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

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

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

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

           NFA fact checks and explanations in red.

What does YES on 1 do if passed?

YES on 1 will be on the Nevada 2024 ballot.

           TRUE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will YES on 1 cost any money?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by Greta De Jong, UNR-NFA Acting President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevada Faculty Alliance Announces Endorsements for the Board of Regents

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Responses to HCM Strategists Recommendations
• Part 8. NFA Work Session Recommendations
• Part 9. Comments on Final Recommendations

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

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

What’s in a big union convention? Plenty – especially this year, when The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) met in rainy, steamy Houston, TX, this past July 22nd-25th. The AAUP (the NFA’s national organization) affiliated with the AFT two years ago. In so doing, the NFA gained the supporting power of this 1.8 Million strong union of K-12 teachers, healthcare workers (including nurses), and more than 300,000 Higher Education faculty and professionals. We gained solidarity and a voice with the AFL-CIO and the 120 + unions it represents in the Nevada Labor Coalition, one of the most influential political forces in our state.

There’s power in numbers. When the AFT speaks, politicians must listen. Under the leadership of AFT’s President, Randi Weingarten (reelected in Houston for her 16th & 17th years of service), the AFT passed resolutions and set policies to guide advocacy along thirteen action pathways, among which are: Educational Issues, Healthcare Access/Quality, Human Rights, Women’s Rights, International Relations, Labor and the Economy, Organizing and Collective Bargaining, and more, including Higher Education. Amid the buzz and noise of milling factions, more than 3,000 elected delegates and representatives contributed, argued, hashed out language, then came together in floor session after floor session in an energized body to vote to set these new policies. Relevant to Higher Education nationally and to our NFA, the following resolutions were presented, and passed:

Resolution #16 – Real Solutions for Higher Education – general resolutions to fight back against national attacks on Higher Education; to advocate for funding for Higher Ed; and to work against the trend to hire untenured or adjunct positions to replace tenured faculty at colleges and universities (the resolution lays a groundwork for fighting back).

Resolution #18 – In Support of Affirmative Action And Equal Opportunity In Response To The June 2023 Supreme Court Ban on the Use of Affirmative Action in College Admissions – a resolution to keep supporting Affirmative Action initiatives for Higher Ed admissions.

Resolution #19 – AFT Policy Toward Dual Credit – a resolution to set and enforce standards for credentials of instructors for dual credit courses as well as students who attend these courses; the general policy document that lays out desired requirements for dual credit courses. (Many of our NFA members have pushed for a similar policy in Nevada, and methinks this resolution can serve a template for future NSHE and state advocacy).

Note: a 4th Resolution #17 – a Neurodiversity Initiative – to recommend policies for improved recognition, support and inclusion of neuro-diverse students, will remain in drafting stages for the AFT Executive Committee then resubmitted to the Higher Education Committee.

Among other noteworthy AFT resolutions that passed: Fighting The Harmful Impacts Of Private Equity On Our Economy, Public Pension Funds And Healthcare System; also Workers’ Rights And Ethical Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Healthcare. As well, the AFT passed a resolution to oppose any legislation or executive decisions that would implement the draconian policies of Project 2025. After much loud, contentious disagreement (that the language is not strong enough in support of the Palestinian cause), two resolutions passed that declare AFT positions on the Israel-Gaza war (by what I estimate were about 60-40 “voice” votes): Calling for a Bilateral Cease-Fire in Gaza and Promoting a Two-State Solution and an End to the Weaponization of Hate ; and For An End To The War In Gaza And Lasting Peace, Security And Self-Determination For Israel And Palestine . Agree or not, these resolutions might provide faculty and professionals with some effective language in response to the ongoing tragedy. Noteworthy to our members also should be the AFT resolution to organize for the upcoming elections— Organizing for the 2024 Elections. In my opinion, this commitment is essential for all NFA members to make for the benefit of our collective futures.

Regarding the upcoming elections, I met with AFT political organizer for Nevada, Joe Dennison. We spoke about crucial Assembly and Senate districts where GOTV efforts can help to achieve NFA goals. The AFT is committed to bussing volunteers to Nevada in September (union members mainly from California) to help us walk neighborhoods, knock on doors, and with phone banking. I also met with AFT’s National Director of Political Mobilization, John Ost. Nevada is one of AFT’s priorities. He outlined communications pathways both for reporting and for the NFA to request additional resources.

