sound principles are more likely to be accepted and acted upon as a lasting basis for a more credible, functional and effective formula in the future.

The principles listed below appear, based on the public discussions of the committee to this point, to be the essential principles on which the 2013 legislature is likely to construct a new formula , if not for the 2013-2015 biennial budget than for the future.

After seven months of intensive work by the System, its constituent campuses, the governor's office and the committee, major points of agreement that have emerged dictate that the new formula should...

1. take the politics out of higher education funding as much as possible by replacing the old complicated and opaque formula with something transparent and credible;

2. separate student fees from state allocations, with no offset or sequestration of state support to campuses that enhance student-derived revenue.

This separation of fees and state allocations would end the misnomer of student tuition and fees as "state support" in the NSHE budget – although the legislature would continue to audit how NSHE spends revenue from students. This principle would be a significant step forward, because it would respect student choice and reward academic prominence by allowing programs and campuses that generate more student revenue to devote it to instruction on those campuses.

3. use Nevada dollars to fund only Nevada students, by excluding non-resident students from the formula – and from state allocations.

Campuses would determine on their own, and within their own budgets, whether to offer scholarships or aid to recruit from out of state but could no longer, as is currently the case, offer scholarships to recruit out-of-state students that would increase their own formula allocation.

4. fund instruction and student success rather than building maintenance or other functions.

The new formula should focus on base funding on completed student credit hours rather than, as in the past, enrollment, students services or building maintenance. Those functions are essential but secondary to the primary goal of students completing credits and degrees.

5. produce an outcome that is equitable across all regions of the state and proportional to institutional mission, as measured in state support per full-time equivalent Nevada student.

6. include a component based on outcomes specific to each campus's or each tier's mission.

This component of the formula appears likely -- based on subcommittee discussions and votes taken to this point -- to be funded by carving out a share of the base NSHE allocation, rather than based on an enhancement allocation of state funds. Specifically, the performance subcommittee voted last week to recommend the introduction of the performance share of the formula in the FY2015 budget (ie the second year of the next biennial budget), when 5% of the NSHE formula funding allocation would be distributed based on performance. (That share would be calculated, presumably, on 2012-2013 data, rather than the 2010-2011 data that has been used in the System's proposal document.) Each year, for the next four years, an additional 5% f the NSHE formula funding would be allocated based on this component, until FY2019 when it would drive 20% of the formula allocation.

The specific weights and measures of the outcome-based, tier-specific formula remain unfinished, and it is unclear if the System or the legislature would set the final weights and measures for the performance pool, or whether the System, the campuses, or the legislature data would collect, verify and report the data.

The "sparring" referred to in the Sun is primarily over a rather technical series of questions that have more to do the process of building a budget than with the educational principles of student attainment and degree completion, or of institutional performance. So on Aug. 29 the committee will have to discuss what if any recommendations to make concerning...

1. how to weight student credit hours completed on each campus and whether those weights should reflect the cost of instruction in a given discipline or the alignment of a given discipline to the state's economic development plan.

The System's proposal is based on the work of an external consultant, the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, which – as explained at the last meeting – used both relative weights across disciplines from other states that study cost (primarily Texas as well as Ohio, Indiana and Florida) and adjusted to promote certain policy priorities, such as enhancing the weight given at some levels of instruction for credit hours completed in certain disciplines, specifically science, technology, engineering and health courses. Several committee members have noted that this list does not include all seven elements of the state's economic development plan, so that list may be expanded to include fields such as logistics, business information systems, hospitality and entertainment, and mining.

An alternative approach, suggested at the subcommittee meeting last week, would be to adopt the weights from another state, such as Texas, that does a cost study of the relative cost of each discipline. At the final committee meeting on the 29th, the consultant, SRI International, will offer a comparison of the weights in the NSHE proposal with those used in Texas and other states that use a cost study to generate their relative weights.

2. how to define the "completed student credit" that is at the heart of the base formula proposal.

The formula funding subcommittee has come to a consensus that students who fail courses by ceasing to participate ought not be counted towards completed student credit hours, and the most basic definition of completion therefore has been attendance past 60 percent of instruction (i.e., Fs count if the student attended 2/3 or more of the semester). However, there is not a standard data set for the entire System to use this measure, and some subcommittee members expressed a desire for a more precise measure of student and institutional effort than merely 60 percent attendance.

3. whether the base formula ought to be based entirely on student credit hours completed or whether some money should be carved out from the formula allocation to be distributed based on factors specific to certain institutions, namely the "small institution factor" for GBC and WNC or the "research factor" for UNR and UNLV.

Some members of the committee have proposed running the new formula based entirely on the single factor of instruction at disciplinary weights that would be based as directly as possible on cost. Then "factors" for small institutions or research institutions, which, in mathematical terms, mitigate impact of the NCHEMS weights on some campuses, should be considered as temporary components or permanent parts of the base formula.

4. when and to what extent the new formula should be implemented.

The System has proposed, and the committee seems to support, that the new formula should be phased in over a four-year period, with approximately 25% of the formula allocation to be based on the new formula for year 1. (It has not been discussed if the remaining 75% would be based on the old, discredited formula or on the "base" of the FY12 or FY13 allocations (which in turn were determined largely by the old formula). Another approach would be to run the new formula for 100% of the allocation but apply additional, "stop-loss" funding to those campuses which would see a decrease in appropriation, namely the northern community colleges.

In any event, it seems clear that the proposed NSHE budget for 2013-2014 (the first version of which is to be revealed this Friday at the special Board of Regents meeting, 9 a.m. at Desert Research Institute in Las Vegas) is unlikely to represent much of a shift in share of allocation for each campus.

Hopefully, the primary difference from the legislatively approved 2011 budgets will be the restoration of full funding for faculty and staff compensation, which has been cut 4.8 percent for the past four years, and the restoration of a merit pay pool, as proposed by the governor.

CSN chapter president to salary review committee: Keep us on the step schedule

ADRIAN HAVAS — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 00:12:18 GMT

This summer, there have been some developments concerning possible – and fairly dramatic – changes to the Community College Salary Schedule.

Last spring Chancellor Klaich formed a system-wide committee to review our salary structure. This review is required by Nevada System of Higher Education code and was delayed a year given our frozen schedules. This panel consists of a representative from every institution in the system; we are represented by Professor Carolyn Collins and John Scarborough of Human Resources. At the end of spring semester, Carolyn presented a report of the committee's task to the College of Southern Nevada Faculty Senate.

In the last few days, I have been in touch with the Faculty Senate Chair Chuck Milne, who tells me that this committee's work has been fast-tracked, and that the regents want a final report by their Sept. 6-7 meeting at Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno. He tells me that our current "step" system may soon be replaced by a combination merit/cost-of-living adjustment system, controlled by a college committee.

Carolyn has told me something different, that the September timing is for "agreeing on the percentage increase the salary schedule needs to be raised." A report on this may be ready by September and then sent to the regents at their December meeting. She added that, as to changes in the CC salary structure, there was no intent to have those done in September. She believes that this will probably take longer -- indeed, likely past December if there is to be any change.

So, the process is either moving fast or slightly slower, but big changes are likely in the works.

I wanted to communicate the following points:

• Any move away from the step/range system has the potential to divide the ranks of CSN faculty and demoralize our professional colleagues – who have received no cost-of-living adjustments, or scheduled step raises since 2008-09. In fact, we are continuing with a 5-percent pay reduction, just signed contractually.

• We strongly think all the community colleges should remain on the current step salary schedule.

There is deep concern that any incorporation of merit pay into our existing salary structure will be subjectively manipulated by deans, chairs and/or other administrators to improve their bottom line financially. With the overtly political atmosphere known to exist at CSN, I believe this can and will happen.

NFA board member Scott Huber was blunt about this in a recent conversation I had with him: "It will be a political disaster if we open up the merit in the colleges. Unforeseen things will happen, and it's likely deans will determine 'merit.'"

As for our own faculty senate chair, Milne told me that such changes should not be feared, that they would not negatively affect anyone doing a good, commendable or excellent job; the committee making the decisions would act in good faith and won't be influenced by the administration. Like Huber, I tend to disagree that this process will not be politicized. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Be advised that NFA stands ready to oppose any measures that will so negatively affect our members, and community college faculty generally. There is a meeting at convocation scheduled to discuss these measures, and I suggest you try to be there. I would also urge you to send your concerns in writing to NSHE Chancellor Dan Klaich as well as the individual regents.

I am stepping aside as NFA state board president

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:22:18 GMT

Dear colleagues and readers,

Later this month, I will assume administrative duties in the office of the Provost at UNLV, as Vice-Provost for Faculty, Policy and Institutional Research. In accordance with NFA state bylaws, I will become an associate member and step aside as board president. As of that date, Angela Brommel, our elected vice president, will become NFA state board president. Angela and I have been working on a transition plan that will make her NFA president effective upon my resignation and culminate in the regularly scheduled state board meeting on September 14th. Those aspects of UNLV-NFA and NFA communications that have been my endeavor, including this blog, will be turned over to other officers and to our communications committee.

While logistically I will withdraw from the role of the president (and chair of the southern endorsement committee) at that time, and step aside from the state board after more than five years of service, my interest in and commitment to faculty advocacy and the work of NFA -- as well as my personal commitment to all of you, especially those I have worked so closely with for the past few years -- will not cease.

I remain available, at the request of NFA officers at the chapter or state board level, to provide any sort of guidance, information or support that I can provide to the board -- especially for the important period of the 2013 legislature, when we will be actively advocating for restoration of faculty compensation.

(Naturally any discussion of legal defense issues, especially concerning UNLV, must take place outside of my knowledge to avoid any conflict of interest.)

Upon the start of the university academic year, the NFA will communicate to its members and readers important developments over the summer in the governance of the organization and important steps the executive committee has taken to put the NFA on a sound financial and organizational footing, which has been our primary governance goal for several years. It is therefore a propitious moment for me to step aside, as well as a necessary one given my new position, which will still be one primarily of service to UNLV and NSHE faculty, but which of course is incompatible with a formal leadership role in the NFA.

As I prepare to step aside, please allow me to close by thanking you -- colleagues, members, fellow officers, general readers, and especially those of you with whom I have worked closely for several years -- to express my heartfelt thanks, my respect and affection, and my continuing commitment to our shared values.

In solidarity,

Gregory Brown

President, Nevada Faculty Alliance, 2011-2012
Vice-President, Nevada Faculty Alliance, 2009-2011
President, UNLV Faculty Alliance, 2009-2011
Secretary, Nevada Faculty Alliance, 2007-2009
Co-Chair, NFA PAC Endorsement Committee, 2006-2012

NSHE and independent consultant make their final funding formula presentations to committee

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:55:35 GMT

Although many faculty and students are away from campuses for the summer, the important work of the interim legislative Committee on the Funding of Higher Education is entering its most important phase.

At the most recent meeting of the full committee, on June 27, the committee heard the Nevada System of Higher Education’s final and apparently complete proposal for an alternative formula, including version 17 of the performance-based funding component developed by the System in conjunction with the National Governors’ Association. At the heart of this proposal remain two principles that have broad support in the System and, it appears, on the committee: student fees should not be a factor in formula calculations of state allocation, and only Nevada residential students should be considered in those calculations.

First, revenues from students, whether residential fees or non-residential tuition, should no longer be considered, as they have been, part of the state allocation to any campus; consequently, the formula should not offset any campus’ state allocation as a function of student fee or tuition revenue. In other words, the new formula should allocate state general fund dollars based upon state priorities, and individual students should allocate their contributions based upon their choices of campus and program. Second, Nevada state funds should be allocated in support of Nevada residential students, not non-residential students, whose enrollment and tuition contributions would not be factors in the new formula at all.

The NSHE proposal represents a significant departure from the old formula, notably in its reduction of the formula largely (though not entirely) to one variable's ability to determine the distribution of funds – completed student credit hours on each campus. Variables which played a significant role in the old formula, such as maintenance costs, faculty costs, library resources, and student services, all would give way to instruction.

(Although a significant portion of the NSHE state allocation would remain outside the formula, including allocations to professional schools, statewide programs, and athletics. Prioritization of requests for capital (i.e., buildings) would remain an entirely separate budget process, not necessarily based on an instructional formula)

In the NSHE proposal, each completed student credit hour would have a uniform value on each campus, calculated as the formula allocation divided by the total number of credit hours earned across the System. Actual allocations to each campus would result from a series of weights for different groups of disciplines, with lower-division, upper division and masters’ level and doctoral level courses having slightly different values within each discipline.

The System’s representatives have been questioned by committee members about why the proposal would include “F” and “I” grades as completed courses. The System has argued that community college students are more likely to receive F grades and may need additional support from the institution, whereas, it has argued, university students are more likely to complete courses with passing grades. This has led to some discussion among committee members as to whether the community colleges should receive an enhanced weight for certain categories of lower-division courses, such as remedial courses. This could be achieved by modifying the System’s proposal into separate scales for lower-division courses at the universities, the state college and community colleges, a common practice in other states

The performance-based portion of the proposed new formula does use separate scales for the colleges and universities, which are divided into distinct “performance pools” based upon the mission of each tier in the System. (Thus, DRI and NSC each constitute a separate pool, based on their respectively separate and distinct missions). Within these pools, each institution would be awarded points based on mission-specific variables, such as degrees or certificates awarded (or in the case of community colleges, students who transfer out with at least one years’ worth of credits). Some graduates or transfers would be weighted more heavily, such as those eligible for federal Pell Grants (an indicator of low-income), degrees in areas that have been designated as central to the state’s economic development strategy, and (for the universities) the amount of sponsored research expenditures. Each variable in each pool in the proposal has been assigned a weight, based upon the perceived significance of that variable to the mission of institutions in that pool. In the end, each institution, based upon the percentage of points it would earn in its respective pool, would claim a proportional share of the funds in that pool.

The System proposal has left up to the governor and the legislature, in the budgeting process, to determine if the performance pool would be funded with a share of the state’s general fund allocation to NSHE (a “carve out”) or from a separate, enhancement allocation (a “set aside.”) Until that decision is made, it is impossible to know how the new formula would allocate a given level of state appropriation. Earlier simulations were run on only the base formula proposal.

Also on the 27th, the Committee heard the fourth and final part of the report of its consultant, SRI International. This report, as stipulated in the consultant’s contract, describes how other states handle such as issues as student-derived revenues (i.e., tuition and fees), “course completers,” “performance-based funding,” and allocation of state support. SRI’s report did not propose any specific values for how the formula ought to distribute state money; it instead recommended a vision for what the state ought to try to achieve with its formula for higher education funding.

The written consultant’s report, which remains a draft subject to revision based upon feedback from the committee, was accompanied by an oral presentation. Key points included the following:

1. An endorsement to the System’s proposal that the formula allocations be kept separate from student tuition and fees, as consistent with national best practices.

2. A recommendation that Nevada dedicate sources of revenue other than the state general fund allocations to provide a stable and adequate basis of higher education funding in the long term – specifically:

o local and regional support for community colleges to enhance state support, and

o dedicated statewide revenue for the Knowledge Fund to support the research universities, DRI and Great Basin College.

3. A recommendation that state support be allocated entirely based upon instruction and degree completion, with no other variables such as the cost of operating space or sponsored research expenditures being used to determine state general fund allocation. (The consultant noted in the oral presentation that the “research factor” in the NSHE proposal – a 10% weight applied to upper division and graduate credit hours earned at the universities – risked creating confusion about its purpose. SRI suggested instead that upper-division and graduate credits at the universities simply be weighted more heavily, so that the formula proposal would more transparently highlight its focus on instruction.)

4. A recommendation that the formula be constructed to allocate additional resources to support the high number of students who take remedial courses at community colleges. Moreover, the consultant recommended that local oversight boards could help the community colleges more closely align to regional workforce needs for “mid-level skills.”

5. A recommendation that two-year colleges, as well as Nevada State College, be more directly focused on fulfilling the System’s access mission and that the formula create an incentive for a larger share of first-year instruction to be at those institutions. Students at two year colleges intending to continue towards a four-year degree would be steered towards honors courses at the college level. The consultant also recommended testing of learning outcomes at the two-year colleges to guide those institutions in better preparing students seeking a four-year degree for upper-division courses at a four-year institution.

6. A recommendation that the universities become "more selective” and the formula create an incentive to offer only those entry-level courses that could not be offered at an access institution (i.e., a community college or the state college). Accordingly, the consultant recommended, the formula should weight student credit hours in upper division and graduate courses at the universities more heavily to create an incentive for those institutions to focus on that mission.

7. A recommendation that the formula more closely align all tiers of the System with the state economic development plan; for instance, by enhancing the weights for student credits and degrees earned in disciplines that directly support the 7 designated sectors in the Economic Development plan.

8. A recommendation that the performance-based or outcome-based portion of the formula be used to allocate no less than 25 percent of state general fund support in the short term, and over a period of several years, that share grow to up to 100 percent. The consultant also recommended against any “hold harmless” funding, so that the incentive to the institutions – and the message to the state -- would be clear and transparent. In the oral presentation, the consultant noted that much of the national literature on performance funding in higher education does not consider student credit hours as outputs but rather inputs, and he suggested that a truly outcome-based formula would be concerned only with completed certificates, degrees and transfers. (This approach has been implemented fully only in Tennessee, which converted its formula to an entirely “outcome-based” approach in 2010.)

In the next few weeks, three subcommittees of the main committee will meet to prepare recommendations for the final committee meeting, scheduled Aug. 29, when a final report will be prepared. The three sub-committees, which have begun to meet and will each meet again at least twice, are charged to consider, respectively: 1. performance pool, economic and workforce development and research; 2. community college funding; and 3. the NSHE proposal and SRI report for a new funding formula.

CSN chapter welcomes new officers

(Past member) — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:47:19 GMT

The College of Southern Nevada chapter of the NFA recently elected a new slate of officers, who begin their terms June 1. The new executives are as follows:

President: Adrian Havas
First vice president: Geoffrey Frasz
Second vice president: Vasile Munteanu
Treasurer: Patrick Villa
Secretary: Diana Clennan

The position of third vice president remains unfilled. The executive board may fill it in coming months, according to Havas, an English professor at the college.

"I'm looking forward to the next two years," Havas said. "Clearly, our chapter is in a rebuilding mode. But I'm confident with the additional resources available to us from our updated arrangement with AAUP and support from the state board we will be able to achieve big things."

"I would add that none of those things will happen unless more of our own membership steps up, gets more involved, and demonstrates real unity and courage moving forward."

NFA's restructured dues plan approved at national conference

(Past member) — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:18:29 GMT

It's official: the NFA has a new dues arrangement with the American Association of University Professors. Current NFA members' dues will not change, but a greater portion of them will now be spent supporting member services in the state.

On June 14th, the Assembly of State Conferences, governing body of the AAUP, voted unanimously to accept the NFA's proposal to restructure its dues obligations to the national organization. It was one of two pilot programs that the assembly approved during the AAUP's annual conference on the state of higher education, held in Washington, D.C.

This meeting also marked the last annual meeting for Candance Kant, Emeritus CSN faculty member and a former NFA president, who reached her term limit as member of the assembly. The NFA commends Kant for her service to the national organization and her leadership in representing the Nevada proposal to the Assembly.

Members may recall that the NFA State Board voted in January 2011 to withhold members' dues in order to ensure that more member contributions would be devoted to services in Nevada. The board crafted the proposal in response to the AAUP's imposing a new dues policy that would have raised NFA dues considerably.

The proposal that the state board initially approved would have allowed the NFA to reinvest dollars previously sent to the national office at the campus and state level instead. Over the past 18 months, during the negotiations with the AAUP, the NFA sequestered the portion of members' dues that would ordinarily be due to the AAUP, to be paid upon agreement of an accord. Part of the agreement is that these sequestered dues will be repaid over a 5-year period, so there has been and will be no lapse in AAUP membership for our members.

During the negotiation period, the NFA State Board also redirected funds in its operating budget to cut unnecessary travel and staff expenses, and revitalized the membership website, establishing an integrated communications system that links the website, The Alliance newspaper and social networking through a single content management system.

In the Spring 2012 issue of The Alliance, NFA Past President Scott Huber informed members that the new dues structure would allow the NFA to continue to professionalize its work as many other advocacy groups have done, both in this state and nationally. Current President Greg Brown set forth an NFA Action Plan, published in the February 2011 issue of The Alliance.

AAUP's national leadership met in March of 2012 with Huber and Kant, and agreed to the NFA proposal that was approved by the NFA state board and signed by Brown in May.

NSHE faculty (still) have 401-K style retirement plan, not PERS

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:40:15 GMT

The Las Vegas Sun writes up some of the funny math in a so-called "study" of state retirement costs, but fails to mention the most embarrassing howler in this out-of-state group's under-researched blog post: that since 1970, higher education faculty do not participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System of Nevada, or PERS (except those who were enrolled in it prior to their employment in the Nevada System of Higher Education).

The "report" lists 200 faculty at the University of Nevada, Reno, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who will supposedly be paid a total of several hundred million dollars over the next 30 years. In fact, more than 93 percent of faculty (including non-instructional academic faculty) at the two universities (and nearly 90 percent of faculty across NSHE) are in precisely the sort of 401-K style, defined-contribution plan that the sponsors of the "study" recommend because it carries zero liability for the state after retirement.

This is why the Nevada News Bureau covered the NSHE retirement plan as a "model pension" program more than a year ago.

Those interested in some actual, empirically sound comparisons can turn to data from the 2011-2012 American Association of University Professors report on faculty compensation and benefits.

It states that, on average nationally, retirement benefits cost public 4-year universities $10,252 per faculty member. This amounts to 10.8 percent of total compensation. And most universities also pay into social security, which on average costs the institution another $5,383 per faculty member and another 6.2 percent of total compensation. Nevada state employees, including NSHE faculty, are not enrolled in social security, so the state does not bear this cost at all, nor are these benefits available to most NSHE faculty -- even though the authors of this "libertarian" study actually recommend social security enrollment as a way to cut costs for states and local governments!

(See Tables 10A and 10B for national averages of higher ed retirement programs.)

Collective bargaining voted in at WNC

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:45:24 GMT

Collective bargaining has passed a faculty vote at Western Nevada College. The 51 eligible WNC faculty voted 28-15 in favor of joining the NSHE Collective Bargaining unit, with eight ballots not returned. These results were certified by the American Arbitration Association on May 23.The voting was conducted via mail from May 7 to May 20, with two on-campus voting days on May 9 and 10.

The percentages of yes votes were 54.9 percent of eligible voters, 65.1 percent of those who voted. A simple majority of eligible voters (26) was required to vote yes in order to join the CB Unit.

The key to victory was educating the faculty without being emotional and without slinging mud at the administration. The intent was to show that CB would allow us to establish true shared governance at WNC via a cooperative relationship with the administration. The goal was to engage as many faculty as possible in the discussion about how faculty could best effect positive change. I would like to thank all my colleagues – both those pro and those con – for engaging in the process in a most professional and dignified manner.

That relations between the faculty and WNC President Carol Lucey's administration need to more deeply embrace the tenets of shared governance is a widespread sentiment among WNC faculty. The question was whether collective bargaining would facilitate the change.

"There were concerns about whether collective bargaining would be viewed as overly antagonistic by the administration or viewed negatively by the community," according to past Faculty Senate chair Jeff Downs. "Also there were concerns about WNC autonomy within the bargaining unit, since Truckee Meadows Community College has long been the sole member."

In addition to a months-long email education campaign, the WNC chapter held two collective bargaining forums at the Carson City campus. NFA state board members Scott Huber and Robert Correales attended the forums, answering questions and clarifying the process. In this sense, it was a statewide effort. The support of the State Board was invaluable.

Two weeks prior to the vote, a group of five faculty members – acting independently of the Faculty Senate and the NFA chapter – met with President Lucey to explore the possibility of developing a workable and less formal alternative to collective bargaining. The result was an offer by President Lucey to create a faculty advisory board to provide non-binding advice on faculty welfare issues directly to the president. The group of five presented this alternative to the faculty at the second forum prior to the vote. While it is something of a step in the right direction, the chapter pointed out that the Faculty Senate has been operating on an advisory basis for the entirety of the Lucey administration.

The WNC community is now in a federally mandated 60-day cool off period. The real work has yet to begin. We will be preparing to engage the administration by consulting with the NFA state board and the AAUP national office. It is our hope that the negotiations will be cooperative so we can focus on improving WNC. Our students and constituents deserve this.

NSHE has had collective bargaining since the early 1990s, with TMCC having been the only member of the collective bargaining unit until the recent vote by WNC faculty. The community college bargaining unit does not bargain for wages or benefits, but adheres to overall NSHE policies in those areas. Rather, it bargains for institutional working conditions such as workload, evaluation, hiring, retrenchment policies, placement on salary schedules and policies concerning stipends for additional responsibilities. Under collective bargaining, both administration and faculty are contractually obligated to the terms of the included policies.

Brown talks funding formula, faculty senates, undergrad education in TV interview

(Past member) — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:07:43 GMT

This week, on KSNV's program "Inside Nevada," former Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Jim Rogers interviewed NFA President Gregory Brown, chair of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Faculty Senate.

"We think it's important that this conversation is taking place," Brown said, of the formula Nevada currently uses to determine higher ed funding, which is now being revised. "It's really cost the whole state, in terms of credibility."

During the interview, Brown also addresses the role of faculty senates and improvements that are being made in the state's undergraduate education.

Watch Parts 1, 2 and 3 below, or at Clip Syndicate.

Geddes, Page re-elected to NSHE Board of Regents

(Past member) — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 22:18:13 GMT

The Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education re-elected Jason Geddes chairman and Kevin Page vice-chairman of the board of regents. The two begin their terms, which last for one year, on July 1.

Former Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn appointed Geddes to the board in 2006. He represents District 11, Washoe County, and was re-elected to the post in 2008. He first became chair of the board in 2011.

Geddes is a native of Winnemucca and attended school in Northern Nevada, from Elementary school in Gabbs, through a B.S. in biochemistry and Ph.D. in environmental sciences from the University of Nevada, Reno. Following a politically active college life, in 2002 he was elected to the State Assembly, where he served on committees for education, judiciary, and natural resources, agriculture and mining.

Former Governor Jim Gibbons appointed Kevin Page to the board of regents in January 2009. He was re-elected in 2010.

Born and raised in Queens, N.Y., Page earned a B.S. in business administration in finance in 1986 and his M.B.A. from UNLV in 1987. He was named Outstanding Alumni for the College of Business and Economics in 2000. In 2006, he received awards for both UNLV Alumnus of the Year and NSHE Board of Regents' Distinguished Nevadan Award.

Since 2000, Page has been managing director and senior relationship manager for Wells Capital Management-Institutional Investment Management Services.

