At the April 24, 2024, special meeting of the Board of Regents, the Board voted 8-4 to oppose AB 191, which would enshrine the right to collectively bargain in state law for Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) faculty, graduate assistants, and other professional staff. NSHE professionals comprise the largest group of state public employees without collective bargaining rights in statute. To say NFA is disappointed in this outcome is an understatement as this signals that the majority on the Board are opposed to collective bargaining even as they noted “gaps” in current processes that leave workplace conflicts unresolved for both faculty and graduate assistants.

During over 1.5 hours of oral public comments and in written public comments, over 50 graduate assistants and faculty members spoke passionately for the need for collective bargaining to improve employment conditions for academic workers.

Amy Pason, Chair of the NFA Government Relations Committee, stated, “It is ironic that the Regents both decried that problems have gone on so long for both graduate assistants and faculty that we have been advocating for collective bargaining rights for four legislative sessions, but then for Regents to oppose the bill based on not having resources to adequately address workplace harassment and complaints.”

The Regents who voted to oppose AB 191 cited the high fiscal note created by NSHE, and that their fiduciary responsibility demanded them to oppose a bill that would cost the System money in an uncertain budget year. Interim Chancellor Charlton said in the meeting that she stands by the fiscal note even though NFA has documented and rebutted what we see as inflated and unnecessary costs.

Charlton noted that to be able to implement the provisions in AB 191, even if no new bargaining units formed immediately, NSHE would need additional lawyers specializing in labor law to be ready to negotiate any new contracts. NSHE says they need additional human resources personnel to be able to train supervisors on worker’s rights, to onboard new professionals and instruct them on their rights and procedures, and then to be able to address workplace complaints as, for units with bargaining agreements, AB 191 expands the scope of grievance and give access to formalized grievance procedures than what is currently provided for in NSHE policy.

Co-Vice Chair of the NFA Government Relations Committee, Ian M. Hartshorn stated, “This response from NSHE is precisely why we need collective bargaining in the first place. After dozens of public comments about the failure of existing systems and policies, their response was to argue workers should continue to use the same systems and policies.” He added, “NSHE’s lawyers believe that collective bargaining is too costly, we believe the status quo is. Collective bargaining is effective and necessary.”

NFA has noted that NSHE is likely to save money on costly litigation and pay outs from conflicts that escalate. They argue that collective bargaining agreements and access to a third-party arbiter when needed better address workplace grievances.

Kent Ervin, NFA Director of Government Relations, who has worked on NFA’s collective bargaining bill for the last four sessions, underscored that the current internal NSHE policy for collective bargaining applies only for a limited group of faculty to bargain under limited conditions. Ervin argued, “With collective bargaining for faculty only allowed through an internal policy of the Board of Regents, NSHE management and management lawyers control the interpretation and the ground rules for bargaining. That is a clear conflict of interest. ”

Although NSHE Deputy General Counsel Carrie Parker noted differences between AB191 and NSHE’s internal regulations at the meeting, NSHE has not submitted amendments to correct any deficiencies it perceives in AB191. The Board of Regents has now taken a position in opposition to AB191 without seeking amendment, even if the bill is revised to include a funding appropriation when it is heard by the Assembly Committee on Ways & Means.

NFA maintains that NSHE professionals deserve equal rights to other state public employees and only AB 191 can achieve that.

The NFA is urging members of the Board of Regents to support Assembly Bill 191 (AB191), the Collective Bargaining for NSHE Professionals bill, at their special meeting on April 24th. The bill seeks to give more than 7,200 education professionals in the Nevada System of Higher Education - the single largest group of public employees in Nevada without collective bargaining rights in state law - the same protections as their state coworkers.

On April 18th, NFA's Government Relations Committee sent the following letter to members of the Board of Regents, NSHE administrators, and student and faculty leaders:

Voting for officers on the Nevada Faculty Alliance's State Board begins on April 18, 2025. All NFA members in good standing will receive a ballot via email from ElectionBuddy.com. Voting will remain open until May 2nd. The newly-elected officers will take office on June 1st and serve two-year terms.

Candidate statements are provided below.