The AFT is all in for this upcoming election. The convention kicked off with legendary Dolores Huerta of the United Farmworkers reminding us what’s at stake; and toward the close, Shawn Fain, iconic leader of the United Auto Workers, pumped up political engagement. Late on Monday, July 22nd, President Weingarten brought a surprise to the floor: following President Biden’s first announcement that he would drop out of the race, the AFT voted to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for President of the United States, the first and biggest union in the nation to do so. Rationale: Kamala Harris best represents the interests of workers in education, healthcare, and public service, and she speaks for the humane values we embrace.

News broke among the delegates of a second surprise late Wednesday—the Vice President would address our AFT convention with her second, most in-depth speech to launch her campaign. Her Thursday morning speech proved her to be clear, sharp with major points, effective in expressing our shared values—here’s a link to this magnificent speech. My favorite moments are when Kamala Harris laughs. It’s a laugh all hers, followed by a smile that’s as refreshing a summer swim after a political season so rife with discord, divisiveness and anxiety (and think about how few politicians show us a genuine, authentic laughter or smile—Trump does not, never has, except to express his cynicism or mocking derision). It just may be that Kamala Harris has a lot to laugh and smile about. And if we get out and do our parts for the November election, we will, too.

NFA Positions on Work Session Recommendations

NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding, Work Session Meeting on 7/25/2024

9:30 am in person at the Las Vegas or Reno system offices. To provide public comment or testimony by telephone, dial 669-900-9128, Meeting ID: 910 0378 4066, Passcode: 777777. To provide written public comment, use the online public comment form (2000-character limit).

At its work session on Thursday, July 25, the NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding will finalize recommendations for the NSHE funding formula. In response to Chair Hardesty’s request at the May 30th meeting and after reaching out to faculty members at each of the seven colleges and universities for feedback, the Nevada Faculty Alliance submitted recommendations for the formula funding on June 24th. We tailored those recommendations to be largely consistent with the Committee’s discussion on May 30th, we stand by them, and we encourage committee members to review them. 

The work session document for the July 25th agenda provides options for recommendations, but does not address all of the issues discussed by the committee nor the full range of options requested by committee members. Here we provide detailed recommendations for the work session.

Base budgeting. We reiterate our global recommendation that the NSHE budgeting mechanism be changed from a distribution formula where institutions compete against each other for a fixed pot of money to a true funding formula where funding for each institution is based on the costs of instruction and student services based on appropriate inputs such as student credit hours, student headcounts, as well as fixed administrative and operational costs. Stakeholders told the committee that budget competition among institutions impedes budget planning and encourages mission creep.

Suggested language: The Committee recommends that future base budgets for the main instructional budgets each of the seven colleges and universities be calculated based on caseload factors (resident Weighted Student Credit Hours and on Student Enrollment factors enhanced for at-risk student groups) at each institution independently, with dollar amounts per WSCH and per student adjusted for inflation using the Higher Education Price Index, rather than using the caseload factors to distribute a fixed general fund appropriation.

Recommendations contingent upon funding. Nothing in the legislation funding this study nor in the charges from the Interim Chancellor restricts the Committee to recommending only a redistribution of existing funds (“reslicing the pie”). Although only the Legislature can appropriate funds, the Committee is free to state that its recommendations are contingent upon new funding and should do so wherever appropriate including possible inclusion of summer courses in the formula and Outcomes-Based Funding.

Directions to Chancellor. Many of the recommendations in the work session document merely “urge the Chancellor’s Office to…” act or make a decision. Although the Chancellor’s Office will need to follow up on recommendations, this language cedes the Committee’s mandate to make its own judgements and recommendations to later action by the Chancellor alone.

Suggested language: For each applicable recommendation, substitute “Recommend that the Board of Regents direct the Chancellor’s Office to… ” for “Urge the Chancellor’s Office to…”, and make a clear recommendation wherever there are several choices.

Inflation adjustments. The Committee discussed the need for inflation adjustments to formula factors, but the work session document includes an inflation factor only for the Small Institution Factor. Adjustments for inflation should be explicitly included for each component of the funding formula.