White named EVP, Provost at UNLV

(Past member) — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:58:20 GMT

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, President Neal Smatresk announced that John Valery White, who has been dean of UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law since 2007, is the university's new executive vice president and provost. He replaces Michael Bowers, who has served as interim provost since 2009.

On July 1, 2012, White will assume his new role, which includes oversight of UNLV's academic and budgetary policy and priorities. According to a news release, it is the provost's job to ensure the quality of faculty and to help expand the institution's research enterprise. White will report to Smatresk and act as chief executive in the president's absence.

Smatresk said: “John White is an innovative leader, who guided the Boyd Law School at UNLV into one of the nation’s best, and I am confident he will help build our national reputation in collaboration with our deans, faculty, student and executive leadership.”

“I look forward to building upon UNLV’s engagement in the community, and ensuring the university is student centered and focused on research and great instruction,” said White, who is credited with increasing the law school's scholarship funding, first-time bar passage rates and national rankings during his tenure.

White earned his J.D. from Yale Law School in 1991 and went on to work on prison and human rights practices in Egypt while a fellow at Human Rights Watch in New York. He later joined the law school at Louisiana State University, where for 15 years he wrote and lectured extensively about civil rights law.

New executives take office at TMCC chapter of NFA

(Past member) — Fri, 18 May 2012 23:56:54 GMT

Effective this past Wednesday, May 16, a new executive committee has taken office at the Truckee Meadows Community College chapter of the NFA. The new officers are as follows:

President: Julia Hammett
Vice President: Bill Newhall
Secretary: Julie Muhle
Treasurer: Jamie Campbell

Hammett, who is an anthropology professor at TMCC, reported the news to members at the college's chapter meeting the same day. In a message to the state board, she said, "I look forward to working with all of you," and expressed her solidarity with faculty and staff throughout the state.

PAC releases continuing, early endorsements

(Past member) — Fri, 04 May 2012 18:59:55 GMT

This list identifies our continuing endorsements, consisting of candidates seeking re-election whom we endorsed in the past; and our first set of early endorsements, consisting primarily of candidates we have endorsed previously in races for other office. Our next set of endorsements will be in selected contested races, based on completed questionnaires and interviews.

Board of Regents - Continuing
Cedric Crear (District 1)
Richard Trachok (10)

Assembly - Continuing
Paul Aizley (District 41)
Elliot Anderson (15)
Maggie Carlton (14)
Richard Carrillo (18)
Marcus Conklin (37)
Olivia Diaz (11)
Lucy Flores (28)
Jason Frierson (8)
Joe Hogan (10)
William Horne (34)
Marilyn Kirkpatrick (1)
Marilyn Dondero Loop (5)
April Mastrolucca (29)
Harvey Munford (6)
Dina Neal (7)
James Ohrenschall (12)
Peggy Pierce (3)
Lyn Stewart (22)

Senate - Continuing
John Lee (District 1)
David Parks (7)

Assembly - Early
Teresa Benitez-Thompson (District 27)
David Bobzien (24)
Skip Daly (31)
Tom Grady (38)
Pat Hickey (25)
Randy Kirner (26)
Andrew Martin (9)
Ellen Barr Spiegel (20)
Heidi Swank (16)

Senate - Early
Kelvin Atkinson (District 4)
Pete Goicoechea (Rural)
Justin Jones (9)
Sheila Leslie (3)
Richard Segerblom (3)
Debbie Smith (1)

GBC, NSC, UNR all have new presidents

(Past member) — Wed, 02 May 2012 22:42:43 GMT

Within the past week, the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents has approved the recommendations of president search committees at Great Basin College in Elko, Nevada State College in Las Vegas, and the University of Nevada, Reno.

Marc Johnson , who has served as UNR's interim president since April 2011, assumed the presidency on April 20. He is receiving $246,427 in base pay, plus a $119,997 annual salary supplement provided by the UNR Foundation.

Bart J. Patterson, who has served as the interim president of NSC since November 2011, assumed the presidency on April 30. He received a three-year contract for $250,000 in base pay, plus an annual housing ($15,000), automobile ($8,000) and hosting ($5,000) allowance.

Mark A. Curtis, who is currently the vice president of academic and student affairs at Alpena Community College in Alpena, Mich., will assume the GBC presidency on July 1, 2012, with a three-year contract for $180,000 in base pay, plus an annual housing ($12,000), automobile ($8,000) and hosting ($5,000) allowance.

PEBP board takes 'small but significant' measures

(Past member) — Wed, 02 May 2012 21:52:33 GMT

Editor's note: Tracy Sherman, chair of the College of Southern Nevada faculty senate, made the following statement on behalf of the Nevada System of Higher Education Council of Faculty Senate Chairs to the Board of Regents on Friday April 20:

On the Public Employees' Benefits Program, some small but significant steps have been taken in the last few weeks. The PEBP Board at its rescheduled meeting on March 29 did allocate – as NSHE and UNLV representatives had sought – all its projected excess reserve to reduce out-of-pocket costs for faculty and staff and their families in 2012-2013, primarily by enhancing HSA/HRA employer contributions for next year.

While this will bring some monetary benefit to most faculty and staff for next year (though not, unfortunately, those enrolled in the HMO plan), it is heartening as well that the public discussion of PEBP’s excess reserves highlights the point that many faculty and staff believe – and that the NSHE task force continues to study – that competitive health coverage can be made available to NSHE faculty and staff without additional cost to the state.

The PEBP Board also, at the urging particularly of NSHE faculty and staff, approved state subsidies for domestic partners of state public service workers enrolled in PEBP, on the same basis as spouses.

The PEBP Board, however, chose not to alter the basic plan design, as we had sought, to offer participants a “middle tier” (between HMO and the current high-deductible option) that would offer predictable and clearly comprehensible costs for office visits and prescription drugs. All faculty and staff should continue to advocate for such an alternative for NSHE in the 2013-2015 biennium, either from PEBP or from another insurance pool.

(Sherman was referring to changes approved by the PEBP Board during its March 29 meeting. Pat La Putt, senior manager of benefits and human resource administration at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, provided the following summary of the meeting.)

The PEBP Board met to discuss rates for plan year 2013 and decide on options for using the expected unrestricted surplus of $29.4 million as of June 30, 2012 (in addition to the projected 13.8-percent rise in the employer/state/Nevada System of Higher Education contribution to PEBP for fiscal year 2013).

NSHE and NFA representatives made public comment regarding the difficulties experienced by employees related to the Consumer Driven Health Plan (CDHP) as well as comments on how to use the unrestricted surplus. These included:

Utilizing a majority if not all of the unrestricted surplus to reduce premiums and enhance benefits
Support for providing a subsidy to Domestic Partners in the same manner as those provided to spouses
Continued concerns regarding the high cost of medical care and prescriptions
An appeal for the board to consider adding a middle tier plan with more predictable out-of-pocket costs, but with a reasonable premium, if not for plan year 2013, then for plan year 2014

The PEBP Board approved taking the following actions:

Provide a subsidy to domestic partners in the same manner as those provided to spouses (uses $500,000 of unrestricted surplus).
Use approximately $6.9 million of the unrestricted surplus to limit rate increases to half of what they would have been based on information provided by PEBP actuaries.
In addition to the contribution to HSA/HRA accounts of $700 for primary participants and $200 for each dependent(maximum of 3 dependents) that employees enrolled in the High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) will receive on July 1, use $15.7 million to provide the following one-time additional contributions to HSA/HRA accounts to employees and retirees:
- $400 contribution to HSA/HRA accounts for employees and retirees enrolled in the HDHP effective July 1, 2012. So for plan year 2013, a participant will receive $1,100 ($700 regular contribution + $400 one-time contribution).
- $100 contribution to HSA/HRA accounts for each dependent (maximum of 3 dependents) of a primary participant enrolled in the HDHP effective July 1, 2012. So for Plan Year 2013, each dependent to a maximum of 3 dependents will receive $300 ($200 regular contribution + $100 one-time contribution)
- $200 contribution to HSA/HRA accounts for each active employee age 45 or older as of June 30, 2012, enrolled in the HDHP effective July 1, 2012. The board asserted that this group of employees has been impacted more by the change to the HDHP since it tends to need care more than younger employees and the board wanted to provide some additional relief for this group. So for plan year 2013, a participant age 45 or older will receive $1,300 ($700 regular contribution + $400 one-time contribution + $200 one-time contribution). This one-time contribution will use approximately one-tenth of the restricted surplus.
- $200 contribution to HSA/HRA for each retiree with more than 20 years of service and enrolled in the HDHP effective July 1, 2012.
- In addition to the $10 per month, per year of service that retirees in the Medicare exchange receive, a one-time $2 per month, per year of service contribution to HRA accounts will be provided to retirees enrolled in the Medicare Exchange effective July 1, 2012.
Use the remaining $6.3 million in unrestricted surplus to ease any rate increases in plan year 2014 effective July 1, 2013.
Provide all HSA/HRA contributions to employees on July 1, 2012.

The PEBP Board also changed the percentage of the premiums that is subsidized by the employer to the following:

	PLAN YEAR 2012		PLAN YEAR 2013
	CDHP	HMO	CDHP	HMO
Active Primary	92.8%	77.8%	93.0%	78.0%
Active Dependent	72.8%	57.8%	73.0%	58.0%

Rates for plan year 2013 beginning July 1, 2012 will be:

	PLAN YEAR 2012 MONTHLY RATES			PLAN YEAR 2013 MONTHLY RATES
	RATES	EMPLOYER SUBSIDY	EMPLOYEE PREMIUM	RATES	EMPLOYER SUBSIDY	EMPLOYEE PREMIUM	EMPLOYEE PREMIUM CHANGE
CDHP
Employee only	$609.68	$565.78	$43.90	$641.79	$596.86	$44.93	$1.03
Employee plus Spouse/DP	$1,177.69	$979.29	$198.40	$1,241.92	$1,034.96	$206.96	$8.56
Employee plus Child(ren)	$785.45	$693.74	$91.71	$832.10	$735.79	$96.31	$4.60
Employee plus Family	$1,353.55	$1,107.32	$246.23	$1,432.21	$1,173.87	$258.34	$12.11

HMO
Employee only	$525.10	$408.53	$116.57	$612.48	$477.73	$134.75	$18.18
Employee plus Spouse/DP	$1,050.20	$712.04	$338.16	$1,224.96	$832.97	$391.99	$53.83
Employee plus Child(ren)	$782.63	$557.38	$225.25	$878.77	$632.18	$246.59	$21.34
Employee plus Family	$1,307.73	$860.89	$446.84	$1,491.25	$987.42	$503.83	$56.99

Faculty makes case for adjustments to NSHE proposed funding formula

(Past member) — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:23:18 GMT

The Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education met April 25 in Las Vegas, where Chancellor Klaich was questioned about a number of features of the proposal he has submitted for consideration.

Some of attendees' questions and comments follow:

Should an F grade should count as a completion of a course?
What would be the method used to recognize and help fund research done at the two universities?
Should O & M funding be integrated into the overall proposal instead of treated separately and outside the formula?
This appears to be a “one size fits all” approach to costing out courses throughout the System.
How would cost ratios among disciplines be calculated?
There is a lack of national benchmarks used in the proposed approach.

Gregory Brown, NFA president, presented a resolution of the UNLV faculty senate. It argued that any restoration for compensation ought to be included directly in campus base budgets, just as reductions in compensation were taken directly from campus base budgets in 2009.

This, Brown noted, would not only be consistent with the practice of other states that have implemented funding formulas based on student outcomes, but would also send an important message to students, assuring them that any restoration of competitive compensation would be based upon additional state allocation, not based – as the Board made clear at its December and January meetings – on student fee increments.

Faculty believe that assuring quality education through recruitment and retention of the best faculty must be paired with a commitment to access and affordability for students. Calculating restoration of salary separately from the formula, they said, supports these two objectives.

The committee also heard a lengthy report by SRI International, the consultancy assisting the committee, concerning how tuition is treated by legislatures around the country. The report revealed what many have suspected, that Nevada is nearly unique in counting tuition collected against what is due to the institutions from the State general fund.

The biggest surprise of the meeting came when Chairman Steven Horsford gained approval to appoint two subcommittees, one charged with looking at how local government contribute to community colleges around the country.

For links to meeting materials, click here.

Regents authorize WNC faculty vote on collective bargaining

(Past member) — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:12:31 GMT

On Friday, April 20, the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents voted to authorize a vote of the Western Nevada College faculty to decide whether it would like to be represented by the Nevada Faculty Alliance for a collective bargaining agreement with WNC.

The WNC academic faculty participated in a card drive, in which cards returned from 84 percent of the eligible faculty expressed the desire for an official vote for collective bargaining. This level of interest was not lost on the regents, whose own handbook (and federal law) requires only 30 percent of the faculty at an institution to sign cards for a vote to be held.

According to Jim Strange, president of the WNC chapter of NFA, the only discussion concerned whether the regents' approval could be made by the board at a special meeting. Regent Ron Knect observed that when the rule was initially established that such action could only occur at a regular meeting, the board of regents met monthly. In an effort to meet the will and interests of the WNC academic faculty, the regents voted swiftly and unanimously to allow the vote to occur prior to the end of the academic year.

WNC faculty leaders have been communicating to faculty and answering their questions about the process and impact of selecting to be represented through a collective bargaining agreement. They will conduct an open forum Friday, April 27, from noon to 2 p.m. in Marlett Hall in Carson City, and VRGH 308 in Fallon.

A collective bargaining agreement for faculty, under state law and NSHE code, cannot address compensation or benefits but could address campus governance issues, including workload policy.

The vote will be held between May 5 and May 20, 2012.

To the PEBP board: Use your reserve to lessen our out-of-pocket burden

(Past member) — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:15:07 GMT

On behalf of the more than 3,500 Nevada System of Higher Education faculty and professional staff across the state, represented by the NSHE Council of Senate Chairs and the NFA, we urge the Public Employees’ Benefits Program board, as it sets rates and considers modifications to plan design for fiscal year 2012-2013, to devote all available resources, including excess reserves and the scheduled increase in employer premiums, to slow the skyrocketing increase in out-of-pocket costs for public service workers and their families.

Specifically, we urge that you…

Subsidize domestic partners, which we have supported for nearly 10 years.
Reduce premiums on all PEBP participants to reverse the alarming increase in the number of our colleagues declining coverage altogether.
Address the alarming increase in HMO premiums for southern Nevada.
Enhance contributions, at the beginning of the contract year, to the HSA/HRA accounts and clarify how this money can be used.

The faculty and staff of NSHE have expressed, in numerous public venues, our concern over the negative consequences to our System's competitiveness in an active market for skilled academic talent. Particularly in light of the diminution of our salaries by 4.8 percent, amidst a national trend in which higher ed salaries increased by 1.9 percent last year, the state of Nevada and thus PEBP ought to be making its highest priority the shaping of a benefits plan that is as competitive as possible given available resources committed by the state and by PEBP participants, of which NSHE workers represent about one-third.

Included in that one-third are our colleagues among the classified state workforce on NSHE campuses. Among these workers, a majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year, the sharp increases in out-of-pocket, up-front costs resulting from the conversion to a high deductible plan (an increase of several thousand dollars per year for some families) have forced a significant rise in the number foregoing care, either by opting out of insurance altogether or by declining prescribed cures, especially by reducing medical dosages below prescribed levels to cut costs.

The conversion of the PPO to a high-deductible plan, accompanied by a jump in premiums and co-insurance, along with the sharp increase in premiums for HMO enrollees (especially in the south, where rates increased more sharply due to the blending of subsidies), has had a well-documented negative effect on our workforce. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas, survey of faculty and staff conducted in November found that in addition to an unacceptably high 3.2 percent of workers who declined medical insurance entirely due to costs, more than 60 percent of those who are covered reported either skipping prescribed medications or taking medications less frequently than doctor's orders to reduce out-of-pocket expense.

Lest one think this is merely a matter of faculty and staff cutting back on vanity care, our survey identified three instances of faculty or staff skipping prescribed insulin to control diabetes because they could not afford the cost of either the insulin pump or of the insulin itself at the end of the pay period.

We have therefore urged -- and continue to urge -- the board to consider a "middle tier" plan, if not for fiscal year 2013, then for the next biennium, that would allow participants to better anticipate (and budget for) the out-of-pocket cost of medical care through a separate prescription drug deductible and fixed co-pays for doctor visits.

When an enhancement of coverage options was first suggested to the board last fall, the response was that modifications to plan design would not be financially feasible or would come at such a high rate of participant premium as to be nonviable. However, it appears from the program's last two quarterly financial reports that, in actual cash terms, the program is accruing money to its reserve rapidly. Last spring, during the 2011 legislative session, PEBP staff told a legislative committee that if the plan did not switch from a conventional PPO model to a high-deductible plan, participant over-utilization would drive the program to lose approximately $80 million in the 2011-2013 biennium. However, it now appears that at the end of the 2010-2011 plan year, when we abandoned the conventional coverage paradigm, the plan had accrued between $20 million and $43 million in excess reserves -- above those necessary to meet the cost of care encumbered but not yet claimed and of catastrophic claims. As of Sept. 30, 2011, the plan had an excess reserve of $43 million, some $32 million above that which PEBP had projected for the legislature in its work program.

And the most recent financial report states that, while the projected end-of-year excess reserve is down to $29.8 million (due to the loss of an anticipated $12.5 million in federal grants, not due to any increase in claims or coverage), the actual available reserve is up to $55 million -- some $44 million above what was projected in the budget submitted to the legislature. That is quite far to miss the mark, and participants really do deserve an explanation.

Even more importantly, we deserve health coverage, which is the primary mission of the program, not the controlling of costs or the accrual of reserves. The state has allocated money for health coverage, participants have dutifully paid their premiums and deductibles, and the program appears to have netted at least $10 million last quarter. Moreover, next year the program will receive a hike in employer-side contributions, representing an increase in revenue of more than 10 percent (over $30 million statewide).

So between this excess reserve of more than $40 million currently and an increase in revenue of more than $30 million for fiscal year 2013, the program clearly has the funds necessary to lower premiums for all participants and enhance HSA contributions. We urge the PEBP board to do so.

A final thought. We are aware that the staff is disposed not to alter the current plan design in order to see how it works out over the course of the biennium. From a scholarly standpoint, we understand this interest in carrying an experiment through to its conclusion. However, the mission of PEBP is not to show how to get us to use less care; it is to provide the care we actually do need, to the best of its ability and resources.

That need is clear, the resources are available, and the time is now. We urge the board to commit to reducing out-of-pocket costs and enhancing coverage options for next year and beyond.

PEBP Board urged to commit excess reserves to lower premiums

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:21:40 GMT

The PEPB Board meets this Wednesday, March 14, at 9am and its agenda includes an item to discuss premiums, plan design changes and other measures that might be taken in the coming plan year (2012-2013).

On page 2 of the PDF is the info for agenda item VII which is about setting rates for 2012-2013 including use of "excess reserves". These are the choices they will be presented

a. Options for utilizing Excess Reserves:
i. Amend the base subsidy allocation percentages paid by participants in the Consumer Driven PPO High Deductible Health Plan, the Southern HMO Plan and the Northern HMO Plan as provided in Appendix A of the Duties, Policies and Procedures and/or

ii. Modify the Health Savings Account and Health Reimbursement Arrangement contributions

b. Providing the same subsidy for domestic partners as is provided for spouses

c. Approving the rates, State subsidies and participant contributions to utilize Excess
Reserves

Page 4-5 states that they now estimate "excess reserves" (above the amount they need to keep on hand for unfiled claims, catastrophic claims and payments into HSA) at $29.8m for the end of this plan year that they could apply to next year as above.

However, note that on page 26 of the PDF is the quarterly financial report for the quarter ending Dec 31, 2011 which shows an actual cash-on-hand above necessary reserves of $55.8m which is a whopping $44m above what they told the legislature they would have on hand at this point in the year.

Faculty and staff wishing to express their views might consider submitting email or calling (800) 326-5496 or contacting the individual PEBP Board members including NSHE representative Jacque Ewing-Taylor before Wednesday morning.

Three presidential searches continue

(Past member) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:30:42 GMT

Three concurrent searches for presidents in the Nevada System of Higher Education continue at Great Basin College, Nevada State College and the University of Nevada, Reno.

Things ‘happen quickly’ at GBC
GBC Faculty Senate Chair Sarah Negrete reports that the search committeethere met with its consultant Jan. 27 to get the process rolling. They approved the President Leadership Statement, related materials and advertising options, so that the consultant could place ads in approved publications.

“After the applications are received, there will be meetings that happen rather quickly,” Negrete says.

During those meetings, expected to take place in April and May, the committee will choose semi-finalists, then finalists, and conduct interviews and tours with finalists. The committee will then choose its new president, subject to approval by the Board of Regents at its May-June meeting in Reno.

NSC faculty pulling for academic candidate
Following a survey of its members in January, the NSC Faculty Senate reported that more than 70 percent of respondents considered a PhD and professorial experience essential qualifications for their future president. Approximately 65 percent of those surveyed said they believe previous experience as a provost or president is an essential competency of the position, with another 12 percent rating this experience as “preferred.”

Joanna Shearer, president of theNSC chapter of NFA, says: “NSC’s faculty is confident that it is through the leadership of an academic with the unique administrative experience in an environment that matches our own that we will maintain the level of instructional excellence and adherence to the principles of shared governance for which our campus is becoming known.”

NSC faculty expressed disappointment that an earned PhD and professorial/academic administrative experience were omitted from the ad posted Feb. 14 in the Chronicle of Higher Education, noting that the postings for the future presidents of GBC and UNR
included academic experience and educational requirements.

NSC faculty will continue to work to make their voices heard as the search progresses.

Consultant to UNR gathers input
At UNR, the head consultant of the firm assisting with the president search, Bill Funk, was on campus for two days the week of Feb. 13. He met with various groups, including student leaders, faculty senate, staff employees’ council and the deans, and also held open forums for any who wanted to attend.

The NFA’s Jim Richardson, who attended one forum, says, “Funk seemed to understand very well what kind of university we are and want to be. A number of faculty present at the meeting I attended stressed that UNR is a Research I university and that this needs to be recognized and promoted by anyone interested in the presidency.”

Funk said there were already more than 90 nominees being reviewed for the post, but that more are needed. His firm will release any names to the search committee until all are screened according to the criteria established by the search committee and winnowed down to a manageable number.

The three vacancies coincided last fall, when GBC President Carl Diekhans retired, NSC President Lesley Di Mare accepted a position as president of Colorado State University-Pueblo, and UNR President Milton Glick died. Their interim replacements are, respectively, Lynn Mahlberg, Bart Patterson and Marc Johnson. NSHE Regent Kevin Melcher is chairing GBC’s search committee; Mark Alden is chairing NSC’s; and James Dean Leavitt is chairing UNR’s.

NSHE Chancellor Dan Klaich says, “Running three presidential searches concurrently is pretty daunting, if not exhausting.” Add to that NSHE’s involvement in the revision of the state’s method for funding higher education, he notes, and System staff has a lot going on.

Facutly seek clear formula to restore credibility, adequate funding to higher education in Nevada

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 01:06:48 GMT

Editor's note: NFA President Gregory Brown made the following statement to the Committee on the Funding of Higher Education during its meeting Feb. 29, 2012.

I am Gregory Brown, chair of the UNLV Faculty Senate, and I am pleased to welcome the committee to UNLV and grateful for this opportunity to address you today. I speak today on behalf of the NSHE Council of Faculty Senate chairs and by extension the faculties of all 8 NSHE campuses.

I’m particularly honored to be able to speak to you in this role, in conjunction with my colleagues, Professor Tracy Sherman of the College of Southern Nevada and Joanna Shearer of Nevada State College, because it allows me to make a point that is essential for all involved in this process : NSHE faculty do not see this committee’s important work -- nor do we want others to see it -- as an expression of regional rivalry or political score-settling.

Indeed, after decades of working within the constraints of a structurally flawed formula, and in the aftermath of the past four years of unprecedented cuts in public support, we faculty cannot afford to withstand further the cost to our collective credibility and to our academic mission that would result from any attempt to “deliver” for one region or institution over another.

The existing formula has become a labrynthine black box widely perceived to be politicized and which has cost us, as faculty, dearly in terms of our System’s credibility with our students, with the state, with local governments, and with the community. Faculty have seen our programs and students bear the burden of the credibility crisis brought on by the old formula, and we urge you to seek as the highest priority for a new formula to restore to the System of Higher Education the credibility that our collective academic achievement deserves.

We as academics deal with each other by making our evidence known and subjecting our work to rigorous peer review; we believe the formula should be approached in the same way -- with transparency, clarity, comprehensibility as credibility as the utmost goals.

Credibility means in the first instance dealing honestly with our students – and their parents – when it comes time to pay tuition and fees. Considering money paid by students as “state support” for purposes of formula accounting has led to significant confusion. This can be ended by letting the formula distribute state dollars in support of only Nevada students – letting campuses determine how many non-residents should pay their full fare and how many should be on scholarship without impact on formula funding -- and then, letting all students from in-state as well as out of state distribute their share of the cost of the education by their choice of campus and program.

Credibility also means prioritizing academic issues over the political. And indeed, the faculties of NSHE do not oppose, indeed we welcome, a formula that promotes educational attainment and degree completion. Despite what is often presumed, faculty do not fear these goals will create irresistible pressure to inflate grades (though such a fear, if it exists, is likely to be felt among contingent faculty on part-time or non-continuing contracts). We take seriously – every week of every semester – our responsibility and our ability to be the guarantors of academic rigor and degree quality and of precise and nuanced assessment of student learning outcomes. (Indeed, at the suggestion of our UNR colleague David Ryfe, the Council of Senate Chairs have formed a faculty task force to advice the Chancellor on ways to measure degree quality for purposes of the formula and beyond.)

Above all, we welcome these new principles precisely because the perverse consequences of the old formula were so deleterious to our work as faculty. The old formula led campuses to push to grow enrollment above all goals; there were no incentives towards or safeguards of degree quality built into that formula whatsoever. So a new formula that encourages degree completion also represents an opportunity to improve our focus on rigor and quality -- rather than diminish it.

Another way in which the formula can restore credibility is to address, reasonably and realistically, but empirically, the cost of degree programs to determine adequate levels of funding. The purpose for which funding formulae were introduced in other states that have multi-tiered systems of higher education, beginning in Texas which remains the model nationally, was to determine the real cost or at least the ratio of costs among different degree programs on different campuses.

The flaws of our old formula are evident in that even in the best of years, Nevada provided only about 85% of what the formula calculated to be the cost of our programs. A credible new formula would not be one that simply presented a bill to the state for the costs of our programs. But a process that finds a way to begin studying real costs on an empirical basis, or at least builds the study of cost into how the formula will operate once in place, is a crucial step towards long-term credibility. Only in that way can the state, can local governments, can students and can the community understand what the faculty know – that we are operating highly efficiently, at lower cost than comparable institutions in many other states. We know that because our course loads and advising and research work loads are higher than national averages, at costs (primarily faculty compensation and infrastructure) that are slightly lower.

