At the latest PEBP Board meeting on Feb. 24th, the worst‑case scenarios from the actuary’s presentation didn’t materialize, but serious questions remain about the program’s financial status. It was clear, however, that the hundreds of public comments from state workers made a real impact. Thank you to everyone who showed up and spoke out!

Major Decisions Delayed Until March 19

No final decisions were made at this meeting. The March 19 rate-setting meeting will be crucial. With PEBP’s financials under review and major premium adjustments ahead, state workers should stay engaged and prepared to weigh in. The Board’s decisions next month will determine employee premiums and potential relief on out‑of‑pocket limits for the coming year. NFA will continue to keep members informed.

Plan Design and Rate Decisions in March

Because the underlying financial data is still in question (details below), the Board directed PEBP’s actuary to bring back options in March, including:

1. No additional plan design changes beyond those already approved in December—meaning the increased deductibles and out‑of‑pocket maximums remain, but no further benefits cuts will be added.
2. Project rates using current plan experience and inflation. This suggests that no new charges will be added specifically to rebuild reserves next year.
3. Re‑price the three plan options to match experience and eliminate cross-subsidization. Because of claims experience, the low‑deductible plan and the EPO/HMO plan are likely to see substantial premium increases for employees. 
4. A three‑year phase‑in of premium increases. This is intended to soften the impact—but increases are still coming.
5. Options to rescind December’s out‑of‑pocket maximum (OOPmax) increases. Thanks to a motion by Board members Blaine Harper (AFSCME) and Jennifer McClendon (NSHE North), the actuary will also present options for (a) rolling back the $1,000 / $2,000 OOPmax increase just for the high‑deductible plan; or (b) restoring the FY2026 OOPmax for all three plan options. Although their motion failed due to lack of cost data, both rollback options remain on the table for the March meeting.

High Uncertainty Over PEBP’s Financials

In written public comment for NFA (p. 921 of 1021), Kent Ervin pointed out errors and discrepancies in numbers provided by PEBP and its actuary. He asked, “How can any of the information and recommendations be trusted?”  The day before the meeting PEBP removed slides from the presentation regarding revenues and reserves. At the beginning of the meeting, Chair Jim Wells indicated (time 3:28)  that collections into the PEBP operating account may have been incorrect for the past 18 months. They "are hoping" to have a reconciliation in the next month. Segal, PEBP’s actuary, stated that monthly revenue is matching expenses for the first half of FY2026, which implies that previous statements about cash flow shortfalls were wrong. In an exchange during closing public comment (2:25:25), Wells indicated that they are investigating the source of incorrect state contribution amounts used by the actuary until now.

NFA and other public employee advocates are calling for an independent audit and review of PEBP’s accounting, budgeting, and rate-setting.

Chair Wells also criticized (2:35) public comments from union members. That was effectively rebutted by UNLV Professor Jorge Fonseca, who defended workers providing input in his public comment (19:24).

Media Coverage

The Nevada Independent: “Confusion over Nevada health insurance program’s finances clouds future for state workers. Officials admitted they are operating with incomplete financial information and cannot make insurance plan changes until the situation becomes clearer.”

KLAS 8 News:Looming insurance rate hikes cloud Nevada employees’ morale; ‘mass exodus’ coming? Ominously: “The Director of the Nevada Health Authority is exploring some new ways to purchase and provide coverage at the state level.”

KTNV 13 Las Vegas: State employees asking for clarity after confusion regarding health insurance plans

The Nevada Globe: Insurance Ultimatum: State Workers Warn of Resignations Over Looming Rate Hikes

beinsure.com: Nevada state workers push back on projected PEBP insurance increases

In public comments by Dr. Kent Ervin submitted to the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) Board for their February 24^th meeting, the NFA raises significant concerns about severe, unexplained fiscal discrepancies in PEBP’s projections for Plan Year 2027. Despite substantial increases in state funding approved by the Nevada Legislature and Governor, PEBP and its actuarial consultant, the Segal Group, are presenting revenue estimates that are approximately $100 million per year lower than what was budgeted. The NFA believes that this gap is neither adequately explained nor justified.

Dr. Ervin highlights repeated errors in PEBP and Segal’s previous presentations—including incorrect employer funding amounts and omissions of reserve data—and contends that these mistakes undermine confidence in the rate‑setting process. Because of these inaccuracies, the memo asserts that the Board should postpone any action on plan design or employee premiums until the financial projections can be validated.