Suggested language: The Committee recommends that the dollar amounts per weighted or unweighted student credit hour or student headcount, where used for setting base budgets or caseload maintenance budgets, be adjusted for inflation using the Higher Education Price Index.

Fee waiver funding. The Committee discussed both the value of fee waivers for certain student groups and the negative impact that unfunded fee waivers have on the institutions and on other students. The work session document does not address this important issue.

Suggested language: The Committee recommends to the Legislature and Governor that fee waivers mandated by statute be fully funded through appropriations added outside of the funding formula based on the actual fee waivers awarded during the prior biennium.

Audits. Although it was never agendized for discussion by the Committee, the NFA believes it is essential for transparency and accountability that all numbers reported by the institutions that are used for formula funding be regularly audited.

Suggested language: The Committee recommends that the Board of Regents establish a policy for annual internal audits of the reporting of student credit hours, student headcounts, and other factors used for developing formula-driven budgets.

In the following sections, we address each of the recommendations in the work session document (numbered items in bold quoted):

1a. Funding Adequacy and Equity Study. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to pursue a study of funding adequacy and equity as soon as practical so that the study may be completed no later than June 30, 2025, when the authorization for expending funds appropriated under Assembly Bill 493 expires.

Background: AB493 appropriated up to $2,000,000 for the Committee’s study of higher education funding. This recommendation implies that the consultant’s fee and other expenses for the Ad Hoc Committee will be substantially less, given the estimate of $250,000 to $700,00 for a Funding Adequacy and Equity Study depending on scope. However, other states required between one year and 2.5 years to complete such a study, again depending on scope. 

NFA supports adoption of item 1a, with the substitution that “The Committee recommends that the Board of Regents direct the Chancellor to purse a study…” If a full study cannot completed within the existing appropriation and time limit, then do a first phase and request additional funding from the 2025 legislature.

2a. Small Institution Factor (SIF) Inflationary Adjustment. Increase the SIF from $30 to $40 per WSCH and continue to adjust for inflation in future years using the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI).

2b. Increase SIF Cap to 125,000 WSCH. Increase the WSCH cap from 100,000 WSCH to 125,000 WSCH. 

[OR] 

2c. Increase SIF Cap to 150,000 WSCH. Increase the WSCH cap from 100,000 WSCH to 150,000 WSCH.

Background: The lack of an inflation factor and the fixed WSCH cap penalized GBC and WNC for growth and for the increased weightings for Career & Technical Education student credit hours. NFA proposes an alternative Administrative Allocation as a fixed dollar amount for all institutions of about $700,000 (inflation-adjusted in the future) to cover the minimum administrative staffing of a chief financial officer, chief academic officer, and human resources administrator.

NFA position: If these are the only options, the NFA supports 2a and 2c. However, we ask the Committee to consider a flat-dollar amount of $700K for each institution, inflation-adjusted using future COLAs for professional employees. Detailed analysis is in our June 24th recommendations (part E).

2d. Further Review of SIF. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to review the SIF calculation using headcount, rather than WSCH, and determine if an alternative calculation based on headcount should be utilized.

Background: Neither WSCH nor student headcount is directly correlated with the minimum administrative needs for a small institution. As an alternative NFA has proposed a fixed administrative allocation of about $700,000 based on the minimum administrative staffing of a chief administrative officer, chief academic officer, and human resources administrator, Detailed analysis is in our June 24th recommendations (part E). NFA opposes 2d as written.

Suggested Language: The Committee recommends that the current Small Institution Factor be eliminated and in its place an Administrative Allocation be appropriated prior to operating budget allocations by student headcount and credit-hour caseload factors. The amount of the Administrative Allocation for each institution should be about $700,000, adjusted in the future by Cost-of-Living Adjustments for faculty employees. This recommendation is contingent upon new funding ($4.9 million total); if new funding is not appropriated  Administrative Allocations should be provided only for the legacy small institutions (GBC and WNC).

3a. Use Student Attributes as a Component in Funding Allocation Methodology. Allocate a portion of the General Fund appropriation based on the following student characteristics: 1) total student term headcount enrollments and credit hours (including non-resident students), 2) under-represented minority student headcount enrollments and credit hours, and 3) Pell eligible student headcount enrollments and credit hours.

