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.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information and analysis.

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:

1)      Proposed elimination of the Health Maintenance Organization/Exclusive Provider Organization (HMO/EPO) plan option.

2)      Deficient cash balances to cover mandatory reserves in the self-funded plans.

3)      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

1)      Participants who choose to pay more in monthly premiums in exchange for freedom from high unpredictable out-of-pocket expenses should have that option.

2)      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.

3)      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.

4)      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.

###

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.

2024 NSHE Employment and Salary Trends

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:

• 2023 NSHE Employment and Salary Trends (November 2023)
• The Compensation Gap (October 2023) 
• NSHE Salaries Remain Low (October 2023)

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

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

• 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

A similar survey of NSHE faculty was conducted two years ago.

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.

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.

Read More>>

Nevada Independent: An educator first and basketball wife second: Regent Lois Tarkanian dies at age 90

Las Vegas Sun: Lois Tarkanian, education champion and staunch supporter of UNLV basketball, dies at 90

Las Vegas Review-Journal: ‘Her remarkable life’: Lois Tarkanian was pillar of Las Vegas as educator, politician

NSHE: NSHE mourns the loss of Dr. Lois Tarkanian, regent and advocate for education

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.

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.

 

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

• Find your District
• Check your voter registration

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

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.