Determining empirically the cost ratios of our programs is essential to achieving another cardinal goal of the faculty for the new formula – ensuring each of our campuses can pursue and fulfill its distinct mission within the System’s strategic plans, both current and future. The actual costs of research universities, of an urban access college that serves largely high-risk students, of one of the nation’s largest community colleges that stretches across three campuses, and of two institutions that serve large rural regions, all have distinct costs associated with those missions.

(On behalf of the UNLV faculty, I can say there is significant hope that the new formula will better express the real benefit, and the real cost, that a research university brings to its students at all levels and to the region and the state.)

Finally, a formula that respects and reflects mission differentiation is also crucial, because it is essential to our work together as a coherent System. We faculty do not fear or recoil from competition and indeed, a formula that allows each campus and program to retain student tuition and fees would reward excellence and prominence, by allowing programs that attract regionally, nationally and internationally to thrive and serve more students, both Nevadans and non-residents.

But as we compete among programs, we do not want performance-based funding to undermine the work we do together across campuses. We work on curricular issues such as course catalog articulation; we collaborate across campuses on research grants and contracts; we support joint efforts to facilitate faster degree completion; and we do not want the current process to become a competition among campuses. We believe that performance-based funding need not and should not pit campuses against each other in a fight to divvy up a smaller pie, but rather encourage collaboration and strategic partnership through additional investment, as reward for achieving an individual campus’ mission.

A new formula cannot do everything to address the challenges facing higher education in our state, but a new formula can and, faculty believe, should be a platform from which a future blueprint for higher education in Nevada can emerge. The current strategic plan, suited to the current environment, is entirely about increasing the number of degrees conferred in Nevada; however, the are other imperatives for the state in higher education including research, including personal development opportunities, including rural and urban access.

The new formula can, and we hope, will allow future NSHE strategic planning to be based not upon one-sized-fits-all goals but to be based upon our multi-tiered, differentiated missions. Investment in higher education can, and we hope will, come to be seen not as a burden to be avoided or as political patronage; with a new formula, it will come to be seen for what faculty know it is: an investment in student learning, in innovative research that leads to economic development, and in an enhanced quality of life and a stronger civic engagement for our state.

How will PEBP go from a massive reserve to $0?

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:13:54 GMT

On Jan. 13, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, held a town hall meeting, at which faculty and staff again raised concerns over the woefully inadequate health coverage offered under the current Public Employees’ Benefits Program. At almost the same time, the executive director of PEBP was telling an interim legislative committee that the plan has accrued a breathtaking $43 million excess reserve.

This was deeply distressing news, particularly in light of the impact that the shift to a choice of either high-deductible catastrophic-only coverage or high-premium HMO coverage has had on Nevada System of Higher Education faculty and staff. A November survey of UNLV faculty and staff found that the shift has led to a marked increase in personnel, especially those earning below $50,000 per year, delaying care, skipping needed medications or declining coverage outright. (PEBP’s own financial report shows a decline of about 5 percent in eligible state public service workers enrolled in the plan for the current year, a significant drop-off due almost assuredly to the higher premiums and reduced coverage.)

In February, PEBP Executive Director Jim Wells told UNLV’s daily newspaper, the Rebel Yell, that the excess reserve had been accrued entirely prior to the start of the current plan year: “The reserve is not a result of plan design changes and premium rate increases effective July 1, 2011. Instead, it accumulated due to premium rate estimates that were higher than the amount of claims PEBP had paid leading up to June 30, 2011.”

This is difficult to understand, as it appears to contradict the PEBP CFO’s report of December 2011, which stated a positive “change in cash” figure of more than $10 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011-2012 (against a budgeted figure of negative $22 million). The same chart shows an “actual” figure for “net realized funds available” (i.e., above the budgeted reserve) of $45.2 million, as of Sept. 30 2011, compared to an anticipated figure of $11.8 million. Thus, it appears PEBP expected to have $32 million less in cash on hand by the end of September than it actually had at that point in the year. We should learn soon whether this trend of accruing an even larger excess reserve has continued in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012.

Compounding the problem, is that, according to Wells, “PEBP knew during the 2011 legislative session that there was going to be a reserve of approximately $35 million.” As he told the Rebel Yell, claims increased by only 1 percent during fiscal year 2010-2011. (Again, this $35 million actually refers to excess reserve, over the amount set aside for claims that have yet to be filed and the amount set aside for potentially costly catastrophic claims.)

In other words, “PEBP knew… that there was going to be a reserve” because of lower-than-expected claims during the 2011 legislature, at the same time that Wells and PEBP staff were presenting the new plan design to the legislature as necessary “to urge on participants to regard more critically the need for medical treatment.” Indeed, Wells himself told the legislature in early 2011 that without the plan switch, the program would run over $80 million into the red.

Yet even after all this, he told the Rebel Yell that, while he will recommend no increase in participant premiums for next year, the board may still want to increase premiums at its March meeting in order to avoid steeper increases in future years.

It’s important to note that, p. 3 of PEBP’s own January 2012 fiscal report says just the opposite, that “reserves in excess of the required reserve levels will be used to reduce premiums and contributions during future plan years.” This same report, on the next page, shows PEBP's history of carrying excess reserves: Every year since 2004, the plan has carried excess reserves of at least $20 million per year, with excess reserves of more than $40 million per year in six of those years. The projected reserve for the current fiscal year is even larger than the actual reserve for 2010-2011.

Still, without explanation, PEBP reports it intends to hold $0 excess reserve in the coming year, 2012-2013, despite the big jump in the state’s (the larger) share of premiums for that year.

In the words of a great American economist, PEBP has “some ’splainin’ to do” at its next board meeting, Wednesday, March 14, 9 a.m. Specifically, how does it intend to spend that reserve down to $0?

One obvious solution is to restore an option for the status quo ante by putting in place for 2012-2013 an affordable “middle-tier” option, between the HMO and the catastrophic-only coverage model, which the Board rejected at its last meeting.

I encourage all NSHE faculty and staff to write the PEBP board before its March 14 meeting and/or to attend the meeting. Urge program officials to spend the excess reserve on restoring benefits or cutting premiums for 2012-13. For contact and meeting information, visit the PEBP website at www.pebp.state.nv.us or follow our updates on nevadafacultyalliance.org/LastestNews.

Revamp of NSHE funding means chance to change higher ed for good

(Past member) — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:47:25 GMT

The formulas used to fund Nevada System of Higher Education institutions are undergoing an overhaul that represents a chance for state and education officials to make a significant positive impact on Nevada’s colleges and universities.

The current formulas, developed more than 10 years ago by a legislative interim committee established during the 1999 Nevada legislature, have been used for four biennia to distribute available funding. The dramatic downturn in NSHE funding over the past two biennia resulted in a suspension of the funding formulas for the past two legislative sessions. There have been many calls for the formulas to be revamped or abandoned, with claims that they were outmoded and unfairly distributed funds throughout the rapidly growing system.

One frequent critique of the formulas is the practice of counting tuition and fee moneys against the amount of funds due to institutions from the state. And out-of-state tuition funds were kept by the State, a process that harmed institutions such as the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, which has high out-of-state enrollment.

NSHE officials have called for a study of new funding formulas in past legislative sessions, but this proposal did not gain traction until the 2011 session. The legislature passed a bill establishing a new interim committee to examine funding formulas and other policies, such as allowing institutions to retain their tuition and fee moneys, and seeking local funding for community colleges. (In most states, some local funding is furnished to such colleges.)

Greg Brown, NFA president, says, “Faculty across the state believe this process represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reorient how the state assesses its investment in higher education. The old formula, clearly, is no longer viable, and we are on the path to something new. The formula can no longer be a rigid and incomprehensible black box that serves political purposes.”

He adds that the NFA hopes the next formula will bring about these specific changes: greater transparency and credibility for the System; fairness for students, whom the state in the past has treated as tax-payers; and a focus on educational attainment rather than raw enrollment.

“We look to the committee to develop a formula by which each campus, which has a distinct mission in our multi-tiered system, can represent accurately and transparently the real cost of fulfilling that mission,” Brown says. “The formula, above all, must provide a flexible platform for us to expand degree completion and expand academic rigor.”

The interim committee, established a few months ago, has met several times. At a January meeting, Chancellor Dan Klaich presented a possible way forward that would involve NSHE budget staff developing funding scenarios for the committee to consider.

Klaich says, “The current formula approach lacks credibility primarily due to two reasons: the widespread perception of unfairness and the complexity that leaves few people understanding what it is and does.” His goal is to look to other state models for best practices, construct something reasonable, simple and comprehensible by all, and fundamentally fair to all institutions – an incredibly difficult task, he says, particularly given recent severe budgets cuts.

The interim committee and NSHE are currently working out details of the Klaich’s proposal. It included some bold concepts such as 1. allowing institutions to retain their tuition and fees, thus giving incentive to student recruitment; 2. focusing on completed degrees and courses rather than initial enrollments; 3. including for the first time some element that would help fund research at the two research universities; 4. a significant element of performance funding that would reward accomplishment of goals set by regents to mesh institutional efforts with State of Nevada’s economic development goals; and 5. efforts to graduate students from underserved groups.

The Alliance Editor Jim Richardson, who served on the 1999 formula study committee, appointed by Governor Guinn to represent the faculty, says that, as with any new proposal, the devil is in the details. Representatives of NSHE institutions are eagerly awaiting the specifics of the chancellor’s budget team to see how they will be affected.

Brown says, “As part of the process, to ensure that the focus on course and degree completion is matched by a focus on academic rigor and course quality, faculty leaders suggested to the Chancellor a working group of faculty to help identify measures of degree quality that can be incorporated into the performance-based funding portion of the formula. This group has recently been appointed and will begin work very soon.”

Scott Huber, NFA past president, notes Nevada has a significant and growing number of students who benefit greatly by attending community colleges. “The community college experience represents an important academic and financially available first step for these students need as they work towards becoming Nevada's next generation of skilled workers,” he says. “We are hopeful the funding study recognizes the important role community colleges fulfill.”

Angela Brommel, NFA vice president, says she believes the ideal funding formula will align the mission of Nevada State College and other NSHE institutions with regional and statewide economic objectives. “NSC has been successful under the existing formula in educating and launching graduates into the workforce,” Brommel says. “We anticipate that the new funding formula will advance the college’s mission to a greater degree.”

“A real problem is dramatic cuts in funding for NHSE institutions,” Richardson says. “We all hope State leaders will realize that an adequately funded system of higher education is essential for the well-being of its citizens and for the economic health of the State. Having new formulas will not help much is Nevada does not step up to the plate and face the funding needs of NSHE institutions.”

The interim committee includes twelve members: three state senators, three Assembly representatives, three regents and three appointees of the governor. There are also four non-voting members appointed by the governor, three of which are from NSHE institutions, and one from the state budget office.

The interim committee members are Senator Steven Horsford, Chair; Senators Ben Kieckhefer and David Parks; Assembly Members Debbie Smith, Pat Hickey, and Paul Aizley; NSHE Regents Jason Geddes, Kevin Page and Mike Wixom; and governor appointees Heidi Gansert, Mike Dillon and Hugh Anderson. The non-voting members are Julia Teska, of the state budget office; Mike Richards, CSN president; Greg Mosier, UNR College of Business dean; and Spencer Stewart, NSC associate vice president of college relations.

WNC to join collective barganing unit

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:42:45 GMT

Friday, Feb. 24, Scott Huber (NFA past president and professor at Truckee Meadows Community College) and I met at the Nevada System of Higher Education office to count the collective bargaining interest cards and present the application to Chancellor Dan Klaich. Christine Casey, director of human resources, attended the official count as the chancellor's representative. The results are as follows:

43 cards signed out of 51 eligible faculty.
This represents 84.3 percent of the eligible faculty.

Jeff Downs and I met with Chancellor Klaich for a few minutes, summarizing the results. The chancellor said he would follow the NSHE Code, and that he had no problem with Western Nevada College joining the bargaining unit. He said he has seen no problems in working with TMCC compared to any other institution; thus, he does not view collective bargaining as any kind of impediment to our mission. He also acknowledged it is our right to collectively bargain and reiterated that he would follow the process as laid out in the code.

The next step is for the chancellor to present the results to the board of regents. The March board meeting agenda is set, so our application will be presented either at the April special meeting or at the regular May meeting. We will do what we can to get it done sooner rather than later. Then the board will set up an official, anonymous vote, administered by the American Arbitration Association. I will, of course, keep you up to date on the progress of events.

In the coming weeks I will be addressing some of your issues and concerns about collective bargaining. You are asking me good questions and have expressed to me some valid concerns about the collective bargaining process. I will do my best to answer them clearly and thoughtfully.

I want to thank all of you, both those who signed cards and those who did not, for your support and hard work at WNC.

James Strange is president of the WNC chapter of NFA.

NSHE mourns passing of Senator Bill Raggio

(Past member) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:28:49 GMT

Editor's note: Jason Geddes, chair, and Kevin Page, vice chair of the Nevada System of Higher Education board of regents released the following on Feb. 24:

Statement on behalf of Nevada Board of Regents, NSHE faculty, staff and students on the passing of Sen. Bill Raggio

Like all Nevadans, those of us in the higher education family were shocked and devastated to hear of the death of Senator Bill Raggio. First and foremost, our thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Dale, his daughters, Leslie and Tracy, his six grandchildren, and one great grandchild.

Much will be said in the coming days and weeks about the lifetime of accomplishments of this giant of a man. However, for those of us in higher education, indeed the whole education community, we pause to thank this man who came from humble immigrant roots and rose to great power, in part by public education. He never forgot the contribution of education to his life. We have lost a member of our family today – indeed, our patriarch and champion. You will be greatly missed, Bill, but we will never forget all that you have done for Nevada and, particularly, for her young men and women who, like you, look to better lives through education.

Further on PEBP's $43m excess reserve

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:07:47 GMT

Since our last comment on the revelation of the $43 million excess reserve reported by PEBP in January, the program's executive director told the Rebel Yell that in fact this excess reserve had been accrued entirely prior to the start of the current plan year

The reserve is not a result of plan design changes and premium rate increases effective July 1, 2011. Instead, it accumulated due to premium rate estimates that were higher than the amount of claims PEBP had paid leading up to June 30, 2011.

This is difficult to understand, as it appears to contradict the program's own CFO's report of December 2011, which reports a positive "change in cash" figure of over $10m for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011-2012 (against a budgeted figure of negative $22m.) The same chart shows an "actual" figure for "net realized funds available" (ie above the budgeted reserve) of $45.2m, versus an anticipated figure of $11.8m. Thus, PEBP appears to have expected to have $32m more in cash on hand by September 20, 2011, than it actually expected to at that point in the year.

But whats more egregious, and seems to compound the problem, is that, according to Wells, "PEBP knew during the 2011 legislative session that there was going to be a reserve of approximately $35 million," because, as he told the Rebel Yell, claims increased by only 1% during fiscal year 2010-2011. (Again, this $35m actually refers to excess reserve, over the amount set aside for claims that have yet to be filed and the amount set aside for potentially costly catastrophic claims.)

So "PEBP knew ...that there was going to be a reserve" because of lower-than-expected claims during the 2011 legislature, at the same time he and PEBP staff were presenting the new plan design to the legislature as necessary “to urge on participants to regard more critically about the need for medical treatment". Indeed, Wells himself told the legislature in early 2011 that without the plan switch, the program would run deeply into the red.

Jim Wells, executive director of the Public Employees' Benefits Program, said maintaining the status quo and subsidies paid by the state would have left an $85 million shortfall.

Yet even after all this, he told the Rebel Yell that while he will recommend no increase in participant premiums for the next year, the Board may still want to increase premiums at its March meeting to avoid steeper increases in future years. (Of course, PEBPs' own January 2012 fiscal report says just the opposite, that "reserves in excess of the required reserve levels will be used to reduce premiums and contributions during future plan years" (p. 3)).

This same report, on the next page, shows PEBP's history of carrying excess reserves; in every year since 2004, the plan has carried excess reserves of at least $20m per year with excess reserves over $40m per year in six of those years. And the projected reserve for the current fiscal year is even larger than the actual reserve for 2010-2011.

Yet, without explanation, PEBP reports it intends to hold $0 excess reserve in the coming year, 2012-2013, even though it will get a big jump of 14% in the employer's share (the larger share) of premiums for that year. That increase, by the way, which will represent a hit of over $3m for UNLV and at least $7m for NSHE, is money that will have to come from our operating budgets and be diverted from academic uses. So this is an issue that impacts the students quite directly, too.

PEBP has, in the words of a great American economist, "some splainin' to do " at its next board meeting, Wednesday March 14 at 9am, about how it intends to spend that reserve down to 0. One obvious solution is to restore an option for the status quo ante by putting in place for 2012-2013 an affordable "middle-tier" option, between the HMO and the catastrophic-only coverage model, which the Board rejected at its last meeting.

Another is to refund that money by instituting a premium holiday for both employer and employee, as it has done in the past, which would help cushion the blow for faculty and staff and help NSHE (and all other state agencies) both pay for gap coverage for its staff and restore services to the public that have been cut so deeply.

TMCC begins collective bargaining negotiations, capital campaign fundraising

Scott Huber — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:28:53 GMT

Faculty, staff and administration at Truckee Meadows Community College have a busy spring ahead.

First, faculty and representatives of the administration are preparing to renegotiate the collective bargaining contract, which was last negotiated the spring of 2008. The contract covers a wide range of work-related and academic issues, clarifying the process by which the TMCC administration and faculty conduct business and themselves. The contract provides stability and protection, while fostering a collective sense that both entities have a stake in the institution.

TMCC is the only community college in Nevada with collective bargaining. It is anticipated that the renegotiation will be completed before the end of the academic year, and that the TMCC NFA membership and the NFA state board will ratify it soon after.

At the same time, the college is engaged in a five-year Major Gifts Campaign seeking much needed funds for equipment, scholarships and current programs. Paula Lee Hobson, TMCC foundation director, reports that the campaign is ahead of schedule, having received $4.7 million in cash and pledges to date. Additional proposals, either pending or in development, push this figure to $10.8 million.

Also, TMCC recently received notification that the Neil J. Redfield, EL Cord and Dorothy Towne foundation has voted to make a $200,000 gift to the institution. This significant gift will be used to fund scholarships, purchase equipment and to support professional development.

During the current funding crisis in Nevada, it is extremely important to note the contributions and effort put forth by education advocates within our community and within the institution. Because of their efforts and monetary gifts, students are able to find classes and adequately equipped programs that very likely would not be available otherwise.

Faculty, staff, and students at TMCC are coping with furlough days, increased workloads and classes that are increasingly difficult to register for. Given the sluggish economy in Nevada, and the apparent disregard for an adequately funded system of higher education, faculty, staff and students feel increasingly pessimistic about the future.

UNLV NFA chapter president calls for Board of Regents to consider gap coverage for NSHE staff

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:32:06 GMT

Nevada public service workers statewide have suffered from a big cut to public employees' health care benefits, made in July 2011. The new Public Employees' Benefits Program (PEBP) plan has such a high deductible that it covers only major medical problems.

Faculty and staff across the Nevada System of Higher Education have complained about it. Campus administrations have expressed sympathy and support for doing something about it, and nearly a year and a half ago the Chancellor appointed a PEBP Benefits Task Force with three charges: seek immediate improvements in customer service from PEBP, research if NSHE could leave PEBP altogether and establish its own self-funded pool, and determine whether, in the meantime, NSHE can offer gap coverage as a supplemental benefit to its employees.

At each of the last three Board of Regents meetings, as well as at various public events in the fall of 2011, individual regents and the board have heard an earful from faculty and staff of UNLV and other NSHE institutions.

At UNLV, the chair of the Administrative Faculty committee (and an active NFA member), Shaun Franklin-Sewell, assisted in developing and implementing a survey to document faculty and staff concerns and especially those who have declined coverage or bypassed prescribed treatments for reasons of cost. This survey was reported to the board in December and will be followed up this spring by an NSHE-wide survey.

At a Jan. 24 meeting of the UNLV Faculty Senate, and again at the Jan. 30 UNLV Town Hall, I (John Farley, president of the UNLV chapter of NFA) asked UNLV President Neal Smatresk a pointed question. We have heard the concerns of the faculty and staff, the Regents have expressed sympathy and a desire to act, and the NSHE Task Force is charged with developing a proposal for gap coverage as a supplemental benefit. So, when can we expect the topic of supplemental coverage to be put to the Board of Regents for action?

The UNLV NFA chapter urges the Board to put this item of gap coverage as a supplement to PEBP for 2012-2013 on its March agenda.

Statistics and the Nevada System of Higher Education

Scott Huber — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:07:28 GMT

Statistics are valuable tools used by scientists, economists and businessmen, among others. These groups use data to clarify and reveal trends and standings, to make projections, to measure how efficient or how far off the norm a certain parameter is. Thus, a practitioner is able to state pretty accurately whether his or her research interest is near the mean, achieves a certain percentile or is within variance of the top as compared to other similar parameters. When used appropriately, statistical values provide a clearer more concise understanding. That has value.

A problem with statistics, however, is the misuse of them for political purposes. Those bent on political persuasion too often selectively lift statistics out of context in order to serve their argument. This effectively clouds rather than clarifies, and of course, that is the intent of the misuse. That’s the first rub.

The second rub is that statistics tend to sanitize situations. Figures cannot accurately represent situations as felt by the parties they represent. They are bombs released at 30,000 feet that do not accurately portray the situation on the ground.

Therefore, whenever statistics concerning the status of Nevada’s colleges and universities are used, particularly where funding is ranked against other systems around the country, I am reminded that the real story is likely not being represented clearly, or understood accurately.

Statistics aside, here is what is really going on in the Nevada System of Higher Education today:

Virtually every faculty member who has relocated to Nevada in the past 10 years has a home mortgage that is underwater. These junior faculty represent the future of higher education in Nevada. They are caught in a no-win situation of diminished salaries, a bankrupted health care plan and a state government that doesn’t care that they are forced to moonlight in second jobs or use personal savings to get by each month. By comparison, and equally disturbing, senior faculty are calculating to the month when they can escape through retirement. We see recently retired colleagues, many of who gave their entire professional lives to Nevada, being forced to shop through outsourced health plans that are inadequate or disingenuous in their benefits. Our administrators are exhausted and burning out, because they have been forced to assume responsibility for two and three administrative positions that they know they cannot manage adequately. Our institutional presidents are harried by the fact they are cutting worthwhile programs, classes and staff to meet diminishing budgets, and we have a chancellor who is awake at night trying to plan for a downsized NSHE, when in fact he knows he should be enhancing NSHE to meet the demand in the years ahead. Finally we have students who are justifiably frustrated because their career choices, supporting programs and classes are gone, likely never to return. The question for them is whether to stay and attempt to be a contributing member of Nevada’s workforce, or leave the state for good.

Statistics that are deployed to mask this state of affairs serve no meaningful purpose, nor do they reflect the reality in our classrooms, on our campuses and in our System office.

It took a generation to create a fine system of higher education in Nevada and two bienniums to degrade it by a third. Without a viable and adequately funded system of higher education, a diversified economy is absolutely not going to happen in our state. No statistics are needed to support these two facts.

PEBP has generated a $43 million reserve by restricting coverage and increasing premiums

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:43:51 GMT

At almost the same time that University of Nevada, Las Vegas, faculty and staff were asking, repeatedly, at today's town hall meeting in Las Vegas if the Board of Regents would be taking up the prospect of a supplemental benefit for Nevada System for Higher Education faculty and staff to offset the woefully inadequate coverage offered under the current Public Employees' Benefits Program, the executive director of PEBP was telling an interim legislative committee in Carson City that it has accrued a breathtaking $43 million reserve.

This is deeply distressing news, particularly in light of the impact that the shift to a choice of either high-deductible catastrophic-only coverage or high-premium HMO coverage has had on NSHE faculty and staff. A survey of UNLV faculty and staff conducted in November found the changes have led to a marked increase in UNLV staff either declining coverage outright, delaying care or skipping needed medications (especially among those making less than $50,000 per year, which is over half the campus workforce).

What is particularly galling about the news of the surplus is that the PEBP staff's own report to the Board prepared for the most recent Board meeting in January, attributed over half of the reserve ($23.5 million) to "[d]ecreased self-funded claims expenses" (p. 109) – this despite repeated claims made by the Board and staff in 2010, when they proposed converting the PPO to a high-deductible/ catastrophic-only model of "participant over-utilization." Equally galling is that most of the rest of the reserve is attributed to a claim of $20.5 million in "[h]igher beginning cash" at the start of the plan year, last July 1. (Another $5.3 million of the surplus is attributed to "[i]ncreases to HMO premiums.")

This means that the overcharging of participants clearly pre-dates the beginning of the new plan design, since PEBP was already running a hefty reserve in fiscal year 2011, precisely at the time the claims of "participant over-utilization" were being repeatedly raised at Board meetings.

PEBP is now sitting on a reserve that has accrued almost $1,200 per insured state worker in the last six months – a time during which treatments have been skipped and a record number of employees have dropped off the plan. (This also puts the state in jeopardy of running afoul of new federal requirements, to take effect in 2014, that all individuals must be insured.) Keep in mind that the employer contribution for each employee will actually increase in fiscal year 2013, so that the supposed good news of stable premiums for participants that the PEBP board will consider at its March meeting means PEBP would still be increasing its revenue next year while continuing to offer sub-standard health coverage.

Finally, as for the PEBP staff's assertion at the hearing that the reduction in benefits paid is a consequence of "sheer luck" and that insurance claims in the latter part of the current plan year will reduce reserves, this raises a puzzling question: Who performs the actuarial work there? After all, PEBP and PEBP alone has the full data on its participants' past utilization experience, and PEBP and PEBP alone designed the current plan. If their economic models in fact projected that claims would be lower in the first six months of plan year 2012, then why did they not project this hefty surplus? And if they are in fact running significantly ahead of their own expectations for cash on hand, then why in the world does a nonprofit, self-insured plan not adjust the rates accordingly and give not only participants but also the state a break on premiums for next year?

Or, of course, go back to offering decent medical coverage that we public service workers have been paying for, but clearly not receiving.

Nevada College Expense in Perspective

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:52:43 GMT

President Obama in his State of the Union tonight "put colleges and universities on notice" about rising tuition, proposing to cap federal financial aid eligibility for students at institutions which increase tuition.

While this sort of cost control measure clearly has populist appeal, keep in mind that the same approach to capping Medicare reimbursement rates, which is part of federal budget law, is annually circumvented through the so-called "doc fix" precisely because medical providers are in a position to decline Medicare patients if the reimbursement rates are below the cost of providing care.