Key concerns include:

• Revenue shortfalls: Segal’s projected revenues for FY2026 and FY2027 fall far below legislatively approved budget levels, despite increases in state subsidies and employee premiums. The memo questions Segal’s methodology and asks why revenue is lagging even when expenditures are on track.

• Lack of transparency and accountability: The memo argues that PEBP has not provided clear documentation explaining the discrepancies, and that “final” funding numbers used by Segal were available publicly a year earlier.

• Impact on employees: The proposed premium changes—especially shifting to percentage‑based premiums that vary by plan option and dependent tier—are described as inequitable. The memo highlights that some tiers, particularly families with children, would face disproportionately large increases. It also raises concerns about rising out‑of‑pocket maximums, which would hurt members with chronic health needs.

• Cross‑subsidization between plans: Under Segal’s proposed methodology, employer contributions would decrease for members enrolled in the high‑deductible plan—even though that plan already subsidizes richer plan options.

1. An independent audit of PEBP’s budgeting, accounting, and rate‑setting processes.
2. Phasing in any employee premium increases over at least three years, separating ongoing costs from temporary reserve restoration.
3. Maintaining the long‑standing flat‑dollar employer contribution policy rather than moving to percentage‑based premiums.
4. Protecting out‑of‑pocket maximums from further increases.
5. Examining more equitable alternatives, such as the memo’s own proposed model that retains flat subsidies and a three‑year phase‑in.

To address these issues, the NFA recommends:

The NFA calls on the PEBP Board to adhere to their stated values of affordability, accountability, fairness, compassion, and sustainability while addressing this “sudden fiscal crisis.” The resolution requires a comprehensive audit and demands transparency and accuracy. 

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) is calling on its members to take immediate action following alarming financial projections reported at the January 20, 2026, Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) Board meeting. At that meeting, PEBP officials disclosed a $45 million shortfall in mandatory reserves and warned that the program could face bankruptcy within five years if unaddressed.

A recent article in The Nevada Independent summarized the fiscal crisis facing Nevada’s public employee health plans.

During the January 20th meeting, the PEBP Board considered a proposal to increase member health care premiums by 84% beginning July 1, 2026. The Board postponed a final decision until a special meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 18 at 1:00 p.m.

PEBP has since informed the Legislature that the Board will evaluate additional alternatives to address the deficit.

NFA Calls on Members to Participate in Public Comment

The NFA is urging members to make their voices heard before the PEBP Board finalizes any decisions with major financial consequences for employees. Recommended actions include:

The deadline for written comment is 1:00 p.m. Monday, February 16, with live participation available at the February 18 meeting at 1:00 p.m.

The NFA emphasizes that member participation can influence outcomes at this critical moment.

READ MORE >>

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) issued a statement to the legislature’s Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee (meeting on January 27) warning that the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) is facing a serious financial crisis.

Fiscal Shortfall

PEBP mandatory reserve levels are deficient by tens of millions of dollars. Even more alarming, actuaries project PEBP could become insolvent and unable to pay all claims by FY2028 without additional revenue or benefit cuts. NFA’s statement analyzes the reasons for the shortfalls and how they developed.

Premium Hikes and Benefit Cuts are Likely

Restoring reserves in the next year would require an unreasonable 84% increase in employee premiums, according to the actuary. The PEBP Board will meet on February 18 to consider options including premium increases and benefit cuts.

What Must Happen

NFA urges state and PEBP leaders to:

• Restore reserves gradually over three or four years. The State must share the burden, and not rely entirely on employee premium increases or benefit cuts.
• Protect employees from added financial strain, especially after increases to outofpocket maximums already approved for FY2027, from $4000/$8000 (single/family) to $5000/$10000 for the high-deductible and low-deductible plan options
• Investigate the causes of both expense overruns and revenue gaps, and review reserve standards to ensure longterm stability. PEBP must be held accountable with full transparency in its budgeting and rate setting.
• Commit to a comprehensive funding solution during the 2027 legislative session.

Without appropriate action, PEBP could face the inability to pay medical claims within a few years—impacting tens of thousands of Nevada public workers, retirees, and families. The NFA stresses that the solution cannot rely solely on employee premium hikes or cuts to employee benefits.

