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.