The President is right to call for greater access to affordable, quality public higher education. But it would appear from the President's rhetoric tonight that he does not believe the actual cost of providing education at many institutions is rising, only the price charged students. If there are institutions where that is the case, his approach seems sound and salutory.

But as is abundantly clear from the recently published 2011 College Board report on Trends in College Pricing especially the section on "Institutional Revenues -- Public Appropriations", the most significant driver for increases in student tuition at public colleges and universities, not just since 2007 but going back to at least 1998, is declining public support, while the cost of delivering education has risen below the rate of inflation. (Since 2004, the report shows, 4-year public colleges and universities have seem a reduction nationally of about 5% in state and local support, while the national average for increases in student fees over that same period is only 4%).

Thus, the increases in student tuition are not a reason, as the President proposed, for reducing the amount of "public taxpayer dollars" invested in higher education -- but the result of already reduced public investment.

The case of Nevada is telling. According to the same College Board report, as reported in the SF Chronicle and elsewhere, NSHE institutions charged as of 2010-2011 the lowest tuition in the country in their categories, with University of Nevada, Reno, identified as the least expensive public 4-year university in the nation (for in-state fees). The cost of a 4-year degree at UNR, with UNLV only marginally higher, is only a fraction -- as little as 1/10th of some private institutions that were singled out for praise for cutting tuition and about 1/4th of the amounts charged by the University of California system.

The significant increases in-state fees imposed at UNLV, UNR and other NSHE campuses over the past four years have been entirely in response to the over $200 million in state support cut from higher education in Nevada in that period.

So while the President's proposal to cap financial aid in response to tuition increases may have merit, keep in mind that it will apply primarily to those colleges and universities whose high costs result in their students becoming eligible for federal aid, either in Pell Grants or subsidized loans. Nevada's in-state students qualify in much lower numbers than students in other states for Pell Grants and incur significantly less indebtedness due primarily to our low in-state tuition (even after the sharp increases of the past few years). So that this proposed cap would not actually apply to most Nevada students, because students at Nevada's public colleges and universities generally qualify in lesser numbers and for lesser amounts of federal aid due to our comparatively low in-state fees.

The more direct way to keep college affordable is, as he put it in the prior line of his speech, for states to restore the massive amount cut from public higher education allocations in the past few years.

Another would be to revive an idea that only four years ago was supported by most Democratic candidates for President and a majority of 2008 primary voters, making community colleges and public colleges cost-free for all qualified students. Long before he became a national laughingstock for his personal failures, John Edwards proposed a policy of "College for Everyone" that would have given every qualified student aid for full in-state tuition through a combination of direct aid, work-study and direct loans repaid based upon a proportion of future income. While that proposal did nothing to address costs, it did not need to -- because the cost of delivering education is not what is making college unaffordable, especially in Nevada. Declining public support for our colleges and universities is.

(As for the case made by Richard Vetter that colleges and universities spend far too much on non-educational expenses (a case he will make this morning on KNPR), he may or may not be right depending on whether students consider those expenses necessary for their college experience. But either way, as Professor Vetter has acknowleged, those costs are borne on most campuses -- and certainly at UNLV this is true -- by student fees and are funded neither by instructional fees (commonly referred to as "in-state tuition") or by state general fund appropriations. Effectively, students make -- individually and collectively through their student government -- market decisions to pay for those services, and while students could reduce their cost by not paying those fees, those fees have nothing to do with the cost of delivering education and therefore do not reflect any sort of inflation. They simply reflect rising student expectations for services, just as most of us expect more health care services than our parents or their parents did.)

Another way the state of Nevada could cut in-state fees is to reduce state subsidy for out-of-state students who attend NSHE institutions on exchange scholarships, which allow students from California and other neighboring states to enroll for 150% of in-state fees, less than half of regular non-resident tuition. Currently there are more than 1800 such students enrolled at UNR (about 1/8th of their undergraduate student body) and another few hundred at UNLV (about 2% of UNLV's student body). The current discussion concerning a new funding formula for higher education in Nevada is a good occasion to address this problem.

So yes college is getting more and more expensive in Nevada, and that is something the President and our state government ought to stop and reverse. But blaming colleges and universities that have done more with less for years is neither economically sound nor going to solve the problem.

NFA wins AAUP award for print and electronic communication

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:17:21 GMT

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is pleased and honored to announce that our integrated print and electronic communications program has been recognized by the AAUP Assembly of State Conferences.

The ASC granted the NFA its "Print and Electronic Communications Award" for 2011, in recognition of our "outstanding tabloid-style newsletter" and our "highly professional" electronic update and website.

During 2011, not only did the NFA create a new website with a new news blog as well as a Twitter feed and active Facebook page, and introduce a weekly electronic newsletter, but it also streamlined the editorial and production process of The Alliance print newspaper and integrated its editorial content onto the website and newsletter while also updating the design and layout of the print version. In 2012, the NFA is working to further enhance the value of these important assets for members.

We are gratified by this national recognition of our hard work.

NSHE proposes new model for funding higher education

(Past member) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:21:35 GMT

Members of the Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education, got a last-minute surprise at their Jan. 11 meeting, held at the Grant Sawyer State Office Building in Las Vegas. Nevada Senator Steven Horsford, chair of the committee, added Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Dan Klaich to the agenda so that Klaich could present NSHE’s proposal for a new way to fund public higher education in the state.

Nevertheless, everyone present and attending via videoconference from Carson City and Elko came prepared, and they seemed to agree on one thing: Equity must be part of whatever new formula is adopted.

Senator John Lee, whose bill established the committee, opened the meeting with a lengthy statement expressing concerns that the current formula redistributes student fee dollars in a way that “turns students into taxpayers,” as he said. Lee also drew on the last committee’s 2005 findings as a way of underlining concerns of historic inequities of more than $20 million each for the College of Southern Nevada and UNLV.

Following Lee’s statement, Horsford said he believed the intent of the legislation and the committee was, “to evaluate the best formulas that ensure equitable allocation and distribution of those sources, based on the mission of each of our institutions throughout the system.”

As Klaich walked the committee through NSHE’s proposal, he said: “I want to be very clear that I want to be mindful that this is not a taxation committee. It’s not my point here today to talk about the adequacy or inadequacy of funding for higher education. That’s a discussion for another day, and certainly I have strong opinions on that. But after we price our product, it’s up to us to fairly and adequately allocate those funds amongst the institutions based on the work that they do.”

Klaich touched on the shortcomings of the current model, which has been in use since the 1980s, saying it is difficult to understand (undermining its credibility) and discourages differentiation and entrepreneurial behavior. He added, “This issue of geo-politics is inextricably wound in, and you (Senator Horsford) stated it correctly – whether ‘real or perceived.’ It doesn’t matter whether it’s real or perceived; it’s there.”

Klaich proposed that the committee set aside Nevada’s current formula and start over, rather than tinkering with a broken model. The NSHE plan he presented was meant to provide a conceptual framework for a new model. Klaich explained that it would need to be developed through further study of the cost factors in Nevada (likely to be studied by an independent consultant) and of funding formulas used in other states, such as Texas, which also have multi-tiered systems of higher education.

The proposed framework has three main elements: 1. base funding, calculated using a weighted student credit hour matrix, in which each student credit hour completed would be weighted according to the cost of the discipline (with disciplines sorted into clusters of roughly common cost) and on academic level; 2. add-ons, or enhancements, for research missions (at universities) and for economies of scale at other institutions; and 3. a performance pool of funds available to each institution that achieves certain performance benchmarks, particularly the number of graduates or certificates awarded.

Members of the committee spent considerable time asking Klaich questions about the new approach, which was summarized in just over three pages. Assemblywoman Debbie Smith expressed concern about the many technical components of the proposal that would need to be fleshed out, pointing as an example to vagueness about distribution of performance pool funds. No questions were posed on the financial impact of shifting from the allocation of state funds based on enrollment to allocation based on completion of credits, and there was no discussion of a timeframe for transitioning from the current formula to the new one.

Klaich said following the meeting that he was pleased with the reaction of the committee, which agreed to integrate NSHE’s new model into the request for proposals from independent consultants that will go out in the coming weeks.

“As I tried to emphasize to the committee, this was a proposal that needed a lot of detail work and independent vetting,” Klaich said. “I think the questions from the committee highlighted many of the areas that we will have to study. I thought for such short notice, the committee was extremely well-prepared.”

As the formula is being hammered out, Klaich stressed, he wants teaching faculty to know that it will be based on what he considers their primary mission, teaching. “We will value it fairly across the system, and we will be highly supportive of the model that funds performance, excellence, assessment and rigor,” he said.

His next step will be to begin executing the committee’s request that NSHE fill in some detail in the model and provide examples of implementation. Klaich said he welcomes the NFA’s input as the process unfolds.

This next step will undoubtedly be the subject of discussion at the special meeting of the NSHE Board of Regents scheduled for Friday Jan. 20 at DRI in Las Vegas.

Update to members confirming NFA affiliation with AAUP

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:30:00 GMT

On behalf of the NFA state board, this statement is to clarify some of the confusion created by AAUP president Cary Nelson's email sent Tuesday.

As of last Wednesday morning (January 11), the state board confirmed, unequivocally, that the NFA remains the Nevada affiliate of the AAUP and its members remain AAUP members.

The NFA is indeed engaged, as you know, in discussions about restructuring our affiliation with the AAUP to ensure NFA members get the services they need and deserve -- rather than having more than half our dues used to subsidize AAUP activities in other states. This negotiation was begun with the national officers and staff in the fall of 2010 and is currently being pursued with the AAUP's governing board, its National Council. NFA has indeed, as we have reported to members repeated, withheld dues to AAUP until the situation is resolved, primarily because the invoices received from AAUP placed all our members in the highest income band and assessed dues on all our members at collective bargaining rates. But there has been no action by either party taken to end the NFA affiliation with the AAUP or to expel NFA members from the AAUP, and there has been no diminution in services from the AAUP to our members.

Let us offer a few additional points of clarification :

1. Nelson's letter is inaccurate in that the NFA's affiliation agreement with the AAUP remains in place until one side or the other withdraws. NFA certainly has not done that and taken no steps towards that, nor have we even discussed that formally on the board. AAUP is governed by its elected National Council, not by one individual. Nevada's representative on the National Council, Candace Kant of CSN, has confirmed that there has been no discussion of ending the affiliation there either. Both legally and morally, NFA members remain AAUP members, and it is incorrect and even irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Our dues backlog is not either out of the ordinary for the AAUP in dealing with its state affiliates nor is it in any way a secret.

2. We have discussed the situation openly with our members repeatedly, including on the front page of the September Alliance and in a letter last month to the statewide membership, also posted on the NFA blog. It was also covered in the UNLV Rebel Yell.

3. The letter from Cary Nelson is mistaken in several other ways, most notably in the discussion of what services the AAUP have offered to NFA and when. We have received only the vaguest suggestion of grants or subsidies, and our request for Nevada-based staff support was explicitly rejected. Moreover, the AAUP proved unable to provide any significant assistance for public education in Nevada, despite repeated requests, throughout 2010 and 2011. Professor Nelson presents the situation as if it were a matter primarily of the much-publicized announcement by UNLV in March 2011 of the prospect of a declaration of financial exigency, but the program terminations and faculty layoffs had begun in Nevada over a year earlier. He makes no mention at all of the proposed layoffs of tenured faculty at Western Nevada (which have been successfully rebuffed by their faculty with support from the NFA) and of the actual layoffs of tenured faculty at UNR (which are being challenged currently by lawsuits in federal court against UNR and the System, supported by the NFA).

4. Most especially, his claim that there is no increase in dues for NFA members is belied by the invoices we have received from AAUP, which place all our members in their highest income band and assess all members the collective bargaining dues rate. This only makes sense if one presumes that NFA would absorb the increase in AAUP dues out of its own operating budget or that, as the AAUP office has suggested, the NFA raise dues on its members. (NFA leaders made this point at the June 2010 national meeting when the dues increase was approved and Nelson himself agreed at that time that Nevada constituted a "special case" which should be resolved by a special agreement.)

5. Perhaps most importantly, NFA has set aside and is all holding our back dues in hope of an agreement with AAUP, although no serious offer of additional services or restructured affiliation has been forthcoming for more than a year.

6. The problems in the AAUP are by no means limited to Nevada. For the past several years, academic publications such as the Chronicle of Higher Education have reported on areas in which the organization has become less effective than it once was. The AAUP has worked hard to address some of these issues, but the issue of excessive focus on the national office at the expense of state and campus chapters was brought to light recently by Gary Rhoades, former AAUP general-secretary, who just this week published an op-ed in the Chronicle of Higher Education denouncing the AAUP's "inward-looking perspective that detracts from the mission of serving members" and calling for more focus on cultivating chapters and state- and local-level leadership. The AAUP has announced that it is working to resolve this problematic issue, with state organizations believing that they could work harder. We support any progress that they make in this area.

Any comments, concerns or questions may be addressed to the NFA state board directly at info@nevadafacultyalliance.org. Additional updates will be emailed to members directly and posted on http://nevadafacultyalliance.org/News.

Update on Dec 15 PEBP Board meeting

Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:24:00 GMT

UNLV HR Benefits manager attended the Dec 15 PEBP Board meeting on behalf of the NSHE Task Force on health coverage and filed this report:

The Public Employees Benefits Program (PEBP) met on Thursday, December 15 for their regular board meeting. NSHE and Nevada Faculty Alliance representatives made public comment regarding the difficulties experienced by employees related to the Consumer Driven Health Plan (CDHP) as well as comments on the proposed plan changes. These included:

That the majority of our employees would prefer PEBP contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA) be made at the beginning of the plan year rather than semi-annually;
Support was expressed for the PEBP Staff recommendation that no limits are set for roll over amounts within the HRA;
Major concerns regarding the high cost of prescriptions and the need for a richer prescription benefit plan were shared; and
Support for a middle tier plan with more predictable out of pocket costs, but with a reasonable premium, was emphasized.

PEBP Board members acknowledged the financial difficulties that employees are experiencing with the new plan, especially with the cost of prescription. They echoed our concerns that employees may be deferring taking medications and have asked the prescription plan provider to evaluate if this is a prevalent issue in the plan.

Discussion regarding the middle tier plan occurred, but the majority of the PEBP Board Members did not support such a plan. The board cited concerns with adverse selection. Additionally, concerns about future volatility of premium costs in the PEBP Self-funded plan were expressed. This volatility would be due to the anticipated, smaller population base in the CDHP should a third tier plan be added. Board members, however, did express support for the possibility of using plan savings (if there's any as a result of changing to the Consumer Driven Health Plan) to increase the seed money that goes into employees' HSA.

In addition to the discussions summarized above, the Board approved the following plan changes:

Seed money going into employees' HSA and HRA account will continue to be deposited once a year, at the beginning of the plan year. The amount of the seed money remains the same at $700 per employee and $200 per covered dependent to a total maximum of $1300. Individuals who are hired mid-year will continue to receive a prorated amount.

· Currently, the cost of preventive dental care is charged to a participant's annual maximum benefit ($1000), which reduces the amount you can use for other dental benefits. For the FY13 plan year, the Board excluded preventative dental cleanings and exams from the maximum. By excluding these benefits, you will be able to use the full $1000 maximum benefit for other dental services (ie. fillings, crowns, root canals, etc). No action was proposed or taken with respect to the number of preventive dental cleanings, as such they will continue to be available four times each plan year.

The next meeting of the PEBP Board is scheduled for January 19, 2012. Information regarding composite rates for the plan year 2013 (beginning July 1, 2012) will be presented at that meeting. The PEBP Board are scheduled to make a final decision regarding rates at the March meeting.

Nevada professor of the year honored in Washington, D.C.

(Past member) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:11:00 GMT

David Holland, assistant professor of history at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, has won the 2011 Nevada Professor of the Year award in the U.S. Professors of the Year Program, sponsored by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

The award recognizes excellence in undergraduate academic instruction. Holland and his wife were invited to a celebratory reception in Washington, D.C., where they also met with U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada.

“I was pleased to welcome Dr. Holland and his wife, Jeanne, to my office to congratulate him on this impressive achievement,” Reid said. “I have always remembered and carried with me the lessons my favorite professors and teachers taught me as a student. Students at UNLV are fortunate to have such a wonderful history professor in Dr. Holland.”

Holland currently teaches U.S. history and religion courses. Before joining UNLV in 2005, he was a lecturer at Stanford, where he earned his Ph.D.

Effort to restore adequate health care coverage continues

(Past member) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:30:31 GMT

In response to the very high concerns voiced by faculty and staff across the Nevada System of Higher Education, NFA remains actively involved in the System's efforts to restore adequate health coverage as quickly as possible. In this story, we report on two, related developments: 1. the work of the NSHE Task Force on Health Coverage seeking alternatives to current PEBP coverage through a short-term supplemental benefit for NSHE employees (possibly as early as next year) and considering a longer-term alternative outside of the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (which raises some legal and financial challenges to achieve), and 2. this Thursday's PEBP board meeting, where an alternative to current coverage will be considered for next year.

NSHE Task Force update: Legal and Financial issues related to seeking improved coverage

At last week's Board of Regents meeting, the NSHE Task Force on Health Coverage presented an update on its work, which included the following:

data from research (with the help of an external consultant) on current costs, coverage and insurance utilization of NSHE employees within PEBP
discussions with the PEBP board of improvements that we hope to see in both customer service and coverage
an exploration of longer-term alternatives to current coverage for NSHE employees through a self-funded insurance program outside of PEBP

The report did not discuss another aspect of the task force's charge and earlier report, the exploration of an NSHE-funded supplemental benefit for faculty and staff for next fiscal year, as a stopgap measure. The board discussion showed a great deal of concern among regents about the current state of affairs and longer-term solutions, but no formal action was taken.

In light of this discussion, and the high priority that faculty and staff place on this issue, it is worth explaining some of the legal and financial issues involved in this discussion.

First, neither the board of regents, the chancellor nor the campus presidents have the authority to seek insurance for their employees outside of PEPB. That would require approval of the PEBP board and/or legislative action. That approval is not assured and would require a careful effort by the System as a whole to educate the legislature and the governor, and to convince them that this would lead not only to better coverage for us but be cost-effective for the entire state.

Under current PEBP board policy, any group of employees that leaves the program must demonstrate that the withdrawal of those participants would not have a negative financial impact on the overall program of greater than 5 percent. If PEBP determines that the withdrawal would have an adverse impact of greater than 5 percent, the group withdrawing is responsible to cover all costs of its departure on the remaining participants.

One question the NSHE consultant will study is whether the withdrawl of NSHE participants as a group would have a negative financial impact on PEBP of greater than 5 percent of its total program budget. If that were the case, then we would need legislative action to change that rule before we could pursue alternative insurance. (It would also mean, of course, that NSHE participants had paid significantly more over the recent past than we have received in benefits. If that is the case, it would mean that the reserve funds held by PEBP came disproportionately from NSHE participants – and this would be an argument for letting NSHE withdraw without having to pay for the cost to remaining PEBP participants.)

At the November PEBP board meeting, NSHE leadership (namely, then vice-chancellor Bart Patterson, and now Renee Yackira, director of government relations for NSHE) testified to the PEBP board to express our concerns. They urged PEBP to consider, as early as next year, a "middle tier" of coverage between the current high-premium, fee-for-service HMO and the much-derided high deductible "consumer-driven" plan that replaced the old PPO.

However, such a "middle tier" may not be financially feasible for PEBP to offer, because the costs to the program have increased at a rate of roughly 10 percent per year for each of the past several years. These rising costs are the main issue in the question of whether NSHE – and the state – could get better coverage for the same money than PEBP currently offers. The question of whether PEBP reimburses health care providers at higher rates than other insurance plans has been posed going back to the 2009 legislature, but has not been fully answered. (The PEBP board and staff have stated publicly that rising costs are due to over-utilization of service by participants and that the "consumer-driven" high-deductible plan will curb that over-utilization and cut costs. Critics of PEBP's coverage have maintained that the roughly 10-percent annual increase in the cost of the program has been passed along almost entirely to state public service workers, rather than reducing the rates it pays providers. This claim is hard to verify, however, because reimbursement rates to providers are considered proprietary information and are not publicly available to participants.)

There is then the separate issue of supplemental benefits within NSHE. The task force was charged to consider this possibility and recommended consideration in its report of last January and has continued to discuss this in meetings this fall. This issue was not explicitly presented in the task force's report to the board on Dec. 2, but several regents did ask about whether immediate action would be possible.

A supplemental benefit for NSHE employees would not require legislative approval or, based on what the task force has researched, PEBP approval. It would, however, require NSHE to spend its own money on supplemental benefits. The issue then becomes whether 1. NSHE wants to spend between $5 million and $15 million of its aggregate $1.2 billion budget on a supplement to bring health coverage for faculty and staff up to a minimally acceptable standard, and 2. there would be negative political consequences for the System for doing so that might outweigh the negative consequences for its staff of not doing so.

PEBP board update: Middle tier of coverage to be considered this Thursday

This Thursday, December 15, the Public Employees Benefit Program governing board, composed of gubernatorial appointees, will hold its regular monthly meeting (for agenda, backup information and links to view or listen to the meeting, click here). As part of this meeting, the PEBP board will consider adopting a "middle tier" of coverage option for next year. Such a "middle tier" would be more comprehensive than both the new (and much-maligned) "consumer-driven" plan – which offers choice of doctors but limited coverage until a high deductible has been met – and the health maintenance organization – which charges lower fees for each service, but charges higher premiums and offers limited choices. The proposed "middle tier" would restore deductibles to near-2009-2010 levels ($500 per year for individuals and $1,000 per year for families) and fixed-cost co-payments for office visits ($15 for a primary care visit, $25 for a specialist, $45 for urgent care). It also would restore low, set-priced fees for generic drugs ($4 for 30 days supply) and reduce co-insurance costs to 10 percent for many services. On the other hand, participants in this plan would not be eligible to contribute to a Health Savings Account, so they would receive no "seed money" to offset costs incurred during the year. Moreover, the premiums are likely to be much higher – and will not be known until February 2012.

As a different alternative for creating a "middle tier," PEBP will also consider offering three plan choices: two CDH plans and an HMO plan. Under this scenario, participants could choose the HMO or one of two CDH plans with differing deductible, coinsurance, maximum out-of-pocket and HSA seed money amounts. One option would offer a lower deductible option ($1,200 per individual, $2,400 per family) that would also have a lower out-of-pocket maximum ($3,000 and $6,000) and a lower co-insurance (20 percent), but would offer only $400 (individual) or up to $700 (family) in seed money to the Health Savings Account. The other, higher-deductible option would require individuals to pay $3,000 ($6,000 for families) before receiving coverage, and insureds could incur higher out-of-pocket maximums ($4,500 for individuals, $6,000 for families) and would pay a higher co-insurace rate (25 percent). However, participants would receive a higher amount of seed money ($1,100 per individual, up to $2,000 per family) and, presumably, pay a lower monthly premium.

In all cases, premium rates will not be determined until February so it is very hard to know how costly each option might be for an individual or family.

Membership update on NFA and AAUP

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:01:50 GMT

Dear NFA members,

I am writing you to update you on the status of our negotiations with the AAUP, which have been on-going for more than a year.

In late January 2010, when we first learned that the System of Higher Education would have a second round of cuts in state support, of 7% - beyond the first 25% reduction in state support passed by the 2009 legislature, it was clear immediately that this would lead to program eliminations and terminations of faculty. With the authorization of the NFA state board, I contacted the AAUP's Department of Organizing and Member Services and requested AAUP support in three areas: legal support for the defense of faculty contract rights, membership recruitment and chapter development, and communications.

And that's where it has stood to this day - NFA requesting support from AAUP whose response has been to propose actions that we did not ask for and which we doubted would help our situation. Of course, the AAUP did impose a new dues policy in July 2010 which would increase the total NFA dues bill by at least 15% and require more than half of our members' annual NFA dues to be sent to Washington. Paying such a dues bill would leave the NFA in the red -- even after having reduced our annual overall expenditures by nearly 20% in the past few years, while enhancing services in communications, legal defense, and government relations,

Clearly the AAUP's demand that we pay such a level of dues is not viable. Is there an alternative? We believe so, but the AAUP has yet to agree to a serious discussion that recognizes the NFA's unique organization and set of member service we think are needed in Nevada higher education.

NFA members are asking, rightly, are we still AAUP members? To be clear, yes you are. No change in membership status with respect to the AAUP has been or will be initiated by NFA.

I think the more pressing question is what it means to be an AAUP member when the Association staff has been unresponsive to our needs, since January 2010, during the gravest threat to quality affordable higher education and to faculty employment rights in our organization's history?

On legal defense, the AAUP has never contributed any funds or legal research to the NFA's legal defense program. Our legal defense efforts are entire the work of our members and, when outside counsel is retained, paid for by our members' dues. There is simply no AAUP support there.

The AAUP's investigative authority of potential violations of academic freedom and tenure is supposed to be its most valuable service to members, but even as we've worked hard, and with some success, to fend off or reduce layoffs of tenured faculty on two NSHE campuses in the past two years, we've received little follow-up from the AAUP aside from letters sent to the president on one institution.

On membership recruitment and chapter development, the NFA needs help, because our campus chapter presidents have been unable to undertake sustainable membership drives in recent years. We asked the AAUP staff organizer who came in 2010 - for all of two days - for ideas on how restructure and re-energize our campus chapters to be more effective but received no follow-up. (Indeed, our longstanding concern with the AAUP over its acceptance of Nevada members who enroll directly in any campus chapter -- and who do not pay dues to the NFA -- has never been addressed.)

Most frustratingly, the AAUP seems to prefer to focus its communications efforts on causes that generate national headlines but are not in service of our members. It took the AAUP only days to issue a statement of support for "Occupy Wall Street protestors" but despite repeated requests, not any public statement or public communication has ever been made about the steep budget cuts or their impact on faculty in Nevada.

Certainly the AAUP publications, including Academe, are tangible benefits to members, but the total annual cost per member for an Academe subscription is $35. However, the dues assessments we have received from the AAUP - but which we have not paid - assess almost all our members at the highest of the AAUP's seven rates , an average of over $150 per member per year.

This situation is why the NFA state board voted last January to suspend dues payments to AAUP until a more reasonable balance could be struck between actual services rendered and the dues demanded. We have proposed, in writing and in face-to-face meetings with national representatives, that our dues be put into an escrow account to be used to pay for those services actually rendered to members in the state of Nevada - whether by AAUP or the NFA. The per capita cost of Academe and any actual leadership training by the AAUP would of course be paid out of this fund. But in the absence of an AAUP presence in the state, those funds would be used to continue to professionalize our operations, as we have done with communications very successfully in the past year.