In a January 23rd letter to its members, the Nevada Faculty Alliance expressed deep concern about escalating violence and apparent lawlessness associated with recent ICE actions in Minneapolis. The NFA highlighted the killing of poet and immigrant rights advocate Renee Good, reports of warrantless home entries, assaults on peaceful protestors, and troubling incidents involving children and families—developments that point to a broader national pattern of harm.

"Our students and their families are understandably experiencing heightened fear, vulnerability, trauma, uncertainty, and even physical and medical harms because of these ongoing assaults.”
— NFA Letter to Members

The NFA emphasized in its letter that immigration enforcement is not solely a political issue but also an education issue, with well documented impacts on student attendance and academic performance, especially within targeted communities. These effects are being felt directly across Nevada’s higher education system.

In alignment with its partners, including the AAUP and fellow labor organizations, the NFA continues to call for:

• Accountability for the killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti
• Immediate withdrawal of ICE operations from Minnesota
• No additional federal funding for ICE in the upcoming Congressional budget
• A full investigation into ICE’s human and constitutional rights violations
• An end to business and logistical support for ICE by Minnesota and national companies

Individuals seeking additional background can visit the AAUP’s page on “Political Attacks on Higher Education.”

The NFA remains steadfast in standing with its members, students, and all those affected by these ongoing injustices.

READ MORE >>
Do ICE Officers Have ‘Immunity’? - The Atlantic

ICE says its officers can forcibly enter homes during immigration operations without judicial warrants - NBC News

The Supreme Court clears the way for ICE agents to treat race as grounds for immigration stops - NPR

ICE Detains 5-Year-Old Boy and His Father Returning Home from Preschool, then Uses Boy 'as Bait' to Find Relatives - People

Detained Immigrants Detail Physical Abuse and Inhumane Conditions at Largest Immigration Detention Center in the U.S. - ACLU

Federal immigration enforcement near schools disrupts attendance, traumatizes students and damages their academic performance - The Conversation

At the January 20th meeting of the Nevada Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) Board, the Nevada Faculty Alliance highlighted several concerns about the program’s long‑term financial outlook based on new data from PEBP's actuary, the Segal Group.

The Segal report shows that PEBP’s reserves are tens of millions of dollars lower than recommended, as has previously pointed out by NFA. Future revenue projections for FY2028–29 appear flat while healthcare costs continue to rise, anticipating a potential funding crisis at PEBP if trends continue.

Segal also outlined an employee premium increase of 84% that would be needed to rebuild reserves in a single year in FY 2027. The NFA suggested that a gradual, multi‑year approach would help avoid large swings in participant premiums.

The report further noted long‑standing pricing inconsistencies among PEBP’s three health plan options. Recent enrollment shifts should have been revenue‑neutral under Board policy, but the report indicates they were not. The NFA encouraged a closer look at how these discrepancies developed.

Other trends—such as enrollment growth influencing revenue figures—indicate that more time is needed to fully understand the program’s current trajectory. Comparisons with other Western states show Nevada’s benefits are generally middle‑of‑the‑pack, though family‑tier premiums remain notably high.

The NFA emphasized that rebuilding reserves and realigning plan pricing will likely require coordination with the Governor and Legislature and recommended continued discussion in upcoming committee meetings.

PEBP will report to the legislature at the Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee on January 27 and a special PEBP Board meeting to consider additional changes in plan benefits is tentatively scheduled for February 18. Public comments from members are encouraged at both meetings.

Contacts for additional information: Kent Ervin, kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org; Doug Unger, doug.unger@nevadafacultyalliance.org

The Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) urges the Nevada Board of Regents to scrutinize conflicting budget narratives emerging from institutions within the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), citing widespread confusion and concerns about how proposed cuts and fee increases are being justified.

In a letter sent to the Board, NFA leaders say faculty across the state are hearing dramatically different accounts of the system’s financial condition—ranging from warnings of deep academic cuts to assurances that no budget crisis exists.

According to the letter, administrators at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) have suggested that as many as 90 academic faculty positions may be eliminated if student fees are not raised. Meanwhile, faculty at the College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) report being told by their administrations that no budget emergency is underway.

At the same time, the letter states that both Western Nevada College (WNC) and UNR are exploring new infrastructure investments even as they consider reductions to lower‑level positions. The NFA argues that these mixed messages have left faculty uncertain about the true state of NSHE finances.