3b. Academic Preparation. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to begin efforts to determine the data elements appropriate to identify students who are not prepared for the rigors of college-level coursework to be used as an attribute in the student-based component of the funding allocation methodology. The determination of such data elements should be done in consultation with campus-level Institutional Research Offices to ensure the consistent availability of data or the consistent collection of such data elements going forward. It is recommended that this effort commence in sufficient time that such data can be available for use in the formula allocation for FY2028 and FY2029 (or the 2027 Session).

3c. Students in Poverty. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to begin efforts to determine the data elements appropriate to identify students who are in poverty to be used as an attribute in the student-based component of the funding allocation methodology. The determination of such data elements should be done in consultation with campus-level Institutional Research Offices to ensure the consistent availability of data or the consistent collection of such data elements going forward. It is recommended that this effort commence in sufficient time that such data can be available for use in the formula allocation for FY2028 and FY2029 (or the 2027 Session).

Background: NFA and several committee members requested that additional categories of at-risk students be included in the enhancement factors for student headcounts. We would also include students requiring disability resource services. NFA recommended that the weightings be based on estimated costs of providing needed student-support services. Furthermore, if this recommendation is intended to incorporate the detailed proposal by HCM Strategists (50% unweighted student credit hours and 50% student headcounts, both multiply counted for under-represented minority students and Pell-eligible students), then the Committee report should explicitly include that recommendation. 

The NFA supports 3a, 3b, and 3c with the proviso that the weightings be based on studies of the cost of student support services for the various listed categories of students plus those requiring disability accommodations. Using actual cost estimates is better than arbitrary weightings even if the estimates are imprecise. Also, the motion should refer to the details of the formula in the HCM Strategists proposal.

Suggested additional language: Include in the Committee report the details of the calculator of the student attributes component as proposed by HCM Strategists. For 3b and 3c, replace “Urge the Chancellor’s Office to…” with “Recommend that the Board of Regents direc the Chancellor to…”.

4a. Further Review of Summer School Student Credit Hours. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to review the budgetary and administrative implications of further expansion of state support for summer school course offerings, beyond nursing and teacher education.

Background: Several institutions, committee members, and NFA supported the inclusion of summer school courses in the Weighted Student Credit Hours (and Student Headcounts). However, there are complications and unintended consequences if the summer student fees that are currently in self-supported budgets were to be moved into the state operating budgets.

The NFA supports 4a, with inclusion of summer school courses in the Adequacy and Equity Study.

Suggested additional language: Replace “Urge the Chancellor’s Office to…” with “Recommend that the Board of Regents direct the Chancellor to…” and add “and include summer course offerings in the Funding Adequacy and Equity Study.”

5a. 3-Year Average of WSCH. Base the WSCH count for each year of measure on a 3-year average. Use the same caseload growth process the second year of the biennium, also based on the 3-year average figures.

5b. Greater of 3-Year Average or Prior Year. Base each institution’s WSCH count for each year of measure on a 3-year average or the prior year, whichever is greater. Use the same caseload growth process for the second year of the biennium, also using the same WSCH methodology as the first fiscal year of the biennium.

5c. Weight Most Recent Year in 3-Year Average Calculation. Base the WSCH count for each year of measure using a 3-year average and weight the most recent year higher.

Background: There was much Committee discussion about how to handle count years. NFA recommended against the three-year average because it increases the average lag period (e.g., 2021 through 2024 for the 2025-2027 budget versus the single count year of 2023-2024) and because it still treats even and odd years differently given biennial budgeting. NFA proposes using the higher of the prior two years. Because the second year of the biennium is budgeted in the prior legislative session, within the state budgeting process there is no way to adjust the numbers and budgets for the second year of the biennium

Among these alternatives, NFA prefers 5b but using a two-year average instead of three-year would better match the biennial state budgeting cycle and reduce the lag period.

Suggested Language: Amend 5b by changing “3-year” to “2-year”.

6a. Outcomes-Based Funding Component. Eliminate the current NSHE Performance Pool and replace it with an Outcomes-Based Funding (OBF) component in the funding allocation methodology, allocating the funds based on a relative growth calculation.