To prove our seriousness of purpose in devoting 100% of dues money to member services, we have cut our expenditures significantly. For instance, we have in the past year reduced the cost for state board members to travel to meetings by over $5000 by opting for videoconferences and conference calls. Moreover, we have cut staff expenses by nearly $10,000. And we have cuts in our communications, while greatly expanding the scope and influence of our communications, by consolidating print and electronic publications into a single production process and by reducing the number of excess copies of the Alliance sent to each campus. Moreover, we continue to benefit from professional work provided by state board members without compensation above a stipend to cover modest expenses and release time.

But the AAUP's response has been, repeatedly, that "there is no alternative" to the exorbitant dues, and they have asked us to pass that cost along to our members through higher in-state dues. Our Board has refused to consider that option.

We are now applying for what the AAUP terms a "State Conference Grant" which would reduce our per capita assessment, so this application would seem the perfect opportunity for the AAUP to work with us to help refocus members' dues into badly needed improvements in services in the state. We must improve the available services in the state, because we cannot continue to function on a "kill the volunteer" model in which the highly demanding tasks of Legal Defense, Government Relations, operations and, most importantly member recruitment and chapter development, are borne entirely by our members who also have full-time jobs and lives to attend to. Certainly we need more of our members to become engaged. But even so, we cannot continue to rely on members to function as full-time volunteers for the NFA in capacities such as board president, legal defense chair, or government relations officer (as we have done for years).

To find that support and put the NFA on a sustainable footing for the future, we must have a response from the AAUP that addresses concretely our members' needs. We are hoping and expecting such a response during the first quarter of 2012. If it is not forthcoming, we will have to decide then on our next step. Should we seek another affiliation? Or should we set our own course and use the money that we have been holding effectively in escrow to hire a part-time or full-time executive director to oversee member services and chapter development? Other state conferences have field staff to assist their members and officers. I believe that in the next few months, the NFA ought to act definitively to plan for the future by budgeting for and contracting an organizing director.

Many NFA members, including myself, value greatly our AAUP affiliation, but the fact remains that the NFA provides all its own legal defense, government relations, communications, member services and chapter development work with no financial, logistical or even moral support from the AAUP. Certainly there is much we cannot do on our own - and especially without a more engaged and active membership. So there is a need for AAUP support to expand and energize our membership if they can do that. In the next few months we hope to hear from them a proposal to provide the support and services we need, at a dues price we can afford.

If such a proposal is not forthcoming, then we will consult the membership on the alternatives we as individuals and as a state conference have to achieve these goals, either in affiliation with or, if need be, separate from the AAUP.

In closing, please know that the spirit of the AAUP - the defense of faculty rights and the advocacy for quality, accessible higher education -- is not in Washington or in our state board or our chapter officers; it is in each and every one of you as members. Your actions, your energy and your involvement, more than ever, are needed for the future of higher education in Nevada.

In solidarity,

Gregory Brown
NFA President

UNLV poll: Under new health plan, faculty and staff forced to delay care, skip prescriptions

(Past member) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 19:26:41 GMT

Editor's note: The following statement was delivered to the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents during their meeting at University of Las Vegas, Nevada, Dec. 1, 2011.

Good Afternoon. My name is Shaun Franklin-Sewell. I’m the UNLV Faculty Senate Administrative Faculty Committee Chair, and I’m here on behalf of all UNLV employees to address you regarding our health insurance.

In order to gauge employee concerns about health care and Public Employee Benefit Program customer service and plan options, the Administrative Faculty Committee and the Fiscal Affairs Committee of the UNLV Faculty Senate and the Classified Staff Council conducted a survey of all UNLV employees. Nearly one-third of UNLV employees responded, so we feel it is an accurate gauge of issues employees are facing regarding their health care.

Chief Executive Officer and Special Counsel Wasserman has received a copy of the survey report, and at this time, I will only report the conclusions we were able to draw from the survey.

The authors of the survey understand that the Public Employees Benefits Program is responsible for these changes. However, the comments received through the survey indicate that, despite UNLV’s best efforts at educating employees about the responsible party, many employees believe their leadership, both at the institution and system level, is responsible. One Academic Faculty member calls the plan “a real disservice to YOUR employees.” Another employee says, “UNLV should be ashamed of itself for providing such shoddy, expensive, confusing and limited coverage.”
Additional comments received by the authors of the survey also suggest that the concern about an inability to recruit and retain top quality faculty and staff is greater than it was prior to the close of the last fiscal year, in part because of the changes to health benefits. One faculty member reports, “I am actively looking to separate from UNLV/NSHE because of this increase.”
UNLV employees are suffering as a result of these changes. They are delaying medical care and not filling prescriptions. They are making very difficult choices between obtaining medical care now and waiting for a medical crisis. A classified staff member comments, “My breast cancer meds are $350 a month now, for generic, compared to $5 generic before. I can't afford that.” These changes have dramatically impacted employee morale.
The Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents should direct the NSHE PEBP Task Force to proceed with all due haste to obtain other health coverage for its employees.
As the Task Force’s research has already shown, the level of access to health care that our employees are receiving is inferior – both to what we used to receive via the Public Employees Benefits Program and to what employees of other private and public organizations in Nevada receive.
The Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents should implement a supplemental insurance policy and/or provide a supplement to the dollars provided in the Health Savings Account.
We are not seeking “added” benefits. We are seeking a return to an acceptable level of access to health care.

Thank you for your leadership, Chancellor Klaich, in creating the Task Force, and thank you for your leadership, Regents, in encouraging that the Task Force continue its mission. Finally, thank you Senior Vice President Bomotti for allowing us to present these results as part of your Task Force’s work.

U.S. Secretary of Education holds town hall on education, economy

(Past member) — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:18:08 GMT

Hundreds of people turned out for a town hall meeting with U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, held Tuesday, Nov. 29, at the College of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas. The meeting was meant to address education’s role in improving the economy.

Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Dan Klaich moderated the hour-long town hall, which also included panelists from local education and the community: Dwight Jones, superintendent of Clark County Schools; Ruben Murillo, president of Clark County Education Association; Calvin Rock, former pastor of Abundant Life Seventh Day Adventist Church; Luis Valera, board chair of the Latin Chamber of Commerce; and Elaine Wynn, chair for Communities in Schools and co-chair of the Greater Las Vegas After School All-Stars.

“We have to educate our way to a better economy,” said Duncan, according to a Las Vegas Sun report. “In a competitive, knowledge-based economy, jobs are going to go where the knowledge workers are ... We can’t teeter around the edges; we have to look for radical change.”

“Nevada’s education system plays a critical role in our state's economy and will take on an even greater role as we seek to create a better educated workforce and to better align our education system with economic opportunities,” Klaich added, in a statement. “Nevada’s students are our future and it will take a community effort to make sure we are providing them with the right access and quality to ensure their success and ultimately, the success of our state.”

The town hall meeting was part of an ongoing discussion Duncan is holding with similar town halls around the country and via social media. To hear his Dec. 1 interview on KNPR’s State of Nevada, click here.

UNR presidential search progressing

(Past member) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:17:03 GMT

The Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents has organized a presidential search committee and an institutional advisory committee to select the next University of Nevada, Reno, president. Their first meeting was held on Friday, Oct. 14, when the committee heard testimony from members and others about what UNR should be looking for in a new president.

On Dec. 9 the committee will interview and select a search consultant and also work on the presidential prospectus. The committee will meet again on Dec. 16 with the search consultant and finalize the prospectus. Advertisements will be published shortly thereafter.

Regents on the search committee are: James Dean Leavitt, chair, Jason Geddes, Kevin Melcher, Kevin Page and Rick Trachok. The committee will work with a large advisory group made up of professional employees selected by the faculty Senate, student leadership representatives, classified staff and others, including a number of community representatives.

They are (faculty senate) W. (Pat) Arnott, Bill Follette, Stephen Lafer, Donica Mensing and Chuck Price; ASUN President Casey Stiteler; (administrators) Rita Laden, Emma Sepulveda Pulvirenti and Bruce Shively; Erik Williams, staff employment council; Denise Cordova, affirmative action; and (community) Alfredo Alonso, Kirk Clausen, Bob Davidson, Rick Hsu, Jean Jones, Mary Simmons, Angie Taylor and
Harvey Whittemore.

Parker discusses jobs, economy at U.S. Capitol

(Past member) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:12:44 GMT

Don’t blame Elliott Parker for the so-called super committee in the U.S. Congress not reaching a deal on deficit reduction by its Nov. 23 deadline. The University of Nevada, Reno, economics department chair gave his input with plenty of time to spare for a compromise.

Parker was part of a select group of about a dozen economists – and the only academic among them – invited to Washington, D.C., for a Nov. 2 meeting on job creation and deficit reduction with the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, and Senator Mark Begich, of Alaska, invited Parker and the rest of the group, which included chief economists for FedEx Corporation, the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Home Builders and the AFL-CIO.

Parker, who last to speak at the meeting, described it as a tremendous honor. He said: “It was reassuring, listening to all these chief economists describe what’s going on and finding it more or less agreed with what I thought was going on. The depressing part was the extent to which the senators we were talking to were frustrated. What matters most is who’s going to win the next election. It’s all about doing nothing until then.”

The meeting took place in anticipation of the Nov. 23 deadline for a select committee of 12 members of Congress to present its plan for deficit reduction, or risk triggering automatic spending cuts. The committee resulted from Congress’s raising the debt ceiling earlier this year.

Parker contributes analysis of economic issues to the Las Vegas Sun, Nevada Appeal and Reno Gazette-Journal, as well as Fox Business News. He teaches in Nevada and abroad on international trade and finance, China’s economy, comparative economic systems, economic development, intermediate microeconomics and micro- and macroeconomics.

What the funding formula Committee can do for NSHE students and faculty

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:55:32 GMT

In the winter issue of The Alliance, we report on the most important development in Nevada higher education news this fall: the Interim Committee on the Funding of Higher Education. This is good news, especially for students, who have faced significant increases in fees and tuition due to reductions in state investment in NSHE. These students have a right to know that the money they pay stays on campus and is not funneled indirectly back to the General Fund or to another campus through a flawed formula that holds back state support as tuition revenue increases.

Beyond fairness to students, what does this mean for faculty?

First and foremost, we should support this effort. It is our best chance for the state to consider seriously how it can address the education deficit. Just as Nevada trails the nation in economic recovery, we lag behind in the proportion of our population that attends, and graduates from, institutions of higher education. We all know that the Nevada System of Higher Education cannot hope to improve on that score without a serious conversation about how to better allocate scarce resources. Because the challenge is so great, faculty ought to support a thoroughly new approach to higher education funding, not just a revision of a formula that has been in place, with only modest changes, since the 1980s.

We also ought to support a formula that better reflects the real cost and the real diversity of the work we do. The existing formulas are both too imprecise in their calculations of cost and too rigid in how they fund instruction. In current form, the formulas are supposed to allocate resources to match the type of instruction and the cost of the program. However, they are not based upon the actual cost of instruction of any program (in terms of either capital expenses or the actual market cost of hiring faculty in that discipline). Nor do they make any allowance for what we might call the "value added through instruction" -- that is, what students learn. So the formula ought to address the actual cost of instruction and the value added; because this will vary from campus to campus, introducing those factors will help support our differentiated missions. Our System is much too large – and more importantly our faculty is much too diverse in its training, its job responsibilities, and its performance – for a one-size-fits-all formula.

Although faculty-to-student ratio is a part of the current formula on paper, no campus currently actually targets its faculty size to the faculty-to-student ratio for which it is funded. This results in a negative incentive for a campus to under-staff and over-enroll programs designated as “high cost” – and more generally to achieve the highest enrollment with the fewest and cheapest faculty. That incentive to overburden faculty is no formula for student success, and the new formula must correct this.

Moreover, there is at present no component of the current formula for faculty work other than instruction, meaning the costs of a research infrastructure that supports economic development and technology transfer is not reflected. The lack of a research component to the formula burdens all faculty at all levels, and worse, it holds back Nevada’s economic recovery.

Finally, the Chancellor has made it clear that Nevada will move at least some of its formula to performance-based allocations, which reward campuses that produce more graduates. Faculty ought to support that goal, since graduating students is our vocation as well as our mandate.

But we ought to be cautious about performance-based allocation based not on total number of graduates but metrics that are believed to correlate with graduation rate. Such "progress measures" have not been studied sufficiently, in Nevada or nationally, for us to know which variables contribute most directly to degree completion. We need to study the data to know, for instance, if the ratio of students who complete their first year courses or who enroll on a full-time basis, actually correlates, on NSHE campuses, to more graduates.

Until we can study what the data concerning retention, first-year course completion and other progress measures actually tell us about how we help students succeed, faculty will rightly be wary of a performance-based formula with too many progress measures. Unintentionally, it could create administrative pressure to inflate grades and otherwise “water down the drinks,” in terms of student outcomes, in order to raise retention rates.

That said, NSHE faculty ought to embrace and support a data-driven overhaul of our funding formula that makes student success, rather than just enrollment, our priority.

Gregory Brown is president of the NFA.

Nevada is one of six states picked for policy academy on higher ed performance measures

(Past member) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:08:37 GMT

Last month, the National Governor’s Association, or NGA, announced Nevada was one of six states selected to participate in a policy academy on strengthening accountability systems in postsecondary education.

The NGA holds policy academies on a variety of topics that states face. They are interactive strategy-development sessions in which leaders in a certain field address public policy issues and recommend best practices for all states.

According to the NGA, the policy academy on accountability in higher education came about because of the need for more skilled workers in the U.S.; states’ long- and short-term limits on education spending; and the continued hurdles low-income, working adult and minority students face in completing college. In such an environment, “a stronger focus on performance and outcomes is necessary,” an NGA statement said.

Besides Nevada, other participating states are Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Missouri and Utah. They are charged with finding ways to graduate more career-ready students with the money they have, and to improve their accountability systems to that end.

Dane Linn, director of the NGA Center for Best Practice’s Education Division, said, “Governors and other policymakers must be equipped to use performance measures, whether in developing budgets, approving or evaluating programs or deciding how or whether to regulate administrative and academic services. This Policy Academy will help states focus on those measures.”

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval appointed the following team to participate in the policy academy on higher education performance measures: Heidi Gansert, Sandoval’s chief of staff; Julia Teska, Department of Administration budget analyst; Denice Miller, vice president of government relations for MGM Resorts International; Nevada Assemblyman Marcus Conklin; Dan Klaich, chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education; and Neal Smatresk, president of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

“Nevada is diligently working to improve accountability systems and measures throughout the K-12 system, and this policy academy will enable us to expand that work through the higher education realm,” Sandoval said. “The work our team will be able to accomplish will complement the Legislature’s interim funding study and inform decisions in the next biennium.”

The NGA policy academy includes two workshops, technical assistance from NGA Center staff and grants of up to $30,000 per state for additional expertise. Lumina Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided funding for the academy.

NFA Legal Defense investigates curricular review, litigates code violations

(Past member) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:07:48 GMT

The legal defense committee of NFA is engaged in several issues that affect faculty directly, and which raise serious questions for faculty indirectly everywhere.

In October, two tenured professors filed lawsuits based upon their termination from their institution as a result of the curricular review process. The curricular review determination sought to end the professors’ administrative assignments by sending both individuals back to academic departments that were slated to be closed. The litigation is predicated upon violations of the Nevada System of Higher Education Code and policy interpretations that do not appear supported by code language or precedence. NFA is providing legal and financial support for both professors.

In a related matter, the legal defense committee is studying instances of tenured faculty being terminated because of curricular review when there are legitimate positions available within the institution for which the faculty are qualified and willing to serve. Reassigning the affected tenured faculty to other positions within their institution is a guiding principle of American higher education, and has been a cornerstone of AAUP policy for 100 years.

The committee is also studying the manner in which the curricular review process has been interpreted and administered across NSHE. There appears to be no uniformity of the process or of the intended results. On most campuses, curricular review has been a transparent process by which faculty and administrations sit and determine collaboratively how painful cuts to programs and departments are to be made. Other campuses enjoyed no such transparency or collaboration. NFA Legal Defense has responded to these complaints of inequity on several occasions.

The collective bargaining agreement at Truckee Meadows Community College will be opened for renegotiation formally in March 2012. Faculty at several NSHE institutions are contemplating collective bargaining during this period. NFA as the legal bargaining agent will provide logistical support for the renegotiation and to other institutions that request assistance.

The NFA legal defense committee is available for legal support to NFA members as recommended by their respective campus chapter committees. This process is outlined in the NFA legal defense policy, which can be found on our Legal Defense Services page.

PEBP task force examines impact of changes on faculty

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:22:37 GMT

The Nevada System of Higher Education task force on the Public Employees Benefits program has met twice this semester to continue our work on making recommendations for short-term and long-term benefits issues to NSHE employees. Representatives of the PEBP Task Force have also presented to the PEBP board regarding major issues pertaining to benefits changes since July 1 and the possibility of expanding supplemental benefits for NSHE employees. In addition, the task force, under the direction of Vice President for Finance and Business, has moved ahead with the hiring of a NSHE Health Care Consultant. The current focus of the task force is to:

Examine the impact of PEBP changes to NSHE and its employees.
Further consider alternative plans and supplemental benefits.
Monitor and provide input on further PEBP plan modifications.
Gather input from NSHE employees on significant problems they are experiencing with the PEBP plan.
Work with the new NSHE Health Care Consultant in order to help carry out the specific tasks noted above. (The NSHE Health Care Consultant is expected to be selected by November 2011.)

During the PEBP board meeting of Nov. 3, 2011, representatives of the task force addressed the board to provide a list of priority items that have been identified by NSHE employees, benefits coordinators and task force members. Those issues, briefly, are:

Improving customer services for NSHE employees. With changes in the health care benefits programs, many employees have raised questions regarding their benefits but have had difficulty in contacting PEBP representatives;
Lack of information regarding provider contract prices for services. Ranges of prices may be available on the PEBP website, but given the high deductible rates now required by employees, there should be better access for “shopping” health care services;
Delays in receiving health care benefits information for new hires.

UNLV employees, as well as all NSHE employees, should visit the task for website to provide input in improving PEBP services. The website address is below.

http://system.nevada.edu/Nshe/index.cfm/administration/human-resources/nshe-pebp-taskforce/

The two most prominent issues being addressed by the task force are the provision of supplemental benefits for the AY13 fiscal year and evaluating options to create an independent health care program for all NSHE employees and retirees. The Task force is also working with PEBP staff to discuss the structure and the creation of a middle tier benefits program for PEBP participants, which would include NSHE employees. The task force is still working to discuss how, if at all, supplemental benefits would be provided. The critical issues for consideration are the amount of supplemental benefits to be provided to employees; flat-rate per employee or sliding-rate based on employee salary; and the qualification of classified employees for the supplemental benefits. Since classified employees are technically state employees with the benefits of transferring to other state agencies, this issue raises the concern that only classified employees working for NSHE would receive the benefits. Another issue is how well the proposal for supplemental benefits will be viewed by other NSHE systems given the cuts that were administered by the legislature during its last session.

The middle tier option must still be worked out, if adopted by PEBP. They have been looking at this option, but support for such an option is still in question. Other issues regarding a middle tier arrangement pertain to the possibility of adverse selection in which healthier beneficiaries may opt out of a middle tier option thereby pushing higher costs on those who would select the option.

The task force will continue to meet over the academic year with the new consultant and will present additional information as it becomes available.

Chris Cochran is an associate professor in the department of Health Care Administration and Policy at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada. He is also a member of the NSHE Task Force on Health Care benefits.

Health insurance challenges to be addressed at PEBP Board Meeting

(Past member) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:08:26 GMT

Editor's note: The Nevada System of Higher Education Office of Human Resources sent the following message on Monday, Nov. 7.

Dear Colleagues,

The Public Employees Benefits Program (PEBP) met yesterday for their regular board meeting. Renee Yackira, NSHE Executive Director for Government Relations, and Bart Patterson, Interim NSC President made public comment regarding the challenges experienced by NSHE employees related to the changes to the Health Insurance Plan.

These included:

Lack of information regarding provider cost under the Consumer Driven Health Plan (CDHP)
Lack of predictability of costs for medical and prescription services under the CDHP
Challenges in recruiting and retaining faculty due to reductions in benefits

The PEBP Board instructed staff to bring forth the following items for FY13 plan change consideration at the December 15th Board meeting:

Proposal for a middle tier, traditional PPO Plan with lower deductibles and co-pays for services
A recommended schedule for when PEBP will be depositing seed money into participant's HSA/HRA accounts for those on the CDHP. PEBP Executive Officer, Jim Wells, indicated that PEBP staff will likely recommend depositing the seed money on a semi-annual basis rather than the current plan which deposited the seed money at the beginning of the plan year
A proposal to exclude the preventive dental cleanings from the plan year maximum dental benefit. Currently, the cost of preventive dental care is charged to a participant's annual maximum benefit ($1000), which reduces the amount you can use for other dental benefits. By excluding the preventive dental cost from your annual maximum benefit, you would be able to use the full $1000 maximum benefit for other dental services (i.e. fillings, crowns, root canals, etc). It is anticipated that preventive dental cleanings would remain available four times each plan year.
For participants with the HRA (those individuals who do not qualify for the HSA because they have other coverage that is not a high deductible), PEBP staff will be making two recommendations regarding rollover of funds to the following year. Employees with HSAs will NOT be subject to these carry-over limits.
- HRA maximum carry-over of $5,850 from one plan year to the next for participants in the PPO High Deductible plan
- For retirees in the Medicare Exchange program with an HRA - maximum carry-over of $4,800 from one plan year to the next

The December 15th PEBP Board meeting will be held in Carson City but will be available via video-conference at the Grant Sawyer State Office Building located at 555 East Washington Avenue, Room 4100. The meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. PEBP covered employees and members of the public can voice comments during the Board meeting. You may also submit your comments directly to the PEBP Board at board@peb.state.nv.us.

News reports: For-profits not a viable alternative to public higher education

(Past member) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 23:21:55 GMT

For-profit colleges have been under the spotlight since at least last summer, when the Government Accountability Office released its report asserting that the schools were encouraging fraud and engaging in deceptive and questionable marketing practices. An in-depth briefing in a recent issue of The Week summarized media reports on the issue.

The following points from the article should be considered by anyone who suggests for-profit colleges as a viable alternative to community college:

For-Profit colleges focus on recruitment, not graduation . For example, Bridgepoint Education-owned Ashford University of California has 170,000 student recruiters. The school employs only one person to facilitate job placement for graduates.

Recruitment efforts target people most likely to get loans and least likely to pay them back . At-risk, minority and low income students, as well as disabled veterans and even homeless people, are among those favored by for-profit school recruiters, critics say, because these groups of individuals qualify for various federal loans and grants. The GAO report showed that former for-profit students accounted for nearly half of all student-loan defaults nationwide.

Think for-profit costs tax payers nothing? Think again . For-profits receive an average of three-fourths of their revenue from federal grants and loans. In 2010, they got more than $26 billion in federal college loans and grants, a quarter of all such money distributed. Meanwhile, Apollo Group, owner of University of Phoenix, has revenues of $4.9 billion. Bridgepoint, which collected nearly 87 percent of its revenue from federal aid, reported $216 million in profit for 2010. In other words, American taxpayers are footing the bill to fill the for-profits’ coffers.

Student success is not guaranteed . A state government investigation found that 84 percent of students at Ashford dropped out before completing a two-year program. Fewer than 9 percent of University of Phoenix’s students (currently numbering around 400,000) actually graduate within six years. This remarkable failure coincides with the company’s remarkable success as a business.

Certainly, there are for-profit colleges that operate ethically and in the interest of students. The current crisis in for-profit college management, however, should give pause to anyone recommending that our public institutions of higher education be run more like businesses.

Weinstein debacle has implications for all state faculty

Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:00:51 GMT

You might have read recent news coverage of what happened to former University of Nevada, Reno, German professor Valerie Weinstein. Although accurate, it doesn’t include all the details of the story that matter to Nevada faculty members statewide.

Weinstein, a tenured associate professor in the German studies program (Foreign Language Department), was laid off as part of the closure of the program, for budgetary reasons, and took a non-tenure track position as a visiting professor at Tulane University. At UNR she taught German, but also was the Director of the Gender, Race and Identity (GRI) program the last year she was here. She also taught in the Core Humanities program.

Unbeknownst to pretty much everyone, right before Weinstein stopped receiving a salary (end of June), one of the lecturers in the GRI program tendered her resignation, and will be leaving in December. The administration then upgraded that position to a tenure-track position, and is offering it as a half-time GRI faculty position with the other half in some other department in the College of Liberal Arts.

Weinstein found out about this and sent an email to the UNR President and Provost asking how this could happen, since it had been her understanding that such an upgrade from a lectureship was not going to happen. She had been offered a UNR lectureship in foreign languages, but at a reduced salary and higher teaching load. She declined the offer of the lecturer position.

Thus, a tenure-track position became available that Weinstein could have easily filled, but it was not offered to her, nor was she notified of the position availability. The UNR Faculty Senate and chapter of NFA, both of which Weinstein belonged to when she was here, have gotten involved.

The Dean of the College of Liberal arts, as well as the Provost, have argued that the tenure-track position is new and has nothing to do with Weinstein. It was created, they say, after she left, meaning it did not qualify as continuous employment. In addition, they claim slight differences between the new position and her previous one, so, they argue, it is not a strict code violation.

The UNR Faculty Senate began a vigorous debate on the issue and ultimately asked for a special meeting of the senate, held Thursday, Oct. 13. The UNR President, Provost and Dean of Liberal Arts were present and made their case, followed by questions from the senate. The administrators left after about an hour, and the senate discussed the issue for another 45 minutes, ultimately voting 16 to 9 in favor of requesting that the UNR Administration offer the position to Weinstein at her previous rank and salary. On Monday, Oct. 17, Faculty Senate Chair David Ryfe sent a letter to the administration making this request.

The majority of the faculty senate basically felt that, at the very least, the spirit of the Nevada System of Higher Education Code was not being followed, and an opportunity to show support for tenure had been missed. Weinstein clearly was qualified for the position, had already gone through tenure and is a high-quality scholar.

The code requires that, when a faculty member is laid off due to financial reasons, that position cannot be filled for at least two years. Section 5.4.7(c) of the NSHE Code states:

“If a faculty member is laid off for the above stated reasons, the faculty member's position will not be filled within a period of two years, unless a reasonable attempt to offer reappointment has been unsuccessful or reappointment has been offered in writing and the faculty member has not accepted the same in writing within 20 calendar days of the receipt of the offer."

The code does not specify what “the position” means, so the administration can simply close one position and open another in order to rehire for that position when it so desires.