“There seems to be some disagreement across institutions about what the state of the budget is and whether it is considered a fiscal emergency,” the letter notes. The organization is asking Regents to press for clarity and consistency in budget reporting and decision‑making.

The NFA also raises concerns about the systemwide budget proposal submitted to the Board of Regents. According to the letter, the plan does not eliminate any executive‑level positions across NSHE, even as it proposes cuts to administrative faculty earning between $40,000 and $80,000 annually.

“If a goal of the Regents is to tackle administrative bloat and unnecessary projects, it does not appear that NSHE’s proposed budget cuts are in alignment,” the letter states.

The faculty group argues that without transparent and consistent information, it is difficult for employees, students, and the public to understand the rationale behind proposed fee increases, staffing reductions, or new capital projects.

The Board of Regents is expected to continue budget discussions in the coming months as institutions prepare for the next legislative cycle.

The Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) Board met on December 12, 2025, to make decisions about plan design changes for Plan Year 2027, beginning 7/1/2026. Benefits are being reduced, but not uniformly by plan option. The following are the major changes from the current plan year for the self-funded PEBP plans.

High-deductible (“consumer-driven”) health plan with Health Savings Account:

• Increase the annual deductible from $1650/$3300 (individual/family) to $1700/$3400, the new IRS minimum for plans eligible for Health Savings Accounts.
• Increase the annual out-of-pocket maximum from $4000/$8000 (individual/family) to $5000/$10000. This will increase the costs for the 7% to 10% of participants who meet the out-of-pocket maximum, after which coinsurance does not apply.
• These changes decrease the expected actuarial value of the high-deductible plan from 79.0% to 77.0% (percent of covered charges paid by the plan, the remainder paid by the participants).

No action was taken on increasing the employer contributions to HSAs for the high-deductible plan to offset the higher deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, but that can still be considered at the January or March board meetings.

Low-deductible PPO health plan:

• Increase the annual deductible from $0/$0 (individual/family) to $300/$600.
• Increase the annual out-of-pocket maximum from $4000/$8000 (individual/family) to $5000/$10000.
• These changes decrease the expected actuarial value from 85.1% to 83.0%.

Exclusive Provider Organization plan (northern Nevada):

• Decrease the annual out-of-pocket maximum from $5000/$10000 (individual/family) to $4000/$8000.
• This change increases the actuarial value from 88.7% to 89.1%.

These changes will make the three self-funded plan options more differentiated, with a larger range of actuarial values. Not considering medical inflation, these changes are expected to reduce the total plan expenditures by $4 to $5 million—by shifting charges to participants who are meeting the current deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums. The PEBP Board modified the actuary’s proposal to increase the out-of-pocket cost on the high-deductible plan even more to $6000/$10000. The high-deductible plan is already subsidizing the other two plan options. The new actuarial values will directly affect total plan rates and employee premiums, which will be determined at the March board meeting. Total rates scale with actuarial values, so significant changes in employee premiums for the three plan options are to be expected. The board also was presented with but did not act upon proposed changes to the employer contributions from flat-dollar amounts across to the three plan options to a system with employed contribution percentages varying by plan option and dependent tier, which would also significantly affect employee premiums for play year 2027. Further consideration is expected in January or March.

A new pharmacy coupon program for in-hospital drugs, promoted to save money for both the plan and patients, was approved. Diagnostic breast imaging and colonoscopies will be covered at 100% (as for preventive services). Prior authorizations will no longer be required for biopsies, MRIs, and dialysis. The Board considered but did not approve enhancements to vision benefits and restoration of long-term disability insurance.

In good news for state employees, Carson Tahoe Hospital and UMR have finally agreed to extend their contract for in-network services for PEBP participants through 7/30/2027.

Kent Ervin and Doug Unger provided public comments at the board meeting. Kent’s written comments, including a discussion of PEBP’s deficient reserve levels, are available at the https://pebp.nv.gov/Meetings/archived-board-meetings/PEBP website.

Submitted by Kent Ervin 12/23/2025

At the September Quarterly meeting, the Board of Regents will decide on proposed changes to Title 4, Chapter 4 of their Handbook that govern the right for academic and administrative faculty to collectively bargain. NFA has long criticized that this internal system means that management gets to make the rules we bargain under and then decides to approve contracts or not. This is one reason why we have been working to obtain collective bargaining rights in state law (as we tried again this past legislative session with AB 191 to do), so that faculty have a level playing field to negotiate.