Office: President
Candidate: Staci Walters, College of Southern Nevada

To all of my NSHE colleagues, I am honored to run for President of our Nevada Faculty Alliance. For nearly eight years, I’ve had the privilege of serving on the NFA State Board in several roles—Secretary, CSN-NFA Chapter President proxy, and State Collective Bargaining Chair—working in partnership with faculty statewide to strengthen our voice, defend our rights, and build a more empowered higher education community in Nevada.

At the College of Southern Nevada, I’ve served as CSN-NFA Vice President, Membership Chair, and Collective Bargaining Chair, and I’m currently Lead Negotiator on our third collective bargaining agreement. Through strong teamwork and member engagement, we’ve secured tangible wins—raising faculty salaries, protecting due process rights, and achieving significant salary increases for new hires. Over the past eight years, we’ve also grown our chapter’s membership by nearly 30%, showing the power we have when we organize together.

I’m running for NFA President because I believe the challenges we face—both here in Nevada and across the country—demand coordinated, statewide leadership rooted in collaboration and shared purpose. Academic and administrative faculty alike are experiencing growing pressure from shifting federal policies, including the proposed elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, sweeping changes to Title IX, and deep cuts to research funding. These attacks are part of a broader movement to undermine public higher education, weaken faculty voice, and destabilize our institutions.

We must be proactive and united in our response.

As NFA President, my goals include:

• Growing statewide membership, with an emphasis on advocacy chapters at UNLV, UNR, GBC, and DRI, to build power and move more campuses toward collective bargaining rights.
• Supporting local chapters through membership drives, organizing efforts, and training from our national affiliates, tailored to each chapter’s unique needs.
• Expanding collective bargaining to more faculty across the state—because when we bargain together, we win together.
• Advocating for academic freedom, fair compensation, and job security—especially as national forces threaten these core values.
• Embedding transparency and accountability both within NSHE and within our own organization, so we can better serve all faculty.
• Elevating the voices of both academic and administrative faculty, recognizing that all of us play a critical role in shaping the future of Nevada’s higher education system.

Now more than ever, we need to stand together—to defend what we’ve built, to fight for what we deserve, and to ensure that Nevada remains a place where faculty are respected, supported, and empowered.

I ask for your vote, and more importantly, for your partnership as we continue this vital work together.

Office: Vice President
Candidate: Andrew Lavengood, Nevada State University

I am currently finishing my term as Vice President of Membership & Organizing for NFA-NSU. During my past 2 years in this role, I successfully organized and led a collective bargaining drive, resulting in the formation of a collective bargaining unit here at Nevada State University on April 2nd, 2025. We won in a landslide, with 95% of voting faculty (which translates to 85% of all faculty) casting a "yes" vote. My goal is to bring this expertise and experience to the Vice President position on state board. I would like to refocus the state board's energy on organizing and membership, so that we can build our power from our members. It is important to do this in a grassroots manner, as I did at NSU. For this reason, I intend to meet with each of the chapters to hear your issues, understand your faculty, and help develop strategies for engaging with, organizing, and building your membership. I hope you will provide me with the opportunity to serve our faculty in this vital capacity.

Office: Secretary
Candidate: Joey Ray, University of Nevada, Reno

Hello, my name is Joey Ray, and I am a candidate for the secretary position for the NFA. I have been a member of the NFA for over eight years and am the current state NFA secretary. I also served as a member of the NFA board for the University of Nevada, Reno chapter, and am currently on the executive board as a representative from the College of Business. I also led the NFA website redesign a few years back and helped organize the database.

I have been at the University of Nevada, Reno as a lecturer since Fall 2016. I was an LOA for one semester, and have been a lecturer since Spring 2017. I currently teach human resource management and strategic human resource management. I have also taught organizational behavior, business communication, compensation, salary & benefits, business law, personal branding, and project management.

I have also worked in the private sector for over 20 years. I have worked for companies such as the Walt Disney World Company, Lowe’s Home Improvement, Premier Parks, Austin Wranglers, SFE International, Gallagher, and API, among others. I have worked in operations management, supply chain management, marketing, and mainly, human resources. I have also held a secretary position in many volunteer organizations and committees in the past as well.

At the university level, I am currently in the following committees: Athletics Committee, Department Curriculum, and Department Outreach. In addition, I am the club advisor for the Management and Human Resource Association (MHRA) student club on campus. My vision for the NFA going forward is an organization that continues to expand its reach among the different campuses to represent all the different types of employees. I would like to continue to see the NFA be strongly involved in the legislative process and continue to work to make sure that our voices are heard so the Nevada System of Higher Education is more faculty and staff friendly and focused. As the secretary, it will be my job to communicate all the legislative updates, get information to the members, take good meeting minutes, and all other duties as assigned. I will make sure to be an effective, timely, and accurate secretary.