In this case a lecturer in the GRI program had resigned, and the position was upgraded to a tenure-track position, and so it was “different.” Weinstein was clearly qualified for this tenure-track position, but had left the university for about a month, when this position was opened and a search initiated.

During these times when faculty are being dismissed, this is an angle most of us failed to imagine. The NSHE Code can be interpreted either way, and, in the absence of a legal fight, the administration gets to make the interpretation.

The outcome of this situation was revealed in a memo sent to Faculty Senate Chair David Ryfe at an Oct. 20 faculty senate meeting.The administration denied the request to offer the position to former Associate Professor Valerie Weinstein.

GBC, NSC Get Interim Presidents

(Past member) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:00:00 GMT

Interim presidents have been named for two of the three Nevada System of Higher Education institutions currently seeking new leaders. Last week, the Board of Regents announced their unanimous approval of Lynn Mahlberg as interim president of Great Basin College and Bart Patterson as interim president of Nevada State College. Both will assume their new positions Nov. 1.

GBC President Carl Diekhans announced his retirement in September. Former NSC President Lesley Di Mare accepted a position as president of Colorado State University-Pueblo. An NSHE spokesman said searches for permanent replacements for both are underway, but no timeframe has been set. A presidential search is also being conducted at University of Nevada, Reno, where Marc Johnson was named interim president in May, following the death of former president Milton Glick.

Mahlberg, who holds a master’s degree in business administration from Golden Gate University, has been GBC’s vice president for student services for 10 years. She joined the college 20 years ago as director of admissions and records, rising steadily through the ranks over the years.

Jason Geddes, Board of Regents chair, said: "Throughout her long career at Great Basin College, Lynn Mahlberg has played a critical role in the college's growth and success. Her proven expertise in academic excellence and leadership will ensure that all internal and external initiatives at the college will continue during this transition period."

Patterson left his 13-year private law practice to join NSHE in March 2001. He served as deputy general counsel and assistant general counsel, as well as general counsel for the College of Southern Nevada and Nevada State College. In 2006, Patterson became the System’s chief council, and in September 2009 he was appointed vice chancellor of administrative and legal affairs.

Patterson earned his juris doctorate from Duke University School of Law and is an adjunct instructor in public policy at Nevada State College.

“Bart Patterson brings a wealth of credibility, intellect and critical thinking to the presidency, as well as his experience as a long-standing advocate for Nevada State College's mission,” Geddes said.

Community college task force recommendations range from obvious to revolutionary

Scott Huber — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:56:31 GMT

In September the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents received the community college task force report along with its recommendations. Some of these recommendations are obvious and clearly needed, others are novel and still others are untried and controversial.

The task force was charged by Chancellor Klaich in July 2010 with evaluating whether community colleges were truly aligned with the future employment and learning needs of Nevadans. The task force committee members represented a diverse group of business owners, business executives, K-12 and higher education individuals, and a former regent. The committee was chaired by Bruce James with additional System support by Dr. Magdalena Martinez. The committee visited all of the community colleges plus a number of other entities that either receive or produce students for the workforce.

The report begins with a number of observations about the status of higher education in Nevada, projected workforce needs within the state, Nevada’s national ranking on these matters, and the character and function of the community colleges. The report then concludes with a number of recommendations. Given the diversity of committee members’ affiliations, and the fact that some of the recommendations represent a fundamental shift in how community colleges are to achieve their mission, there was no consensus on the recommendations by the committee members.

This lack of consensus, however, should not preclude all of the recommendations from having a fair and detailed hearing. Some of them clearly point to areas that need attention or redress if Nevada is to have an educated citizenry and well-prepared workforce. To date, there is no strategic planning whereby community colleges and employers can comprehensively determine workforce needs now, or for the future. Technology will continue to be a transformational vehicle in all phases of education; this too ought to be implemented strategically and on an ongoing basis.

Public schools are taking ownership of the fact that a significant number of the high school graduates who attend college for the first time require remedial classes. The System needs to create pathways from K-12 through college to career so that students have clearly defined goals. Avenues for students to gain an associate’s degree while still in high school are novel, as is the concept of variable-tuition pricing. These recommendations need airing, as some are sorely needed.

Other recommendations in the report are revolutionary. Should public-private partnerships be explored? They should. Should public-private partnerships undermine or compromise the academic integrity of NSHE institutions? They should not.

As for a Nevada Virtual College, there is arguably a place for it within NSHE. Using the current model, associate’s degrees could be offered online, self-paced. This model would enhance access and flexibility for certain students, reduce duplication of offerings and permit the redirection of resources. A virtual college could also reach out to students beyond our borders – for instance, to those in the military – and conceivably serve as a much-needed resource center for NSHE. Across the country, 22 states have adopted virtual colleges.

However, the task force’s recommendation that the virtual college be put out to bid undermines the significant amount of work already begun in this area by Truckee Meadows Community College, Nevada State College and College of Southern Nevada. It begs the question of who will assume responsibility for academic integrity. Evidence is mounting that for-profit institutions have significant academic challenges they have yet to recognize, much less address.

The task force report also recommends that K-12 address remedial issues for recent high school graduates, and that remedial education be outsourced for all others, so that community colleges can focus on preparing students for transfer or certificates. On the surface, this sounds fine… until one recognizes that a significant number of adult students returning to college do not need remedial instruction. These students (and they represent most adult returning students) do not lack specific skills so much as an understanding of the culture of success that is critical for any college student. These adult learners need encouragement, specific explanation and a one-on-one relationship with their professors far more than a basic skill set. For-profit institutions are prepared to offer content, but lack the ability to serve this other, often more important need.

While the task force’s recommendations are being discussed, it is imperative to keep the students in mind – not only because it is in their best interest, but also because the training they receive will best serve the needs of Nevada. Revolutionary ideas always contain unintended consequences. Those consequences rarely affect those doing the implementation, but always affect those on the receiving end.

GBC faculty mulls next move

(Past member) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:29:16 GMT

Editor's note: Frank Daniels, president of the Great Basin College chapter of NFA, reported the facts of this story from Ely, Nev.

Great Basin College President Carl Diekhans last week announced his plans to resign in the near future. For more on that, see the Elko Daily Free Press story.

At Sept. 16 and 20 meetings comprised mainly of faculty members, the group reached a consensus as to how we would like the presidential search to proceed. Our senate chair, Sarah Negrete, also obtained information regarding the desire of certain administrators to be president. Members envisioned several different scenarios for its recommendation.

The transition to a new president could take place in a few different ways, including an in-house administrator or faculty member taking over as interim president, or an outsider taking over as interim president while a search is being conducted. The former option appears to be the most likely at this time. Two people from GBC have expressed interest in the interim position, but neither wanted the permanent job. Advantages and disadvantages of both options have been debated at meetings.

Chair Negrete asked about the search process. This is how we expect it to work:
1. The college would hire an outside agency to oversee the application process, so that applications would remain confidential through the early part of the screening process.
2. As specified by the Board of Regents Handbook, the presidential search committee will contain five members nominated by the faculty senate. The senate will probably make this selection within a week or so. If the chair adds members to the committee – which the process allows, then the senate will request that an equal number of faculty members be added likewise. This item will be discussed in followup meetings on Tuesday.

NFA sets the record straight on faculty pay

(Past member) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:23:32 GMT

A story in the Sept. 16 issue of the Las Vegas Sun titled “Census shows big drop in public sector employment” ended on a note that raised many eyebrows in the NFA. The last line of the story read:

“The silver lining for those who kept their jobs was that payrolls increased by $9 million for public school employees and $1.7 million for those in higher education when comparing March 2010 to March 2009.”

Anyone employed by or following the Nevada System of Higher Education might have found it hard to believe that payroll went up with the loss of so many positions due to state budget cuts – and they’d be right.

In fact, according to NSHE’s Fiscal and Operations Office, audited financials for June 2009 to June 2010 indicate that payroll and benefits in higher education actually went down $22.5 million from $950,335,000 to $927,755,000. NSHE began seeing position losses in fiscal year 2010, which was also the first year of the furlough program – both of which would reduce payroll.

System and university financial analysts are looking into what might have caused the error in the census data.

CSN reacts to Community College Task Force recommendations

(Past member) — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 00:44:59 GMT

Editor's note: Tracy Sherman, CSN Faculty Senate Chair, made the following statement to the Board of Regents on behalf of the NSHE Council of Faculty Senate Chairs.

Faculty senate chairs across the state have serious concerns about the "Fresh Look at Community College" Task Force report as it was presented to the Board of Regents Friday Sept. 9.

Our faculties will take a great interest in this report and, we are certain, will want to verify the data it contains and to vet the recommendations. Our community college faculty share common goals with the task force and are working hard to achieve the goals outlined in the report: to meaningfully address the problem of remediation, to increase the number of degree holders in Nevada, to focus on student outcomes, and to provide Nevada students the educational pathways they deserve.

At the same time, we as chairs would like to express skepticism regarding some of the recommendations' means to achieving these common ends. The concept of outsourcing education to entities that have a terrible track record of student success is, frankly, alarming to faculty across the state. We respectfully submit that as this report stands, despite the common goals among faculty and the task force, and despite several ideas worthy of investigation, many of the recommendations as they stand will not be acceptable to the vast majority of our faculty in Nevada, and we look forward to working with the Board of Regents to cull through the recommendations in order to determine the best course of action to achieve our common goals for the benefit of Nevada students, the state of Nevada, and the Nevada System of Higher Education/

Senate Chairs address NSHE Regents on curricular review

(Past member) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:15:14 GMT

Editor's note: The Nevada System of Higher Education Faculty Senate chairs delivered the following statement at the Board of Regents meeting Thursday, Sept. 8.

Dear Chancellor, Chairman, and Regents,

Over the past three years, we have all experienced great turmoil on our campuses as each institution sought mechanisms to deal with extreme budget cuts. Part of this process has been employment of Curricular Review.

The Curricular Review process within the code is not well-defined, leaving much to be determined at the institutional level, and thus it has been implemented differently by different institutions. For example, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, used a previously established institutional curricular review process, and tenure rights and contracts were protected. Faculty at Truckee Meadows Community College, who enjoy the protection of a collective bargaining agreement, were involved in the development of an institutional curricular review process, and tenure rights and contracts were protected. And at Western Nevada College faculty were not involved in the development of the curricular review process, and tenured faculty are slated to be terminated – despite adequate class loads to justify their positions and the filling of vacancies in other, administrative positions.

Such discrepancies have led to real apprehension on our campuses. The Nevada System of Higher Education Code sets forth just one set of contractual rights and due process to protect faculty, including tenured faculty. Any potential breach of those rights of tenured faculty on any campus is therefore a threat to the contractual rights of faculty across the system.

Actions of the faculty senates have already begun to take place on some of our campuses this year – such as resolutions passed at WNC demanding tenure contracts be honored and requesting a new curricular review process be jointly developed by senate and administration – and more faculty senates are expected to take action this fall.

We, the faculty senate chairs, request continued diligence in the repair of the code, Title 2 Chapter 5, section 4.6, such that explicit instructions can facilitate a more consistent process. We also once more urge the Board and System leadership to give the potential termination of tenured faculty without a declaration of financial exigency the full and careful scrutiny that such a grave development for higher education warrants.

Robin Herlands
Faculty Senate Chair, Nevada State College
On behalf of the NSHE Council of Faculty Senate Chairs

Hard times call for a hard look around

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:10:25 GMT

Advocating for quality public higher education, and the faculty who deliver it, is a difficult duty at this point in our history. Across the country, and especially in Nevada, these are hard times which require us in the NFA to take some hard looks and face some hard truths.

Last year, the NFA state board began that hard reckoning. We acknowledged that the Alliance had not kept up with the times and needed to become both more professional and more adept. We took significant first strides in that direction by establishing a new media presence – a new website (nevadafacultyalliance.org), a widely read blog, Facebook, Twitter and a weekly e-newsletter that reached thousands of faculty, lawmakers, press and general interest readers. This year we will continue that work by integrating the Alliance more closely with our electronic communications. To make the most of this tool, we will rely on our members, and our colleagues, to contribute thoughtful content on the wide range of issues of concern to higher education faculty.

But that is really the easy part.

We also began last year taking an even harder look at our relationship with the AAUP, of which we have been the Nevada state affiliate for more than 30 years. Many of us have been disappointed that the AAUP has not been more responsive to our calls for help during the state financial crisis that has led to threats of program cuts and faculty terminations (including tenured faculty); and we have been outright indignant about the AAUP’s decision not only to raise member dues on some income bands but also to charge us at the highest income band for all our members – and to charge us at the collective bargaining rates.

That bill to Washington would, if paid, consume more than 60 percent of NFA member dues – at a time when the need for member services in this state is the greatest in our history. So the NFA state board made a hard decision in January to withhold any further dues payments to the AAUP until we have resolved what sort of relationship the NFA and AAUP should have going forward. We have proposed to the AAUP that we would pay the dues in full but the national office would retain only enough to pay for services actually rendered – the magazine to our members and our members’ grants to travel to summer institutions and other leadership training. NFA would be immediately rebated the rest of our members dues, with 100 percent of that rebate being devoted to recruitment and member services in Nevada. This reasonable proposal remains on the table, but the time will come soon when the NFA membership – as a block, by campus chapters, or as individuals – will have to make a hard choice about whether the AAUP affiliation is in our best interest.

In these times, we must take a hard look as well at our relationship to the System and Board of Regents. The NFA has long prided itself on being a constructive partner with the Regents and Chancellor’s office, but we must ensure this year that this partnership works both ways. Faculty leadership was rarely, if ever, called upon to speak during Regents’ discussions of the budget crisis; while students were regularly solicited to speak to the board on matters of concern such as fees, and while the impact on the community was given hours of public comment, the faculty perspective on degree program eliminations and the curricular review process was too often glossed over. As we look forward, and the System begins a new phase of strategic planning, we note with regret a near-total absence of faculty from the preliminary documents. The System, and its institutions, will never find a successful path out of the current crisis without its faculty taking a leading role, and it is our task and responsibility not only to the faculty but to the students, the System and the state, to stand firm when need be to ensure our classroom perspective guides the planning. And when faculty contract and due process rights are not respected, we will provide legal support to members with valid cases to bring.

In our government relations, we must take a hard look at our allies. The NFA Political Action Committee – which has generally sought to lend our good name and precious treasure to the better candidate in nearly every race – will now have to make hard decisions and focus our efforts on a few candidates with a demonstrated commitment to quality, public higher education. We can no longer afford to support candidates merely due to party affiliation or a statement of support for “education.” We may well focus our attention in the coming cycle on the few elected officials in the state legislature and on the board of regents who demonstrate a real commitment to the concerns of higher ed faculty – ensuring adequate and fair funding for all our institutions, addressing the loss of competitive compensation and health benefits, and protecting what is best for our students, including contract rights and due process for faculty in hard times.

Most of all, though, we must each take a hard look in the mirror at ourselves. NFA campus chapters and members cannot simply rely on the state board to address all concerns. All of us need to be involved this fall in developing active and effective strategies, suited to the situation on each campus, to recruit new members, mobilize existing members, and establish sustainable, effective models of advocacy. If you have not heard from your campus chapter president, contact him or her and volunteer your time and your energy.

These are hard times for public higher education. For the NFA, this means it is a time for a hard look around.

WNC Faculty Senate resolves: Terminate no tenured faculty

(Past member) — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:18:49 GMT

Friday, Aug. 26, Jeffrey Downs, professor of mathematics at Western Nevada College, reported that the Faculty Senate he chairs had passed the following resolutions:

Whereas CSN (College of Southern Nevada), GBC (Great Basin College), and TMCC (Truckee Meadows Community College) have not terminated tenured faculty in the 2011-2013 biennium due to Curricular Review, the WNC Academic Faculty Senate resolves that no WNC tenured faculty be terminated due to Curricular Review 2011-2013 and that no new faculty be hired during that period until those tenured faculty positions have been secured. Faculty are encouraged to refrain from serving on search committees until those tenured positions under curricular review are maintained or reassigned with tenure.

Whereas WNC has no Curricular Review process established in its institutional bylaws, the Academic Faculty Senate resolves that the current Curricular Review process be rejected and a valid curricular review process be jointly developed by the administration and the Academic Faculty Senate.

Timeline of events at WNC in regards to Curricular Review

(Past member) — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:40:25 GMT

The Western Nevada College Academic Faculty was summoned to a meeting on March 4, 2011 and informed of the pending Curricular Review process.This meeting was presented as an informational meeting and faculty were informed that the determinations for the cuts would be made by April 4. Faculty were asked if there were questions, but not invited to participate in developing the curricular review process outside the setting of this one-hour informational meeting.

On April 4, the entire college was informed that seven faculty were being cut, but no specific reasons for the cuts were given. General justifications were that some had low enrollment, some had low program completions, and some taught developmental classes. The WNC Academic Faculty Senate was informed that they must respond to the cuts proposed by the administration by May 4. The president was to make final cut decisions (pre-Reconsideration process) by May 13 to allow notices of termination to be issued by June 30, 2011.

The WNC Academic Faculty Senate formed a Curricular Review Response Group (CRRG) to address the proposed cuts. The CRRG determined the seven affected faculty could be saved with the cuts being placed elsewhere in the institution. This finding was fully shared with the administration.

The WNC Academic Faculty Senate voted in April 2011 for the WNC Administration to abandon the current Curricular Review Process and restart the process to include meaningful and substantial Academic Faculty input. The WNC Administration rejected this response and requested a meeting with the Curricular Review Response Group.

May 2, 2011 The WNC Administration met with the Curricular Review Response Group. The president asked if she could delay her decisions until Fall 2011, after the budget is decided by the legislature. The Curricular Review Response Group agreed.

June 2011, the WNC administration offered five of the seven affected faculty a “super buyout” in the form of 150% of their salary. Two faculty accepted this. Two administrative vacancies are filled: A new director of the foundation via a search committee and a coordinator of work force development is appointed without a search committee.

August 22, 2011, the administration meets with the Curricular Review Response Group. The funding shortfall for WNC was 18% rather than 31%. Several of the administrative and classified employees who were slated to be cut are retained. Two of the remaining five faculty members have a potential reassignment. As stated by VP of Human Resources, one of the reassigned faculty members would not retain her tenure in her new assignment.

August 26, 2011, the WNC Academic Faculty Senate passes another resolution again rejecting the Curricular Review process and requesting the process be restarted with faculty involvement. Another resolution is passed encouraging faculty to not serve on search committees until the five faculty affected by Curricular Review are retained.

August 30, 2011, the president and VP Human Resources/Legal Counsel meet the the Academic Faculty Senate chair and former chair/NFA Chapter President to discuss the resolution. The president and VP take the position that the March 4 meeting was the time the Academic Faculty were supposed to give input to the VP of Academic and Student Affairs prior to her making the decisions for the cuts. The meeting ends with the two sides disagreeing as to the content of the March 4 meeting.

September 5, 2011, the five remaining tenured faculty members stand to undergo the Reconsideration Process at WNC with two having potential reassignments, pending funds.

September 6, 2011, no letters of termination have been sent to the affected faculty. The affected faculty have no written declaration citing cause for their termination.

The Academic Faculty Senate approved two facutly members for the Reconsideration Committee. The president appointed the VP of Academic and Student affairs and another faculty member to the reconsideration committee. The president appointed a former administrator for the college as the chair for this committee. This person is paid as a consultant to the college. The chair has a vote only in the case of a tie.

NFA Endorses Kate Marshall for Congress

(Past member) — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:32:26 GMT

Her strong record of working to make high-quality education accessible to Nevada families makes Kate Marshall the right choice.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA), which advocates for quality, accessible higher education in Nevada, announced today its endorsement of Kate Marshall for Congress from Nevada's 2ndCongressional district. The NFA’s state board announced the endorsement of Marshall today after reviewing her record as Nevada's Treasurer and her detailed answers to a questionnaire on federal higher education issues.

According to University of Nevada-Reno Environmental Science Professor Glenn Miller, who co-chairs the Endorsement Committee of the NFA’s Political Action Committee, "Kate Marshall is the solid choice of higher education faculty for the Second Congressional seat in this special election. She has been an excellent Treasurer during the last six years, particularly in her careful management of the Millennium Scholarship Program, and the 529 college savings programs. When she came into office, she raised questions about the financial stability of these programs before they became a crisis, and through her effective financial management, she helped ensure the scholarship program would continue to keep college affordable for Nevada families."

Among the achievements noted by the NFA state board were Marshall's effective oversight of the state Pre-Paid tuition program, which allowed thousands of Nevada families to pay tuition rates set before recent increases, thus saving thousands of dollars for their children's education. She also oversaw the expansion of the Nevada College Savings Plan, an account like an IRA in which families can invest in their children's education independently. She cut administrative costs of these accounts by 50 percent, making Nevada's Plan one of the most efficient and best-rated in the country. Finally, the Faculty were impressed by innovations Marshall has brought to Nevada, such as "Ugift " and the "Silver State Matching Grant" program to enhance college savings among working families.

NFA President and chair of the PAC, Greg Brown, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, added, "She has shown in the past six years that she is truly concerned with helping students and their families afford college. We are also deeply impressed with her understanding of what needs to be done in Washington to keep college affordable for all Nevada families - like preserving Pell Grants for those who need them, and by ensuring money for student loans is issued to students, not used to subsidize banks. Her sound financial judgment on issues like this is why we endorsed her for Congress."

New NFA Board takes office

(Past member) — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:36:01 GMT

The 2011-2013 officers of the NFA state board, elected in May, have taken office and begun executing their duties. Their first meeting is scheduled August 18.

To see the list of statewide officers and campus presidents, along with their contact information, click here.

AFL-CIO helping set up network of college and university faculty members, others

(Past member) — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 01:56:34 GMT

Editor's note: NFA leadership wanted to share the following message, which it received today from AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka.

Dear Colleague:

I would recommend that you read this short article on the AFL-CIO Now Blog about a recent conference of scholars at Georgetown University:
http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/06/09/academics-activists-search-for-new-ways-to-revitalize-labor-movement/print/

The AFL-CIO is involved in establishing a new network of college and university faculty members, graduate teaching employees, student activists, and scholars who support the interests of working families and favor policies to rebuild the middle class in our country. The network was launched at a June 8, 2011, conference at Georgetown that included academics from around the country, from multiple disciplines, who are promoting the study and exchange of ideas about creative ways of organizing workers into unions, worker centers, and other forms of worker organizations. The yet-to-be-named academic network is currently assembling an interim executive committee and planning its future activities.

In order to help keep you informed about the pro-worker research, writing, and activism of scholars around the country, the AFL-CIO has started an electronic mailing list. Subscribers will receive periodic email messages with information that is pertinent to our ongoing efforts to create jobs in the United States, uphold workers’ rights, and educate the public about the actual roots of the jobs crisis. Messages will come from Dan Marschall, the Federation’s policy specialist for workforce issues. Dan is a professorial lecturer in Sociology at George Washington University in Washington, DC. If you have any ideas about the mailing list, or would like to propose other subscribers, you can reach Dan at dmarscha@aflcio.org. If you would like to opt out of this mailing list, you may use the “click here to unsubscribe” line at the bottom of this message.

College faculty members and students have been vocal in their support for workers’ rights. In March, for example, American Rights at Work released a petition signed by 849 scholars and university research staff that points out that the rights to organize and bargain collectively are human rights that must not be abridged. In May, more than 80 prominent Catholic scholars challenged conservative Congressional budget policies that eliminate protections for vulnerable families. In addition, more than 2,300 academics and faculty members have signed an “Open Letter in Support of University of Wisconsin Students, Faculty and Staff” that backs the rights of all workers to form unions and bargain collectively. The Wisconsin letter is still available online at http://www.petitiononline.com/taa2010/.

We hope that this new mailing list will enhance communication among scholars across disciplines on various current issues and public policy debates. We look forward to your thoughts on the material we send to you.

Sincerely,
Richard L. Trumka
President, AFL-CIO

Statement of NSHE Faculty Senate chairs on termination of tenured faculty

Sat, 18 Jun 2011 22:19:13 GMT

The Council of Faculty Senate chairs of the Nevada System of Higher Education today made the following statement to the Board of Regents on the prospect of the termination of tenured faculty through curricular review. These terminations are part the System's reduction of $85 million annual operating expenses as part of the state budget just passed by the legislature earlier this month.

The termination of any staff and faculty is of great concern to everyone in the NSHE community, but the termination of tenured faculty is a particularly significant line for any academic institution or system to cross. To terminate tenured faculty without a declaration of financial exigency is worth careful attention, as this will attract scrutiny from the national higher education community, and in the future will very likely impede our efforts to retain and recruit the very best faculty. In fact, NSHE has already received negative national publicity for adopting this practice.

Therefore, we, the Faculty Senate chairs, note that at this meeting, for the second year in a row, the Board will be asked to approve a plan for termination of tenured faculty, without declaration of exigency, under curricular review. Without commenting on the specific curricular review plan, which is the prerogative of each campus, we simply ask on behalf of faculty that the Board give careful scrutiny to the issue of terminating tenured faculty.

2011 Nevada legislative session was a mixed bag for Higher Education

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:48:47 GMT

We began the session in a huge hole dug for us by Governor Sandoval’s recommendation that we be cut 29 percent below the current level of funding, which the governor justified in his State of the State speech by arguing that the Nevada System of Higher Education had "failed." That sentence in the State of the State speech is still very galling to think about, given that we have one of the smallest faculties in the nation on a per-capita basis, doing a solid job of delivering education to as many students as possible. The governor also had suggested that the budget hole should be filled entirely by tuition increases and salary cuts.

To cover the $162 million which he proposed to cut in state support, student tuition and fees would have had to be increased by 73 percent or faculty and staff salaries across the board would have had to be cut by more than 60 percent. Neither was a reasonable option and both were dismissed out of hand by the regents.

Put clearly, it was no exaggeration to say that this budget would have pushed the System into dire financial straits, likely a declaration of exigency, and certainly the termination of dozens of degree programs, possibly hundreds of tenure-earning and tenured faculty, and a drastic reduction in the numbers of students who would be enrolled into higher education – up to 20,000 per year. Closure of sites and even entire campuses were rumored to be under consideration.

No one felt very good about these prospects for most of February and March.

The System responded in April by proposing an alternative – voiced by Chancellor Dan Klaich and supported by the regents, campus presidents, student leadership and faculty leadership – that was well-received and ultimately supported by the democratic leadership in the legislature, notably Assembly Majority Leader Marcus Conklin and Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford and Democrat members of both money committees.

That plan included a willingness by NSHE to make massive cuts in exchange for some matching support from the State, plus tuition increases that would in amount match the permanent cuts and the contribution by the State. It was a 40-40-40 plan, which meant that NSHE institutions would agree to cut $40 million each year from current operating levels, in exchange for $40 million above the governor's recommendations from the State, plus tuition increases that would, by the second year of the biennium, total about $40 million per year.