 The Regents voted to oppose AB 191 in the legislature, citing that complying with state granted rights and legal requirements (that other public state employees have in statute) would increase legal and other costs on NSHE (a claim NFA has refuted). Regents also justified that faculty do have the right to collectively bargain—under the Regents’ own rules in Title 4, Chapter 4 (T4C4). Even with the legislative set back of AB 191, the Regents have chosen this first Quarterly Board meeting under the new leadership of Chancellor Matt McNair along with Board of Regents Chair Byron Brooks and Vice Chair Stephanie Goodman to amend T4C4.

These changes come at a time when our colleagues at CSN and WNC have been in contract negotiations since November 2024, and when TMCC and NSU will be starting contract negotiations. In short, NSHE is changing the rules and processes by which negotiations occur in the middle of negotiations already taking place.

 NSHE is also choosing to amend individual sections of T4C4 one by one, with, according to their own briefing paper, more proposed changes to come. This means more potential rule changes throughout the year, resetting and delaying contract negotiations further for our institutions. The piecemeal approach makes this problem worse by creating ongoing uncertainty—negotiating parties cannot know what other rule changes might be coming, making it impossible to negotiate in good faith or plan strategically.

 The most troubling sections NSHE has proposed to update first are Sections 9 and 10 related to how contract items are funded—which constrains how and what faculty can negotiate for in the contract. Previously, Section 9 recognized that external funding (the state portion of our overall budgets) is part of the overall financial picture that negotiating parties on both sides should keep in mind. In the past, that means that faculty recognized those limitations and negotiated items that could be achieved through prioritizing other internal funds (student fees, etc.) that are under the control of the institution. If anything  might require more funding, NSHE could then account for and factor contracts into their budget request to the legislature.  The change in Section 9 assumes that all contract items that have costs have to be approved and funded by the State Legislature. Section 10 changes indicate that Regents cannot ratify contracts that do not have approved Legislative funding. Any item not funded by a legislative appropriation will be void and unenforceable (even if an institution might have the funds to internally provide it).

 In NFA’s interpretation, we highlight the following problems with the changes in Section 9:

• Section 9 fundamentally misapplies NRS 218D.430, which governs fiscal notes for legislative bills—not NSHE policies or collective bargaining agreements.
• The language of this NRS sets a threshold of $2000 to seek legislative appropriation. This means institutions would have to seek legislative approval for routine contractual items. Suddenly previous items in contracts (first aid kits paid for by administration, professional development funds, compensation for extra work calculations, etc.) would all need legislative oversight.
• This limits the ability of institutions to negotiate meaningfully on anything with the uncertainty of what could be (might be) funded by the legislature.
• This change also contradicts the 2025 Legislature's directive for NSHE to address its own revenue sources. The Legislature specifically conditioned AB 568 funding (to bridge budget deficits from the previous biennium’s COLA) on NSHE increasing non-state revenues. The proposed changes do the opposite by forcing NSHE to seek legislative appropriations rather than consider how student fees or other revenues are currently allocated or to consider the need to raise fees as needed to address budget needs.
• This forces contract negotiations to follow legislative session timetables instead of academic or contract cycles if they are dependent on legislative funding. If these changes pass, this means some contracts being negotiated now might not get ratified until after the 2027 legislative session.

NFA has consistently supported the right of faculty to collectively bargain; faculty retention and morale is higher when faculty have a say in their own working conditions as achieved through collective bargaining processes. NFA has also supported shared governance processes and seeking ways to have collegial negotiations with institution administration, based on known budget outlooks and conditions. The proposed changes to T4C4 would disrupt current and signal that Nevada is moving away from established labor rights, making our institutions less attractive to excellent faculty. At a time when Nevada's higher education needs to compete nationally for top talent, these changes send exactly the wrong message about our commitment to faculty stability and shared governance.

Throughout the session, NFA was tracking bills that had any and all NSHE connections.  Some bills (not listed here) were related to teaching or other professional licensure or practice compacts, or had very specific connections to specific programs (meat harvesting anyone?). We focused mostly on issues that impacted most institutions or that helped with educational access and attainment.