Background: There is near-universal opposition to keeping the current Performance Pool, which is a 20% carve-out of base funding that has to be earned back by meeting various target metrics. The relative growth model advocated by HCM strategists may be an improvement; it still is a carve-out although the funding can be calculated at budget-setting time. NFA argued that a 20% allocation is much too high and would be disruptive to budget planning. Several committee members at the May 30th meeting suggested allocations from 0% to 10%. This decision point is about using the relative growth model, not setting the relative percentages (see item 7).

NFA supports item 6a, but contingent on the percentage formula allocation being much lower than 20% (NFA recommends 5%) and contingent upon new initial funding. The Outcomes-Based Funding should be phased in over two biennia and be based on performance metrics that are not correlated with absolute student enrollment numbers, either student credit hours or student headcounts. Performance metrics should be measures of success relative to targeted student populations, relative efficiency measures, or full-time-faculty-to-student and advisor-to-student ratios. NFA recommends that the Committee include this item contingent on new initial funding; a delay of that funding until after new performance metrics can be implemented would be reasonable.

Suggested added language: This recommendation is contingent upon new appropriations for the OBF component of the formula, to be implemented in the first biennium that relative growth using new performance metrics can be determined. Performance metrics may vary by institution type but should not be directly correlated with student credit hours or student headcounts. The Committee report shall include the detailed methodology for calculating relative growth as proposed by HCM Strategists.

7a. 40%-40%-20% Component Mix. After SIF and research O&M are subtracted from the total General Fund appropriation, allocate the remaining General Fund appropriation as follows: 40% based on course weighted enrollments (WSCH); 40% based on student characteristics (described in recommendation 3a.); and 20% based on progression and outcomes (referred to as outcomes-based funding or OBF and described in recommendation 6a.).

7b. 45%-45%-10% Component Mix. After SIF and research O&M are subtracted from the total General Fund appropriation, allocate the remaining General Fund appropriation as follows: 45% based on course weighted enrollments (WSCH); 45% based on student characteristics (described in recommendation 3a.); and 10% based on progression and outcomes (referred to as outcomes-based funding or OBF and described in recommendation 6a.).

7c. 40%-50%-10% Component Mix. After research O&M and SIF are subtracted from the total General Fund appropriation, allocate the remaining General Fund appropriation as follows: 40% based on course weighted enrollments (WSCH); 50% based on student characteristics (described in recommendation 3a.); and 10% based on progression and outcomes (referred to as outcomes-based funding or OBF and described in recommendation 6a.).

7d. 60%-20%-20% Component Mix. After research O&M and SIF are subtracted from the total General Fund appropriation, allocate the remaining General Fund appropriation as follows: 60% based on course weighted enrollments (WSCH); 20% based on student characteristics (described in recommendation 2a.); and 20% based on progression and outcomes (referred to as outcomes-based funding or OBF and described in recommendation 6a.).

Background: The primary driver of redistribution of funding among the institutions is the percentage of the formula reallocated from resident Weighted Student Credit Hours to student attributes (with double or triple counting for underrepresented minority students and Pell-eligible students per item 2a).  NFA argued that the 40% allocation to the student attributes factors as recommended by HCM is much too high and does not match the reality that only an average of 8% of institutional budgets are allocated to Student Services. Also included in this decision point is the percentage allocated to Outcomes-Based Funding—committee members recommended 0% to 10% versus HCM’s recommendation of 20%.

Using the enrollment trend data provided in supplemental material for the work session, the following table compares the growth in WSCH, unweighted student credit hours, and student headcounts for the ten-year period from AY2013 to AY2023 (AY2024 was not used because the large one-year increase in concurrent enrollment at UNR skews the comparisons). Note that for every institution except NSU, the growth in headcounts has been slower (or negative) compared with the growth in weighted or unweighted student credit hours. That is probably a good thing because it means that students are completing a larger number of credits. However, this trend should serve as a caution against a large formula allocation to headcount measures especially given that future demographics point to decreasing enrollments.

10-Year Growth in Enrollment Measures 2013-2023
	UNLV	UNR	NSU	CSN	GBC	TMCC	WNC	Overall
WSCH	26%	16%	83%	0%	28%	14%	26%	19%
Unweighted SCH	23%	10%	92%	-8%	6%	-12%	1%	9%
Headcount	11%	9%	98%	-23%	4%	-14%	-3%	-3%

NFA recommends percentages of 75% based on WSCH, 20% on student attributes, and and 5% for Outcomes-Based Funding, with the change form 100% WSCH phased in over two biennia to give institutions time to adjust to the new formula and performance metrics. Of the four alternatives provided, 7d (60%/20%/20%) is better, but the Committee should not be restricted to staff suggestions in setting the percentages. 

