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

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?

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.

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.

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.  

As of August 2024, the Nevada Faculty Alliance remains neutral on Question 1 but the NFA State Board is seeking input from members on whether to take a position to endorse, oppose, or remain neutral.  Opinion articles in support of and in opposition to Question 1 from NFA members have been posted on the NFA website. 

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.

 

 

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).