Notable bills that made it through the session include:

• AB 153: Offers financial aid information and assistance with filling out the FAFSA for incarcerated persons.

• AB 269: Student loan repayment for providers of health care in underserved communities.

• AB 286: Establishes pilot programs for NSHE institutions to assess competencies of teachers using alternative licensure paths.

• AB 289: “The Board of Regents may establish a course in financial literacy.” This single sentence bill indicates a curricular priority of the legislature. Most institutions testified in support as they already provide financial literacy education in some form (specific course at UNLV, programming in orientation weeks by other institutions, elective courses, etc.).

• AB 345: Assemblymember Mosca’s constituent interest bill requires NSHE to develop policies around open education or low-cost course resources (a priority of NSHE student government leaders), study food insecurity issues experienced by students, and for NSHE to create data dashboards to track Nevada high school student success in NSHE institutions including whether they enroll in co-requisite courses, find employment after graduation, and completion rates.

• AB 394: NSHE institutions must create emergency plans for addressing opioid overdoses. This type of program is already available at some institutions, so this would help bring similar resources to all institutions.

• AB 462: Creates a Career Pathways Oversight Committee that includes NSHE members with one charge to evaluate dual enrollment programs offered by institutions; another part of the bill provides for financial aid and scholarships for teachers of dual enrollment programs to pursue graduate education in NSHE institutions. 

• SB 266: Providers of behavioral health services in underserved areas offered student loan repayment.

• SB 293: Allows institutions to directly compensate student athletes for name, image, and likeness or enter into other contracts related to NIL with the athletes.

• SB 406: NSHE cannot be sued for issues related to education delivered in Spring 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Governor Vetoes Bills Related to Freedom to Read and Research

Governor Lombardo issued a lot of vetoes this session, including other bills supported by NSHE and NFA. AB 416 would have prevented banning or labeling books in NSHE libraries that Regents found offensive and would have required a developing policy to prevent limiting access to library resources. The bill also had similar provisions for K-12 and public libraries and would require anyone who wants to ban a book to go to court to make this request. The Governor vetoed this bill on the basis that it takes decision making out of parents and school district hands. Notably, Regent Boylan stated in the June quarterly meeting that he was very opposed to this bill (as he claimed it was nasty towards Regents), and was glad of the veto.

Lombardo vetoed two bills that were specifically brought forth by UNLV students (SB 156) and initiated by UNLV faculty (AB 328). SB 156 would address gun violence prevention and education by allowing the Attorney General to receive funds and provide grants for research on gun violence and prevention. This bill was amended over the course of the session with gun rights advocates first opposed for the state funding anything that might highlight negative impacts of guns and then opposed that funding would come from outside groups (such as Moms Demand Action) to fund gun violence prevention research. Knowing this bill was initiated by UNLV students and would support research efforts, NFA supported. Similarly, AB 328 would create a commission to study the impact of race and discrimination in Nevada and offer policy recommendations. The bill was also later amended to include a different committee related to Juneteenth. The Governor vetoed this bill solely due to the Juneteenth committee as that included a provision that local governments that celebrate Juneteenth should contribute to a Juneteenth Educational and Economic Fund. We wonder if the Governor would have still allowed the Racial Justice Study Committee to move forward.

Still Debating NSHE as the 4th branch of government

A last-minute bill (AB 600) aimed to clarify that different state agencies and boards are directly under a specific branch of government even though they might live in different parts of state statute. NSHE is one of those agencies that does have its own constitutional provision, so by a ruling of the Nevada Supreme Court, NSHE does technically operate autonomously from the Executive branch. Although the bill would not affect NSHE’s status, because the Nevada Supreme Court had not directly ruled on other agencies, the Governor vetoed this bill worried that it might be unconstitutional (and, we guess, affirms he sees NSHE as a fourth branch of government?). 

***

Articles in this series:

• A Recap of the 83rd Legislative Session by the NFA Government Relations Team
• The 83rd Legislative Session and the NSHE Budget: The Bills, Blow-Ups, and What Died
• [PREVIOUS] NFA's Report and Outlook on the 2025-2027 NSHE Budget 
• Higher Education Legislation of the 83rd Session
• [NEXT] The Board of Regents Vote to Suspend Merit for the Next Biennium
• Legislative Wins for Public Employees in the 83rd Legislative Session
• The Many Vetoed Collective Bargaining Bills by Governor Lombardo