Another element of the plan was what was called “smoothing” which mean that NSHE institutions would take a larger than proposed cut in the first year of the biennium in exchange for a smaller than proposed cut the second year. This element was agreed to, and will have the effect of having the base budget for NSHE about $35 million higher at the end of the second year of the next biennium than would otherwise have been the case.

Overall, this plan means that NSHE will be cut a bit more than 15 percent for the coming biennium, which is a great improvement over where we started the session, but still is a very sad state of affairs with many implications for higher ed in Nevada, and for economic diversification as well. And it is by far the largest cut of any entity for which the State has funding responsibility.

While the Four Point Plan was somewhat successful in communicating an idea of shared sacrifice, it represents a reality forced on NSHE by the huge cut in state support proposed by the governor. That reality is that this was a plan to administer real cuts and to impose significant fee increases on students – predicated on a significant increase in state support above the huge cut proposed by the governor. As we stated at the time, it represented real "shared sacrifice by students, staff and the state."

Since this plan involved an additional 15-percent cut in state support for NSHE in 2011-2013, on top of the 20-percent cut in the current biennium (2009-2011), it left no margin of reserves on which to draw to cushion any additional cuts. Any cut above the proposed plan would mean loss of programs, faculty and staff positions, and student educational opportunities due to caps in enrollment and reduction in classes, degree programs, and departments.

In this respect, the financial integrity of the Four Point Plan, and the principle of shared sacrifice among staff, students and the state, was unexpectedly undermined when the joint budget committees voted to disallow the second year half of the proposed fee increase – which NSHE student leadership had supported! When the committees originally adopted this cap on student fee increases of 13 percent, it was in the context of $20 million more in state support than the final budget close (in effect, substituting state dollars for student fees) and in what appeared at the committee hearing to be a mistaken belief that the System was holding sufficient reserves to prevent any further cut in academic programs should total state and student support be reduced.

This strange turn of events could leave NSHE institutions having to cut even more deeply into academic programs – and thus into faculty and staff lines – than had been proposed in the Four Point Plan. The NFA will urge the regents to make every effort to ensure access for students and keep college affordable, but also to balance the cost of removing the second year of tuition increase from the Four Point Plan. (Doing so, for instance, will result in another $5.5 million cut from academic programs at UNR and $8.4 million at UNLV, as the largest examples.)

NFA has urged the legislative leadership to recognize the autonomy of the regents to determine whether a second-year tuition increase will be necessary to avoid even deeper cuts to academic programs and student opportunities. Since 15 percent of all fee increases are set aside for in-state need-based scholarship aid, and federal and state financial aid will further account for some of this increase, an increase in fees will be less drastic on student opportunities than closing or capping programs.

By now, all know that the Supreme Court finally intervened a week before the session was to end, and forced a dramatic change in plans for both some of the Rs and, most importantly, by the governor. While it is hard for some of us to forget the early claims of the governor in the State of the State speech that the System had "failed," we should be grateful that in the end, the governor did not, after the Court decision, decide to cut even more. Instead, he admitted that deeper cuts to education would harm the state irreparably and agreed to allow most of the sunsetting taxes to be renewed for another two years.

So, we ended up with the Four Point Plan approved in principle (though still needing clarification in execution). We are now learning what this means on each campus, but in general terms, it will mean somewhat fewer than 1,000 faculty and staff positions will have to be eliminated and somewhere between 7,000 and 8,000 students across the state will be denied access to courses that they need each year of the biennium.

In brief, although we all realize that “it could have been worse,” it is difficult to celebrate this outcome very enthusiastically.

Other issues from the Session:

See http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Reports/TablesAndIndex/2011_76-index.html for a complete listing of the dozens of bills introduced that dealt with NSHE institutions and operations. Look under NSHE. Here are a few highlights worth noting.
The much-needed bill to do another formula study (which had been requested for the past several sessions), SB 374, passed, and this important project will move forward. The committee will have three senators, three assembly members, three regents, and seven people appointed by the governor (three voting members and four non-voting members).
The much-discussed bill to loosen oversight of concealed guns on campus, SB 231, passed the Senate but failed to get out of the Assembly Judiciary committee. NFA and the System took a strong position against this bill, as did law enforcement throughout the state. But the bill also had strong proponents and the NRA was always lurking in the background. This was a good win, and we thank the members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, especially chair William Horne and vice-chair James Ohrenschall, for giving a full and fair hearing of the bill.
The Millennium Scholarship Program, facing elimination until the final days of the session, was funded through 2015, with approval of the Sandoval recommendation of an additional $10 million in the fund, to complement the $7.6 million per year from the Unclaimed Property fund and the money coming from the tobacco settlement. This is a rare bit of good news for Nevada students!
The regent redistricting plan developed by the NSHE staff, led by Scott Wasserman, also passed and will be signed by the governor – the only redistricting plan to this point which will become law.
Some of the more than two dozen separate budget accounts were consolidated in ways that should make managing the budget cuts somewhat easier. Also, the regents were granted more authority to move money among budget categories.
However, SB 434 sat in Senate Finance until the last day and failed to gain approval in the Assembly. This bill would have allowed NSHE institutions to retain funds not spent at the end of the fiscal year instead of having to spend or revert them. Also, the bill would have gotten NSHE out from under the control of the Public Works Board, which would have saved money and time on NSHE building projects. Sad to lose this one, but it died.
The arena bill to help fund for a large sports arena in Las Vegas came too late, and died. UNLV had a great deal of support for its privately-funded proposal to construct an arena on campus and reconstruct Thomas & Mack into a student services center, but failed to overcome the issue of three separate arena proposals fighting for the right to move forward with development.
Perhaps one of the oddest bills was AB 449 that was supported by both parties in the legislature, by the business community, and by the governor. The bill was designed to promote economic diversification in Nevada, and was modeled after such efforts in Utah. However, Utah funded this effort with more than $24 million per year. The Nevada Knowledge Fund created by this bill – designed to allow the two universities and DRI to compete for funds that would foster economic development – originally was slated for $8 million per year from the two universities and DRI but ended up with no funding at all! Thus, the Knowledge Fund will be, for the coming biennium, more symbolic than real in its effects.
AB 128, sponsored by Assemblyman Paul Aizley, to limit smoking on campuses, did not reach the floor of the Assembly. However, campuses will of course be able to consider tobacco-free programs on their own initiative.

Pay and Benefits

The news is not too good on this front either, although, again we can take solace in knowing that it could have been worse. The governor originally proposed a straight 5-percent cut in salary for all employees of the State, but the legislature did not agree and worked out a compromise that is slightly better, for which we are grateful.

All employees, including tenured professors, will take a 2.5-percent pay cut, plus they will be required to take 48 hours (six working days) worth of furloughs, which means another 2.3-percent pay cut. The benefit of the furlough is that the pay should revert to only a 2.5-percent cut after this biennium, and retirement benefits will be paid on the 2.3-percent cut resulting from the furloughs. At the same time, the merit pool from which performance-based pay enhancements have been allocated in the past, was not funded again. Thus, NSHE professional employees will see a third and fourth consecutive year pass with no cost-of-living increases, performance-based pay increases, or step increase (at the colleges.) Higher education faculty and staff compensation in Nevada will thus fall even farther behind national averages (according to no less than the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce), and we will need to fight hard to make sure the merit pool is reinstated in the near future to keep our state competitive for the best research and instructional talent.

The governor also proposed major changes in health benefits offered through PEBP that went far beyond what the PEBP Board had already been forced to do based on directives from the State Budget Office. AB 553 would have cut retirement subsidies for all future hires, frozen current employees with the current years of service for purposes of subsidies upon retirement, and also cut the subsidy level for many part-time employees significantly (60 percent of the subsidy for those working between one-half and three-quarters FTE). NFA and others worked hard to defeat this bill and succeeded with two of the three items. Future hires will see no subsidy for their health care upon retirement unless future legislatures change this provision.

As you all know by now, PEBP has been changed dramatically effective July 1, with Medicare eligible retirees being shifted off PEBP and into the private market, but with a modest subsidy, something NFA and others fought for very hard. Also, active employees on PEBP will have a new high deductible, no-co-pay plan that is called “consumer driven.” The only part that makes this at all palatable is the establishment of the Heath Savings Accounts (HSAs) for those employees (and somewhat similar accounts, HRAs, for non-Medicare retirees). PEBP will place money in the HSA each year and employees can add to those account through payroll deduction. This money will accumulate each year if not spent and thus represents an opportunity for individuals to save for future health expenses. Faculty members can add to their HSA through payroll deduction, and should consider doing so as a way to save for health related costs in the future.

In conclusion, we can only hope that in the coming biennium, the state economy will stabilize and, more importantly, a consensus will be forged on the need for revenue reform and on adequate funding for quality, affordable higher education. Only if that happens will the next legislative session provide an opportunity to start the rebuilding process for higher education in Nevada.

What yesterday's state budget deal means for higher education faculty

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:21:23 GMT

The agreement reached yesterday by Governor Sandoval and Democratic leaders sets state general fund support for NSHE at the level approved by the legislature on May 24 – which is to invest in the Nevada System of Higher Education an additional $40 million more each year of the biennium than the governor had originally recommended and to replace the $120 million in Clark and Wahoe County property tax revenues with general fund dollars. This means that instead of the original 29-percent cut in state general funds proposed by the Governor, the cut will be 15 percent from the 2009 level.

Make no mistake: This is a still a very severe budget cut; the largest of any state agency. And it comes on top of the 20-percent cut from state support in 2009-2010.

The agreement means that the NSHE Chancellor and Regents’ “four point plan” was accepted in large part, so the proposal bore fruit, and offers a guide about how NSHE and its institutions can proceed with restructuring and operating over the next two years.

Things certainly could have been worse, as we all know, but they also could have been better. Fifteen per cent is still the largest budget cut on any entity for which the state is responsible, and hundreds of faculty and staff positions will still be cut, permanently, though we have some hope that through careful budget planning by administrations (in consultations with faculty leadership) the number of outright layoffs on each campus should be greatly reduced from the worst-case scenarios we have been planning for.

Still, many educational opportunities will be lost for students, thousands of whom will not be able to get classes they need, and student fees will still have to be increased markedly – perhaps as high as 28 percent over the biennium.

Four-Point Plan

NSHE's four point plan has not been widely reported upon and may not have been well understood , so it is worth reviewing the key points here. It is based upon a principle of shared sacrifice among state, students and faculty, and all four points are equally important to achieve fairness and financial stability.

Part one was the “smoothing” that has been discussed, whereby the budget cut is larger in the first year (requiring some internally developed “bridge” funding) and resulting in there being about $35 million more in the base budget at the end of the second year than the governor originally recommended. The smoothing was approved in the budget closing, and was included in today’s budget deal.

Part two of the plan involved a commitment from the Chancellor that NSHE campuses would make a total of $40 million in permanent reductions in operating expenses each year of the next biennium. This means we will have to consider, on a campus-by-campus basis, program reductions, loss of positions and potentially further layoffs. This will be necessary even with the level of funding in the final agreement. But the cuts will have to be deeper if the other points are not adopted as well.

Part three included significant additional contributions from students in the form of additional fee increases of 13 percent each year of the biennium, which amounts to a total increase of 28 percent over 2007 levels. This is a steep increase, but a necessary one. After roughly 15 percent of additional revenue is set aside for financial aid, this point would generate an estimated $21 million in additional revenue in fiscal year 2011-2012 and then an additional $43 million the second year, as the two separate tuition increases were to be compounded. The student leadership agreed reluctantly to support this increase, in an effort to save jobs, classes, and entire programs, and the student leadership reiterated that support in a letter to legislative leaders this week.

However, the closing documents approved last week included only the first 13-percent increase, which the budget committees had voted to cap at a time when they were voting to add back $100 million in state funding – thus covering the hole. Also at that time, the budget committees made clear their intent that a cap in student fees should not result in additional cuts to instructional programs (and thus deeper faculty layoffs), as they were under the impression at the time that NSHE had adequate uncommitted reserves to cover this hole.

In fact, a cap on student fees – as desirable as that might be – still leaves a significant hole in the NSHE budget and shifts the balance in the four-point plan from shared sacrifice to steeper cuts in faculty and staff and thus in instructional programs.

We have urged legislative leadership to reflect the full intent of the budget committees in their communications to the regents, and NFA will call upon the regents to exercise their constitutional autonomy and revisit this issue at their June 16-17 meeting, as they will have to balance the desire to limit fee increases against the impact this loss of funds would have on instructional programs on our campuses. A rough estimate is that the loss of those funds could mean up to 200 more people losing jobs System-wide.

Part four of the Plan was that the State would put in $40 million additional funding each year. This funding is apparently included in the agreement reached yesterday, and for this, we all should be grateful.

Still, the budget includes significant additional sacrifice from faculty and staff: All faculty and staff will see a 2.5-percent salary cut, plus a 2.3-percent cut in pay due to a six day per year unpaid furlough. Retirement contribution will be paid on the 2.3-percent portion, but not the 2.5-percent salary cut. And the 2.5-percent salary cut will be reduced from base pay. And there will be no COLA or merit pay for another biennium.

There are other aspects of the NSHE budget closing which are worth noting, such as consolidation of accounts, which should give greater authority to campus presidents to prioritize instruction moving forward.

Importantly, there seems to be agreement for the legislature to fund a study of NSHE funding formulas during the interim, an important goal for the entire system.

Some issues remain unresolved. One is the Millennium Scholarship funding, which has yet to be approved. If what the governor recommended is not approved the fund will run out of money within months, which would be a severe problem for many students seeking an education.

Also, the Knowledge Fund that is in AB 449, the economic diversification bill, still has no funds. We can only hope and assume that someone has a method of infusing some funding apart from forcing NSHE institutions to produce the funding needed.

Finally, there are still bills outstanding that would allow NSHE campuses that do not currently maintain reserve accounts to retain year-end money and/or establish a rainy day fund.

Health benefits

PEBP will be cut severely, an action we have long opposed. The element added in yesterday's agreement is to make any staff or faculty (or other state public service workers) hired after January 1, 2012 ineligible to earn any credits at all towards retirement subsidies for health coverage after retirement. Those individuals will have to rely on personal resources to participate in PEBP or anther health plan after retirement. During their working lifetime they would be expected to accumulate funds in their health savings account for use in their retirement years for health care.

Other PEBP issues were approved as presented by the PEBP Board, so the plan will be considerably different this coming biennium, and Medicare eligible retirees will be shifted off PEBP into the private market, but with at least a modest subsidy.

Enough is Enough: Repubs must stop holding state's future hostage for higher ed reforms long underway

(Past member) — Thu, 26 May 2011 17:40:16 GMT

As the legislature approaches the final days of its 120-day session, the back-and-forth and political positioning around the budget has become both more intense and less worth detailed reporting. The overall situation has changed very little; the System of Higher Education and each of its campuses are certain to sustain significant reductions in state general fund support.

The impact on students, faculty, staff and the state will be painful in ways that have been well-established for months. No one, at any level, should be under any illusion; the outcome will be a step back for Nevada.

The specific form of that detrimental impact will be determined, finally, at the level of the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents (likely at its June meeting) and on each campus – and the NFA will be an active, vigorous and responsible advocate for faculty when those decisions are made.

In the legislature, the magnitude of cuts and the structure of higher ed financing remain to be determined.

Several important questions seems settled already, and it is worth keeping these realities in mind before entering into any discussion of the legislative "end-game" so hyped by journalists, but which is very unlikely to change any of the following:

It is near-certain that all NSHE faculty and staff will sustain a 4.8-percent reduction in take-home pay from 2009 levels and some portion of this reduction (at least 2.5 percent) will be a permanent reduction in base pay, with corresponding reduction in retirement contributions.
It is even more certain that health coverage for all faculty and staff will be significantly scaled back; and that the premiums, deductibles and co-insurance paid by faculty and staff and their families will rise significantly for all plans, increasing out-of-pocket costs by at least $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for families – beyond the already increased out-of-pocket levels of the last two years.
Access will be reduced significantly for students, thousands fewer of whom will be able to enroll each year on all campuses (including open-access colleges). For those who are able to enroll, fees will almost certainly increase 13 percent for the coming year and stand a high likelihood of increasing another 13 percent for 2012-2013.
Academic programs will be eliminated at UNR and UNLV, with the near certainty of faculty being issued terminal contracts (i.e., laid off, effective July 1, 2012) and with the very high likelihood, based on what we know now, that this will include tenured faculty. Faculty layoffs through program review have also been announced by the Western Nevada administration.

Now, as for legislative action of the week:

On Tuesday, as widely reported, the Democratic majority effectively abandoned the compromise budget alternative it had proposed three weeks earlier. That proposal combined significant cutbacks in state spending and significant reforms in state and local government operations with significant long-term reform of the state's broken revenue structure. For NSHE, this meant that the roughly $100 million in state investment that had been restored as part of that compromise proposal (leaving cuts of $60 million for the coming biennium, thus a total reduction of close to $150 million in state support since 2008) was reduced.

The result was a proposal to cut state investment in higher education for the coming biennium by $80 million, with that hole to be filled by both additional student fee increases and reduced access and program cuts (including layoffs) on campuses. Presuming some unresolved issues concerning how student fees are to be calculated get worked out, and that shortfalls in county property tax revenue will be covered by the state, this proposal closely resembles the revised "4-point plan" proposed by Chancellor Klaich and endorsed by the Board of Regents more than a month ago.

But while the Democratic majorities in both the Assembly and Senate supported this compromise-of-a-compromise, it does not represent a real compromise in the ordinary sense of the word – because the Republican caucuses in both houses still refuse to accept a continuation of current tax rates and are insisting on a roll-back of business and sales taxes to 2007 levels. Because current tax policies enacted in 2009 are set to expire on June 30, 2011, some Republicans must vote to retain current policies for even the compromise-of-a-compromise budget to pass.

So to resume, the only question that really remains to be decided by the legislature is in the hands of the Republican caucus: Do they support the Governor's proposal, which has become known among higher ed leaders as the "full pain path" (also referred to by some as "burn it to the ground") and whose impact on the state's future has been well documented and decried by students, faculty, and business leaders for months.

Or do they support what they say they have sought: educational reforms such as performance reviews for individual faculty and for degree programs (which are standard operating procedures on all NSHE campuses); reductions in operating expenses; culling of low-yield programs (which have been done at NSHE to a more significant extent than at any public or private entity in the past two years, and are certain to continue for the next two to four years); and higher output of degrees and certificates (which is the case for almost every campus for the past several years).

In short, if the Republicans really want reform, the time has long since passed to stop holding the state's future hostage. And Democrats ought to stop negotiating with themselves, declare that enough is enough, and simply wait for their colleagues to join them in passing a budget that – in all honesty – does little to move the state forward but at the least slows our relative rate of economic and educational decline.

Message to members from NFA President, Scott Huber

(Past member) — Mon, 23 May 2011 22:41:22 GMT

Dear NFA Members:

Thank you for participating in the NFA State Board officer election, and a special thanks to the candidates who have and will continue to contribute to the functioning of NFA. Please note that the elected officer is highlighted with the percentage of the vote cast for each position. Percentages have been rounded and based on a total of 142 votes.

Scott Huber, NFA State Board President

President:
Greg Brown-60%
Sondra Cosgrove- 40%

Vice President:
Angela Brommel- 100%

Secretary:
Dorothy Chase- 38%
Janet Usinger- 12%
Leah Wild- 50%

Treasurer:
Eric Hutchinson- 40%
Shari Lyman- 60%

Will you help position Nevada for success?

(Past member) — Thu, 19 May 2011 21:46:48 GMT

Editor's note: This message was originally sent to constituents by the Nevada State Assembly Speaker and Senate Majority Leader on Thursday, May 19.

As Nevada's budget crisis looms, we're working to bring people together to find a balanced approach that will position Nevada for success.

For too long we've struggled to fund our schools and the reforms we need to improve student achievement. We've suffered through cycles of boom-and-bust because our tax code is so narrow and its revenues so unpredictable. We've let our colleges and universities - the engine of our economy - falter even as more Nevadans seek job retraining in the tough economy.

Meanwhile, Governor Sandoval has failed to look for common ground. He's out of touch, and adopting his extreme position works against job creation and would sacrifice a generation of students. It's the Jim Gibbons approach all over again - and we know that won't work.

Our legislators need your help. We will only find a compromise approach to the budget if you raise your voice. Will you email or call these key legislators and tell them to make only strategic cuts and reform our tax code to make it stable and sustainable? Tell them we need reform, but we need a tax base that's stable enough to support it. That's how we end the boom-and-bust cycle and position Nevada for success.

Take action NOW. Email these key legislators and make your voice heard. Grassroots action will turn the tide, but it will only happen if you participate.

Thank you,

John Oceguera, Assembly Speaker
Steven Horsford, Nevada Senate Majority Leader

Legislative switchboard: 1-800-995-9080

Joe Hardy (R) jhardy@sen.state.nv.us
Mike McGinness (R) mmcginness@sen.state.nv.us
Dean Rhoads (R) drhoads@sen.state.nv.us
Ben Kieckhefer (R) bkieckhefer@sen.state.nv.us
Pat Hickey (R) phickey@asm.state.nv.us
Pete Goicoechea (R) pgoicoechea@asm.state.nv.us
Lynn Stewart (R) lstewart@asm.state.nv.us
Ira Hansen ihansen@asm.state.nv.us
Randy Kirner rkirner@asm.state.nv.us

Carson City Report: Higher ed budget closes... sort of

Thu, 19 May 2011 21:08:08 GMT

The closing of the budget for the Nevada System of Higher Education by the joint budget committees in the state legislature yesterday turned out to be a partial closing, with much decided, and one major issue left hanging – how the state will generate the revenue it needs to fund this essential investment in higher education.

Generally NSHE fared well with the decisions, with $100 million in General Fund dollars added back to NSHE budgets. This includes the $20 million recommended by the Governor. These funds would be distributed using the proportional distribution figures included in the Governor’s budget, which means the funds would be allocated following a flat enrollment assumption that relies on current base budget figures. There were a couple of additional small increases as equity adjustments: $1.5 million to CSN and $600,000-plus to TMCC. (This is on top of the $100 million, and came from a major correction concerning funds for health coverage part-time faculty, mainly in the Medical School.)

Legislators approved a key part of NSHE's four-point plan, its request to “smooth” the budget cut over two years. This will have the effect of leaving the base budget at the end of the second year about $35 million higher for the System than what the governor originally proposed. One major change from NSHE's proposal was the rejection of a second-year, 13-percent tuition and fee increase. This decision will force NSHE institutions to find an extra $22 million the second year of the biennium – funds that will apparently have to come from capitol improvement funds on campuses or some other source. A decision was made to allow retention of 100 percent of the tuition and fee increases to count toward the general fund allocation for NSHE.

The committees voted to suspend the funding formulas for the next biennium again, and also to have another interim study to revamp the current formulas. Chancellor Klaich pledged to send the committee a copy of the internal study that the System recently conducted. A vote was taken to consolidate a number of accounts into the two universities' instructional accounts, and the main System Administration account. This means that the regents and institutional administrations will be able to mange available funding better, and it takes the Legislature out of some specific funding decisions. The committees also approved allowing movement of funds among those remaining budget accounts, with the approval of the Legislature’s Interim Finance Committee.

New space that has been completed recently on the campuses was added to that included in the formulas for O&M, which was a good result. And the transfer of the Fire Science Academy to the Military was approved, with implications of some funding for UNR when this is finalized by Congress.

Thursday morning, Senator Hosrford clarified that the nearly $120 million of the proposed property tax transfer from the two large counties to the two universities, which the Governor had proposed, would be replaced with state general fund dollars, in the version of the budget that goes to the floor of the Assembly and then the Senate to be voted on.

Elliot Parker, Chair of Economics at UNR, testimony in support of SB 491 (revenue reform bill)

(Past member) — Mon, 16 May 2011 15:43:51 GMT

Editor's note: On May 13, the NFA's Elliott Parker, of University of Nevada, Reno, made the following statement before the Senate Committee on Revenue in support of SB491, the revenue reform bill.

I came to Nevada from the University of Washington 19 years ago, and have become a proud transplant Nevadan. One thing I always appreciated about Nevada was the non-ideological pragmatism of its state government. The state motto is Omnia Pro Patria, to give all for the state. I thought you could vote for the person, not the party, since legislators and the Governor worked together for the best interest of the state.

Lately, I must admit to being disappointed. We have become infected by the national infection of excess partisanship. The motto seems to have been misread by many people, as Omnia Pro PARTY.

I am here to speak about the Margin Tax, but first want to discuss the context.

All governments need tax revenue. Those without state revenue don’t turn into a capitalist paradise, they turn into Somalia. It is no accident that Nevada is always mentioned alongside Mississippi and West Virginia.

Most taxes have negative consequences, but you have to consider also what those taxes are used to fund. All government agencies need to be well managed, to make sure they spend these tax revenues wisely, and there are certainly reforms we should be looking at to do that. Always.

But nonetheless, in general, what the state spends money on has both positive short-term and long-term effects that outweigh the negative effects of taxes.

In the long-term, the state provides public goods that benefit the economy. The state builds roads and schools, maintains law and order, provides an education and a public university to create a better educated workforce, and provides social services – since intervention generally costs less than crime and prison, and some people cannot fully take care of themselves.

Public education in particular is what creates an economic climate that attracts business. Good universities really matter. It is no accident that we are losing ground as a state to other states, and losing ground as a nation to other nations that are investing heavily in public education, while we dis-invest. How can we attract new firms to Nevada if they don’t trust us to educate their children, or to provide them an educated workforce? What kind of companies would come to Nevada otherwise?
In the short-term, both taxes and spending affect spending. Yes, raising taxes can reduce what people have to spend on goods from the private sector, but cutting state expenditures can reduce it even more.

My own research finds that even when you consider the negative effects of taxes, cutting public spending in a recession hurts the private sector more than a comparable tax increase. When the economy is booming, this is not a problem. But in a recession, cutting public expenditures affects private incomes, hurting the private sector even more. People who lose their jobs no longer pay rent, a mortgage, eat out, et cetera. We enter a downward spiral.

My estimates are that cutting state and local government expenditures by 10 percent, in a recession like the present one, could reduce Gross State Product by as much as 5 percent relative to where we could have been. We are bleeding the patient, and wonder why he is not recovering.

I heard a speaker recently arguing against these taxes, but I think he works for a major construction company. As a thought experiment, how would his testimony differ if he was told the state would no longer fund road construction or repair? We cannot be NIMBYs. We can’t count on always exporting our taxes to other people. We need to find taxes that we all pay, to provide what we need to provide for the good of the state.

As Bill Raggio keeps saying, first figure out what we need to provide, then find the revenues to provide it. Why are we doing this backwards?

