Faculty at Nevada State University Win Union Vote

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.

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.

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

• Retiree health benefits through the Public Employees Benefits Program (PEBP) were eliminated for employees hired after 2011. Because none of the employees have met the minimum of 15 years of service, none have retired with health benefits, 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 subsidy in their Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). The subsidy was $10 per month per year of service up to 20 years, and is now only $13/month/YOS despite higher increases in Medicare B premiums and Medigap insurance.
• A retiree's abilityto 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.

Solution: 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 retiree population of 15,500. 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 0.16%, 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 0.2% projected increase in caseload in FY 2027 (out of 46000 covered employees and retirees) or up to a 2.2% increase after 10 years.

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 0.16% 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.

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.

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: The work session for AB 191 in Assembly Government Affairs has been scheduled for Monday, March 31.

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, 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 limitations. 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 union 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 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, TMCC, and WNC is about 870 (not 930).  That is, 33 years after the first faculty bargaining unit formed at TMCC only 12% 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 870 faculty are covered in current CBAs, there are only three CBAs.

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 three at CSN, TMCC, and WNC, with a total of 870 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?

We know that two units are in process, NSU academic faculty organizing under the T4C4 rules, and Graduate Assistants represented by the Nevada Graduate Student Workers-UAW union. NSU is moving forward to an election, and Graduate Assistants are asking NSHE to ‘count their cards’ showing their super majority. Organizing any units beyond these two 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.

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 policy is mostly silent as it relates to GAs. 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.

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, share 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 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.

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. 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. NSHE's fiscal note for AB 191 is a gross exaggeration of any realistic needs.

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 relations expert and an administrative assistant at the system level to provide support for the institutions and to handle one 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 costs of arbitrations will be more than offset by savings from avoided litigation.

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.

Does AB 191 expand what is grievable in comparison to T4C4? 

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 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.

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 limit its applicability to NSHE in practice.

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.

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

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 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 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. 

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 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).