Suggested language: After research O&M and [SIF or the Administrative Allocation] are subtracted from the total General Fund appropriation, allocate the remaining General Fund appropriation as follows: 75% based on course weighted enrollments (WSCH); 20% based on student characteristics (described in recommendation 3a.); and 5% based on progression and outcomes (referred to as outcomes-based funding or OBF and described in recommendation 6a.), phased in over two biennia. This recommendation is contingent upon a new appropriation equivalent to a 5% expansion of the base General Fund appropriation to fund the new OBF component (also phased in over two biennia). The 20% component for student attributes would be taken from the current formula allocation for WSCHs. Absent a new appropriation for the OBF component, the allocation would be 80% to WSCH and 20% to student attributes. 

8a. Implementation Strategy. Urge the Chancellor to consult with the Presidents to determine the phase-in approach that best supports the System and its institutions when implementing the funding formula distribution changes.

Background: HCM Strategists suggested several different options for the phase-in approach: 1) phase-in the new model over a defined period (e.g., fully implemented by the third biennium), 2) utilize a stop-loss provision establishing that no institution will lose more than X% in any given year of implementation, 3) fund a hold harmless provision. 

NFA position: The Committee should recommend specific implementation strategies. Leaving this up to the Chancellor and Presidents will just cause unnecessary confusion and political wrangling. NFA recommends the simple approach of phasing in the changes over two biennia AND hold-harmless funding for at least two biennia. The hold-harmless provisions should be relative to actual appropriations for FY2025, including enrollment recovery funds. 

Suggested language: The Committee recommends that the changes to the formula allocations percentages as adopted in item 7 be phased in 50% in the first biennium and 50% in the second biennium. The Committee recommends that institutional budgets be held harmless for at least the next two biennia relative to legislative appropriations in FY2025 including one-time enrollment-based appropriations (AB491 and AB494). The recommendations for items 7 and 8 are contingent upon hard-harmless funding and new funding for the allocation to Outcomes-Based Funding.

9a. Review Committee. Urge the Chancellor’s Office to create a formula review committee that convenes every two biennia to evaluate and propose any necessary changes to the funding formula allocation methodology.

The NFA supports item 9a, but changes to methodology should be limited to adjusting weightings in the WSCH formula to reflect instructional costs and the enhancement factors for at-risk student categories in the Student Headcount formula to reflect costs of student support, also taking into account the State’s economic and employment needs. Broader funding formula changes (e.g. the percentage allocations to WSCH, headcounts, and performance factors) should not be changed frequently. However, the details of the implementation of the new formula through the state budget process have not been fully considered by the Committee and will probably need oversight and revision, as well as the performance metrics for OBF. At least at the beginning of the implementation of the new formula, adjustments will be needed more often than every four years. The approval authority should be specified in the motion.

Another implementation concern is determining the proportions of state funding versus student revenue (currently 65%/35% overall but varying by institution), with inflationary factors applied to both. In addition, a minimum of 70% to 80% of student registration fees should go to fund instruction and student services, not be diverted to other functions such as intercollegiate athletics or capital improvements.

Suggested language: Recommend that the Board of Regents direct the Chancellor to create a formula review committee including faculty representatives that convenes every biennium to evaluate and propose any appropriate changes to the funding formula allocation calculations to reflect the cost of instruction based on course level and discipline, the cost of student support considering student attributes, and the economic and employment needs of the State. The formula review committee should also evaluate and make recommendations regarding the implementation of the funding formula in the budgeting process, including the relative proportion of state and student revenue and limits on the use of student registration fees for non-instructional purposes. The formula review committee shall be responsible for recommending performance factors for the Outcomes-Based Funding model. Upon approval by the Board of Regents, the recommendations of the formula review committee shall be reported to the Legislature and Governor.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Responses to HCM Strategists Recommendations
• Part 8. NFA Work Session Recommendations
• Part 9. Comments on Final Recommendations