Recessions are hard on states without mechanisms for significant savings. Revenues drop, needs rise, and in a long recession like this – the Nevada depression – all the state’s resources are slowly drained. But Nevada also has a structural problem that goes beyond this recession, and we never fixed it when times were good. Now that times are bad, we must fix it.

For many decades, we have been overly dependent on a narrow tax base. Gaming is no longer a Nevada monopoly, and as a share of our revenue it has been in long-run decline. The gaming tax rate may be low compared to other states, but we are so overbuilt and have so many casinos on the edge that we cannot afford to raise that tax again.

We also have a sales and use tax with many, many exemptions. We implemented this tax when gaming was dominant, and when other services were not such a significant part of our economy. It is also at a relatively high rate, when you add in all the county and city components. We need to end many of those those exclusions, and we should also reduce that rate.

But we first need to replace the revenue we have lost, and build back up our reserves before we do so. We need to create a broad-based tax, with a more stable source of revenue, that better reflects our economy. Low rates applied to many things are better than high rates applied to a few things.

No tax is perfect, but some are less imperfect than others.

The current Modified Business Tax applies to payroll, not other expenses, and exempts many types of businesses, big and small. While the rate is not burdensome, and the sunsetting increase from the last session was not a big deal, nonetheless we might not want to have a tax that increases the relative cost of labor.

Now, regarding the business margin tax.

Relative to a profits tax, which the vast majority of states have, it is a more stable source of revenue that would not decline as much in a recession. Anyway, some think a profits tax may be constitutionally difficult as a tax on income. I disagree, but I am an economist, not a lawyer.

It does not apply to firms with revenues of less than $1,000,000, so it won’t be a burden on little Mom & Pop shops. It does apply to more than just corporations, however. I am not sure why sole proprietorships are specifically excluded, since most of them would already be excluded by the $1,000,000 threshold anyway.

The rate is low, at 0.8 percent. That is a good thing in theory, though I worry that it won’t provide enough revenue. Some worry that this is the camel’s nose under the tent, but I would remind everybody that NRS limits general fund expenditures to the late 1970s amount, adjusted for population and inflation, so no tax can get too out of control. Anyway, that argument could be used against any tax, current or proposed.

Relative to a gross receipts tax, it provides firms three alternative ways to reduce their tax. They can deduct a fixed share of 30%, they can deduct their total employee compensation, or they can deduct their cost of goods sold. As best I can tell from the bill, the definitions are reasonable. Thus, the administrative burden for the firm will not be less than the savings from using one of the alternative methods.

Finally, I like the idea that this tax will replace the MBT after this biennium. It is not a perfect tax, but it is a better tax.

In sum, we should not hide our head in the sand and pretend that our state revenues are adequate for our public needs. This recession has stripped away our ability to kick the can down the road. We need replacement revenues, and we need a better tax structure than the one we have now.

Explanation of Changes to PEBP Budget

(Past member) — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:17:58 GMT

The NFA's Sondra Cosgrove, of CSN, filed this report from Carson City, Monday, May 9.

The Joint Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committee voted to accept the Public Employees Benefits Program changes. There was spirited debate over these changes, but without any extra funding, there were few alternatives available. Two issues received the most attention: southern HMO participants subsidizing northern HMO premiums, and the number of sacrifices public employees are being expected to shoulder.

A number of committee members asked why the northern and southern HMO rates are being “blended.” The Executive Director of the PEBP Board stated that the Board felt it was an equity issue; that all employees should be treated equally. Assemblypersons Maggie Carlton and Marcus Conklin specifically rejected this argument and asked why participants are not paying only for the services they themselves receive.

It was explained that the HMO contract is more in the north than in the south, so up to now northern HMO participants have paid a higher premium than southern participants. Under the PEBP Board changes, the southern premium will be going up more than is warranted under the southern contract to keep the northern premium from going up even more. Some of the southern legislators (not all) voted to not allow this blending, but they were unsuccessful.

It was also noted that, in addition to these drastic changes to health, retirement, and life insurance costs, public employees also are being asked to accept a 5-percent salary reduction. Many committee members noted that this seemed to be a disproportionate share of the sacrifice, but without any other funding, nothing could be done to ameliorate this inequality.

A motion to send a Letter of Intent to PEBP Board asking them to review this item failed on a close vote. However, the PEBP Board has a mechanism to offer some temporary relief if it has the funding to cover it.

In addition, Governor Sandoval's plan to cut the health subsidy for part-time state workers – which would have affected higher education more than any other entity – failed in a close vote.

NFA State Board officer candidates make statements as election begins

(Past member) — Mon, 09 May 2011 18:08:17 GMT

Candidates for office on the Nevada Faculty Alliance State Board of Directors have released their statements in advance of the election, which began today.

The following is a list of offices and the candidates who are running for each:

President: Greg Brown, Sondra Cosgrove
Vice President: Angela Brommel
Secretary: Dorothy Chase, Janet Usinger, Leah Wilds
Treasurer: Eric Hutchinson, Shari Lyman

Please click on the active links above to read candidates' statements.

Only NFA members can vote in the election. They can do so by registering a vote with NFA Secretary Mary Philips. Voting will end Monday, May 16, at 5 p.m. Winners will announced Tuesday, May 17.

What the Economic Forum really heard: We need an alternative to boom-and-bust economics

(Past member) — Thu, 05 May 2011 17:59:24 GMT

Since the Economic Forum released its revised revenue projections on Monday, May 2, two plans have been released, a revised one by the Governor that focuses only on cuts to public services, and a new one by the Democratic majority that balances revenue reform with spending cuts.

On Tuesday, the governor reiterated his commitment to cut the state's budget rather than raise taxes. He relied on the logic that, if we do nothing, the economy and our budget problems will fix themselves. On one hand, the governor touted our economic growth as a means to fill holes resulting from his proposed cuts; on the other hand, he said the economy is still too weak to reform our current boom-and-bust revenue structure.

That is not what the Economic Forum heard from analysts who gave their testimony on Monday, nor is it what history tells us.

What the Economic Forum actually heard from analysts was that gaming revenues will never return to their previous levels, because Asian gamblers can now go to Macau, and American gamblers can gamble in their own backyards due to the spread of gaming throughout the U.S. (Moreover, as we learned from a story today from the Nevada News Bureau, gaming companies contribute more in Pennsylvania and several other states than they do to their home state of Nevada.)

The Forum also heard that high paying constructions jobs will not return for a very long time, if at all, because the state is over-developed. It also heard that mining is making record profits due to gold selling at a record $1,500 an ounce. Barrick Mining is so profitable that is is able to bid on reserves in China at inflated rates – effectively moving Nevadan's treasure to China to secure its future profit rather than our state's future.

We need a tax structure that recognizes this new reality. Today, one is being presented by the Democratic leadership in the legislature as part of a budget alternative. This plan still involves significant cuts to services such as higher education, but it is a balanced approach, combining necessary cutbacks with a fairer, more equitable revenue policy.

Because it includes a plan to scale back the payroll tax, the Democratic alternative helps promote employment in the private sector, while providing the basis for adequate investment in our needed public services, such as higher education.

It is a plan to step out of the boom-and-bust cycles of the past to secure a more stable and prosperous future for our state.

This plan delays the sunset provisions built into the 2009 revenue package – in effect, it is not a tax increase, but rather a decision not to cut taxes. Governor Sandoval’s assertion that not sunsetting the 2009 revenue enhancements is tantamount to raising taxes, and thus harming our chances for recovery, belies an important fact: Even with taxes at their 2009 levels, Nevada currently has one of the nation’s lowest overall tax rates, which has not lead to economic growth.

We call on all legislators to put aside ideologies and political agendas and come to the table now to govern – to find a sensible, compromise solution based on the very realistic and pragmatic plan presented today. Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Steve Sebellius called the Governor's "cut-our-way-out" plan "faith-based economics," not a realistic plan. The legislature now has a realistic plan before it to discuss, and it should do so.

For higher education all of these issues are extremely important. Over the past 10 years, the Nevada System of Higher Education has grown exponentially, taxed its students by raising fees and taxed its employees by cutting their pay and benefits and increasing their workload. Yet all our efforts have only netted the System an extra $20 million under the Governor’s revised plan.

All we have left to cut are faculty jobs, rural sites and centers, and whole institutions. If we lose any of these remaining assets, Nevada will no longer have a complete system of higher education. We will go back decades to a time when students struggled to find complete programs, at reasonable prices, in-state. In other words, we’ve grown and cut all we can without causing the state long-term harm and doing further damage to our quest for economic diversification by eliminating the educational institutions and programs that smart business leaders want and need.

At the Economic Forum meeting, more than one analyst cited the loss of public sector jobs as a potential drag on economic recovery. They noted that both increased visitor rates and increased spending by locals have to kick in before we’ll get out of this hole. But if you cut just as many public jobs as the private sector is creating, you end up with a net zero gain – especially in light of Nevada already having one of the lowest proportions of state workers to population of any state.

And consider this in the bigger picture: If you decimate higher education to protect business, you will also end up with a net-zero gain. Indeed, you will lose, because the businesses we want the most to protect and attract will avoid the state at all costs.

NFA Responds to Governor's Budget Speech

(Past member) — Thu, 05 May 2011 17:20:18 GMT

Earlier this week, Governor Sandoval spoke about Nevada's state budget. Anyone with a stake in the future of our state should take a closer look at what he said – and didn't say – about investment in higher education. If you do, you will see that the governor does not take a balanced approach when it comes to education, and that higher ed is already shouldering much more than its share of the sacrifice.

If we continue on the path the governor suggests, our state's colleges and universities will be decimated. Nobody wants that. The Nevada Faculty Alliance urges the governor to consider a truly balanced, alternative approach.

The Speech

In a speech on Tuesday, May 3, the governor defended his decision to allocate almost no additional investment in higher education. The budget proposals he had submitted earlier in the day would increase state investment in higher education by only $16 million statewide. (He recommended an additional $20 million to NSHE out of $271 million available due to Economic Forum projects, but the new Economic Forum property tax projections also resulted in a $4 million loss to what had already been proposed in his budget, so the proposed cut actually increased to about $166 million.)

This leaves a hole of nearly $150 million in the higher education budget for the coming biennium, even after the anticipated across-the-board 5-percent pay cut and deep cut to health coverage for all faculty and staff. And this is on top of the huge budget cut already absorbed by Nevada System for Higher Education institutions this biennium.

The governor anticipates this budget hole will be filled by student fee increases and cuts to academic programs (including many faculty layoffs). In other words, although he said “we cannot tax our way out and we cannot cut our way out,” that is precisely his plan for higher education: Tax our students (and their parents) further and cut their educational opportunities deeper.

Effects of Budget Cuts Experienced and Proposed

Let us remember:

Student fees have already increased by nearly 50 percent on average over the past three years as a result of continuing the budget philosophy of his predecessor, Jim Gibbons.
State support for NSHE has already been cut by more than 20 percent in actual dollars over the past three years, even before his proposal to cut another 29 percent in net governmental support for the coming biennium.

This crisis for higher education has been going on for four years now:

Workloads have increased for faculty (who took on an additional 15 percent of students in the past biennium, with much of that increase coming from tenured faculty).
State spending in non-instructional areas has been rolled back by more than a third System-wide (and even more at the universities).
Low-yield and high-expense degree programs have been eliminated by the dozens (resulting in a large number of faculty layoffs including tenured faculty).
Defacto enrollment caps have been instituted at community colleges, denying access to thousands of students and workers seeking opportunities to develop new jobs skills.
Compensation for faculty and staff has been frozen since 2007; since 2009 it has been rolled back by 4.6 percent through furloughs for most employees. Pay will be rolled back further in the coming biennium. Due to an agreement by the faculty and Chancellor and approved by the Board, a state legislative pay cut for state workers for the future will be passed along fully to the entire faculty.
Health benefits for faculty and staff have been cut far below competitive levels and will be cut even more steeply in the coming years.
Dozens more degrees and programs would be cut from a state that already ranks 51st in the country in the ratio of degree programs offered to eligible population and which also ranks at the bottom for percentage of population attending college (a measure that census data shows closely correlates to the ratio of degrees to population).
Literally one in eight faculty and staff at the universities would be laid off under the detailed budget plans submitted to the legislature. This includes an estimated 200 tenured faculty, a staggering figure that would ensure years of litigation and has already brought national opprobrium on our state’s higher education system.
These program cuts would displace 12,000 students per year statewide.

Reforms Already in Place

Among the many oddities of the governor's speech was that he focused most of his time on calling for “reforms” to education in lieu of adequate funding. Yet almost every single “reform” he called for is already standard operating procedure on our campuses:

Rigorous evaluation of individual faculty performance. Faculty at all levels and on all campuses are evaluated annually by peers and administration, and most instructional staff are on contracts that require annual renewal. Even tenured faculty can be removed after two successive years of poor performance evaluation.
Use of performance measures rather than seniority to promote, reward, or to make cuts. Our campuses every year undertake painstakingly careful reviews of faculty performance using dozens of measurable standards in order to determine which faculty to reward and promote. Seniority is not a measure used for determining where to cut (or promote) higher education faculty.
Periodic program reviews. Institutions conduct meticulously detailed internal and external reviews of our degree programs to determine how best to deploy resources to ensure educational opportunities. Programs are added when needed, but cut if they are not producing the desired results in terms of student graduations.
Curricular innovation. To take but one very current example, the UNLV faculty has been actively involved in a lengthy and detailed discussion of its undergraduate education program to improve how we train students and how we measure the results. To take another, only a few years ago the entire System aligned and articulated its curricula across the state.
Cost-efficiency reforms. The regents have recently approved a number of other reforms that will make NSHE institutions more efficient, including calling for a 120-credit limit for most undergraduate degrees, approving differential fees for high-cost, high-demand programs and other changes.

Conclusions

It is no exaggeration to say that the System of Higher Education would be decimated once again (literally, cut by at least another one-tenth) under the Sandoval “tax our way, cut our way” approach to higher education.

There is no short-term recovery from cuts of this magnitude. Once programs are terminated, they cannot be restarted; a good portion of those 12,000 students per year will likely leave the state to pursue their education and their careers, if they can afford to. Many others will simply be left out, losing a chance to improve their lives.

Higher education is a good bargain for Nevada. The return on investment from each state dollar spent has been shown to be between $1.50 and $4, depending on the region and the year. This is a demonstrably higher return than is achieved in many areas of the private sector.

The governor proposed in his speech that Nevada should “grow its way” out of the economic crisis. The System of Higher Education already has grown dramatically: Enrollments have risen steadily statewide and sharply at some institutions (despite the fee and tuition increases), and demand for enrollment has risen even more sharply. This demand cannot be met with the budget cuts being experienced and proposed. Revenues from areas other than the state – including research grants and contracts – have risen steadily over the past decade, demonstrating the entrepreneurial success of the faculty.

The governor, however, would pull the platform out from this business success. His proposal for higher education is merely to cut our way out and to tax our students further. And his proposals can only curtail efforts to get more research grants as some of our best faculty leave for better opportunities elsewhere, which is occurring. Is this the way to diversify Nevada’s economy?

Final Comment

The Governor claimed a vision of a dynamic and forward-looking state, yet he completely overlooked in both his speech and his budget revisions to the most dynamic and forward-looking of our public services: higher education. His budget would cripple NSHE's efforts to offer educational opportunities to thousands of students, limit efforts to diversify Nevada’s economy and ruin the careers of hundreds of faculty and staff who have come to Nevada to make it a better place.

We urge the governor to reconsider his position, and call on all citizens and legislators to join us in trying to help NSHE institutions survive, so that they can assist Nevada and Nevadans in building a better state for all of us.

LV Chamber: Will you help Nevada higher ed survive?

(Past member) — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:57:11 GMT

Editor's note: This article by Jim Richardson, NFA Lobbyist, and and Gregory Brown, NFA Vice-President, originally ran in the NFA's print publication, The Alliance. For the full issue in which it appears, click here.

We in the Nevada System of Higher Education were heartened recently to see the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce state in a letter that more revenues may be required to deal with the many needs of the State of Nevada, especially in the area of education.

We are also heartened that, in its March 1 “reform agenda,” the Chamber endorsed a policy change that the System has long sought — allowing campuses to retain student tuition and fees. They also endorsed an end to the state’s antiquated “per-pupil funding system,” which has emphasized quantity of enrollment over quality of output.

We appreciate as well that, in the 2011 update of its study of public sector compensation, the Chamber again found (as it had in 2009 and 2010) that Nevada higher education instructional faculty and staff are paid below the national average — and that the gap has widened since 2008.

“[H]igher education instruction [is paid] 91 percent of the national average, a decline from last year’s 95 percent as the number of instructors fell from 3,600 in the prior year to 3,400 in 2009.... Nevada higher education instructional employees [rank] 34th in the nation, a drop from 30th in the nation in 2008."

And with another round of across-the-board pay cuts of five percent all but certain in the coming biennial budget, Nevada is clearly losing its competitive position in the market for talented researchers and teachers. Thanks in part to the support of the Chamber, Gov. Brian Sandoval and Democratic leadership have jointly proposed economic diversification legislation (AB 499) for Nevada that would assign a prominent role to NSHE. (We are concerned that, so far, no funding source for the Knowledge Fund in AB 499 has been found, but are hopeful that additional revenues will be allocated for this effort.)

Clearly, the Las Vegas Chamber gets it —Nevada should be supporting quality, affordable, higher education, not out of generosity but out of economic self interest.

Grave Concerns about Tactics

However, we have grave concern about the political strategy that the Chamber seems to be advocating in its letter — placing unrelated conditions on its support for a balanced, fair and stable revenue stream to support adequate public investment in NSHE institutions.

From the Chamber's letter:

Although it is not clear what the Legislative budget committees will recommend, our review has led us to believe that additional tax revenue may be necessary. However, let me be clear: The Chamber’s willingness to support additional tax revenue is absolutely dependent on the passage this year of significant and meaningful reforms that will fix systemic problems that are plaguing our state. Meaningful reform includes:

Fixing the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to reduce the $10 billion unfunded liability and lowering the cost of providing this benefit [in the future]

Discontinuing the State Retiree Health Insurance Subsidy through the Public Employees Benefits Plan (PEBP) for new employees

Reforming the collective bargaining process and providing local governments with the flexibility they need to weather this

Transforming K-12 education to encourage and reward results

Retooling higher education

This list of reforms demanded by the Chamber would hold higher education in Nevada hostage to reforms in areas that impact NSHE very little if at all, and over which NSHE has no control.

Very few NSHE professional employees are in PERS. (Only people who are in PERS when they are hired may remain in PERS; that represents a very small percentage of professional employees. NSHE classified staff are in PERS.) The proposed change in access to PEBP retirement benefits for new hires will make it harder for NSHE to hire and retain faculty in the future. Moreover, the proposed change does nothing to reduce expenditures this biennium.
NSHE employees are NOT covered by the local government collective bargaining statute, NRS 288.
NSHE has virtually nothing to do with reforming K-12 education, except that several NSHE institutions are involved with teacher training — and are doing a very effective job.
NSHE’s need for “retooling” is not detailed in the letter, so it is unclear what the Chamber wants. The implication that NSHE is not being involved in redefining its mission is patently false. This very general demand for “retooling” seems an excuse to include NSHE funding, never mind the collateral damage.

The Chamber letter and report should have pointed out to readers that NSHE institutions have been hit much harder than any other area for which the state is financially responsible.

State support for Nevada’s higher education system was cut over 20 percent for the current biennium, whereas many other areas saw much smaller cuts, or even increased funding. (See Table 1, source State Budget Office.)

This same pattern is presented in the Sandoval budget for the next biennium, with NSHE slated for another huge cut in state support (another $162 million cut from current spending) — even if NSHE receives the controversial $121 million in revenues from the counties that is recommended by the governor. (See Table 2, source LCB Fiscal Staff.)

Without the $121 million, the shortfall in government support for the next biennium would be an astounding $283 million compared with the level of funding this year. Budget cut plans submitted by NSHE institutions for the upcoming biennium demonstrate that, if the Sandoval budget is approved, more than 1,000 additional positions will be cut, along with many more degree programs and departments, affecting thousands more students.

It is important to note the extent to which NSHE institutions, and particularly faculty, have already reduced expenses and streamlined academic programs in the past few years. During the last biennium, in response to the 20-percent reduction in
state support, NSHE cut more than 700 faculty and staff positions around the state. Only last spring, in order to implement the 6.9-percent cut passed in the February 2010 special session, UNR and UNLV undertook a painful curricular review that resulted in the elimination of more than two dozen academic programs and the redeployment or lay-offs of more than 50 tenure-eligible and tenured faculty. Administrative expenses have been streamlined through a System-wide Efficiency and Effectiveness Task Force, student fees have been sharply increased, and other measures have been taken to reduce costs and further enhance flexibility in the coming biennium.

Indeed, toward this end, NSHE faculty supported additional workloads for tenured faculty without compensation, while tenure-eligible faculty and all professional and classified staff took unpaid furloughs. Furthermore, the faculty supported an amendment to the NSHE Code that had been sought by the Chancellor and enacted last spring to pass through a legislatively mandated across-the-board pay cut up to 6 percent per annum. These represent considerable sacrifices by faculty, who, as already noted, are paid on average below the national median.

Finally, there is significant ongoing curricular reform at all institutions and across the System to facilitate more rapid progress towards degrees.

A Simple Request

We therefore ask the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and similar groups not to stand by and allow the dismantling of a fine system of higher education as a political strategy that links NSHE funding to issues over which NSHE has no control and which do not impact NSHE.

This approach seems misguided and would be destructive. Higher education in Nevada is being held hostage in a fight that we did not pick or want. If this strategy is pursued, the State of Nevada will be the loser — and the consequence will be a brain drain of unprecedented magnitude, as many more of our faculty give up on Nevada and leave for other opportunities.

The state’s business community must not tolerate the dismantling and perhaps even the closing of institutions, devastating educational opportunities for thousands of students, and ruining the careers of countless educators who came here in good faith to help build a better Nevada.

Now is the time for business leaders to join students, faculty, alumni and community members across the state — join people who have given voice to their concern about the future of Nevada and who have stood up to oppose an unbalanced, cuts-only approach to higher education.

We ask the Las Vegas Chamber and other business groups to support a quality, affordable higher education system and to demand adequate funding for NSHE to help secure a more stable, prosperous future for the state.

Nevada Faculty Alliance NFA News Archive

NFA Report PEBP Rate-Setting for FY2027

High-Deductible Health Plan (aka Consumer Driven Health Plan):

Low-Deductible Health Plan (aka Copay PPO plan)

Exclusive Provider Organization (northern limited-network plan)

Health Maintenance Organization (southern limited-network plan)

PEBP Update: Some Good News–and Lingering Uncertainty

Major Decisions Delayed Until March 19

Plan Design and Rate Decisions in March

High Uncertainty Over PEBP’s Financials

Media Coverage

NFA calls for independent audit of PEBP

NFA Calls on Members to Respond to PEBP Crisis

Nevada’s Public Employees’ Health Benefits Are in Crisis

Fiscal Shortfall

Premium Hikes and Benefit Cuts are Likely

What Must Happen

NFA Reaffirms Solidarity Amid Escalating Immigration Related Harms

NFA Raises Concerns Over PEBP Reserves and Large Premium Increases

Nevada Faculty Alliance Raises Concerns Over Budget Messaging, Potential Cuts Across NSHE Institutions

Changes in store for 2026-27 employee benefits

Regents Look to Change the Rules of Collective Bargaining Amid Negotiations with Four Institutions

Higher Education Legislation of the 83rd Session

Notable bills that made it through the session include:

Governor Vetoes Bills Related to Freedom to Read and Research

Still Debating NSHE as the 4th branch of government

Legislative Wins for Public Employees in the 83rd Legislative Session

The 83rd Legislative Session and the NSHE Budget: The Bills, Blow-Ups, and What Died

THe One-SHot APpropriations

THe Blow-UP

What Could Have Been (But Died in the Process)

A Recap of the 83rd Legislative Session by the NFA Government Relations Team

Our Legislative Wins:

Our Legislative Partial Win:

The Work Yet to Do:

The Many Vetoed Collective Bargaining Bills by Governor Lombardo

The Board of Regents Vote to Suspend Merit for the Next Biennium

NFA's Report and Outlook on the 2025-2027 NSHE Budget

Legislative Update: The Final Days

NSHE Budget Update

State Budget Update

Nevada Board of Regents vote against collective bargaining rights

NFA urges Regents to support collective bargaining bill

NFA State Board Elections Underway

Office: President Candidate: Staci Walters, College of Southern Nevada

Office: Vice President Candidate: Andrew Lavengood, Nevada State University

Office: Secretary Candidate: Joey Ray, University of Nevada, Reno

Office: Treasurer Candidate: Greta de Jong, University of Nevada, Reno

Weaponization of Fiscal Notes: AB188 and AB191

Tales of the Legislature: Weaponization of Fiscal Notes

What are Fiscal Notes?

Weaponization of Fiscal Notes

AB 188 - Restoration of State Retiree Health Benefits

AB 191 - Collective Bargaining for NSHE Professional Employees

Moving Forward

NSU faculty win historic collective bargaining vote

NFA Supports AB 188 to restore retiree health benefits

Assembly Bill 188: Restore Retiree Health Benefits for State Employees

Problems: Cuts to retiree health benefits are unfair to newer state employees and hurt retention

Solutions: AB 188 reverses cuts to retiree health benefits for state employees

Cost analysis: Minimal impact on fringe rate for retiree health benefits

PEBP Premiums for 2025-26

FAQ on Assembly Bill 191

Frequently Asked Questions on Assembly Bill 191

Ninth Circuit Court remands Jensen v Brown back to Nevada District Court in decisive reversal

NSHE COLA Funding

History and Analysis of Funding and Budgeting for NSHE Cost of Living Adjustments

UPDATE: Title 2 modifications rejected by Board of Regents

NSU-NFA one step closer to forming bargaining unit

Student leader sets standard for leadership and compassion

The cost of ideological interference

Collective bargaining bill advances in legislature

FAQ on Collective Bargaining

NFA Legislative Priorities 2025

Legislation

For Better Higher Education Management: Collective Bargaining Rights! (AB 191)

For Better Higher Education Governance: Mandatory Board of Regents Training!

Benefits for State Employees Now AND When They Retire: Restoring Retiree Health Benefits! (AB 188)

Budget Priorities

Invest in Campus Safety

Office: President
Candidate: Staci Walters, College of Southern Nevada

Office: Vice President
Candidate: Andrew Lavengood, Nevada State University

Office: Secretary
Candidate: Joey Ray, University of Nevada, Reno

Office: Treasurer
Candidate: Greta de Jong, University of Nevada, Reno