At the direction of the board, I plan to communicate in a clear and concise manner the items that matter to our members. I also want to help continue to keep the NFA organized and orderly, and work towards broadening our influence in the great state of Nevada.

Thank you for your consideration.

Office: Treasurer
Candidate: Greta de Jong, University of Nevada, Reno

I am a professor and chair of the history department at UNR. I have been an NFA member since I was first hired as an assistant professor in 2002 and joined the Executive Board of the UNR chapter in 2019. For the past year I have served as Vice President of our chapter. With my fellow board members, I have worked to recruit new members, build support for collective bargaining, organize social and educational events, and develop a guide for faculty facing disciplinary proceedings. I believe higher education is a public good and an essential element in a healthy democracy. I am committed to NFA's mission and look forward to serving as state treasurer if elected.

Tales of the Legislature: Weaponization of Fiscal Notes 

The NFA has proposed two bills – Assembly Bills 188 and 191 – to the Nevada Legislature. AB 188 proposes restoring retiree health benefits to post-2011 hires and retirees on the PEBP Medicare Exchange, while AB 191 seeks to establish collective bargaining rights for NSHE professionals, including faculty and graduate assistants. Both measures have encountered substantial cost estimates from the relevant agencies – costs that may be overinflated or designed to discourage legislative support.

What are Fiscal Notes?

When a bill is introduced at the Nevada Legislature, the Legislature’s fiscal staff requires that relevant government agencies provide a fiscal note showing the budgetary impact of the proposed legislation. Fiscal notes play an important role in the process as they provide legislators with information about potential costs. When a piece of legislation has a recognized cost, it needs to be funded to ultimately be successful. If a bill has a fiscal note, it will be referred to the budget committees, Assembly Ways & Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee, for consideration of an appropriation to fund the legislation. 

Weaponization of Fiscal Notes

Fiscal notes can be misused in a variety of ways. For example, those seeking to kill a bill or extract concessions can attach unrealistically high dollar amounts. Agencies may use fiscal notes to request staffing increases denied in the normal budget process. Short deadlines for agencies’ fiscal notes also contribute to inflated estimates—it may be easier to calculate a worst-case scenario than to do a full analysis. Ongoing staffing shortages likely mean that some agencies struggle to carry out this analysis even if they want to.

Weaponized fiscal notes are especially problematic in sessions with a budget shortfall, when bills with fiscal notes often die in budget committees. If agencies submit exaggerated fiscal notes, there is no mechanism for an independent review and modification of fiscal notes other than a hearing in front of a budgetary committee. The bill’s sponsor and proponents then must attempt to negotiate away the fiscal notes, either by conversations with the agencies or by amending the bill to avoid the fiscal impact.

AB 188 - Restoration of State Retiree Health Benefits

State employees hired after 2011 will receive no health benefits when they retire, while earlier hires receive a contribution from the state toward Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP)  premiums or Medicare costs. As explained by the NFA’s fact sheet on AB 188, restoring benefits from the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) for state retirees would stabilize the retiree health fringe rate (currently around 2.50% of all state salaries), rather than letting it decrease in future decades as post-2011 hires begin to retire after the minimum 15 years of service. No savings from these cuts have yet been realized, and restoring these benefits would merely keep budgets in line with current costs.

PEBP attached a fiscal note of $1,024,975 in FY2027 and $2,486,075 in future biennia for AB 188. The request includes four new staff positions, a 12% increase from their currently funded 34 positions, even though PEBP projects an increased caseload of only 0.15% in FY2027 and perhaps 2.0% over 10 years. The amount of over one million dollars is unclear, since PEBP did not provide an itemization. While PEPB may need increased staffing, AB 188 does not add significantly to its caseload. Because the fiscal note does not itemize expenses, we cannot determine whether other projected costs are reasonable.

AB 191 - Collective Bargaining for NSHE Professional Employees

AB 191establishes collective bargaining in state law for Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) professionals, including faculty and graduate assistants. NSHE’s fiscal note on AB 191 includes $840,000 in FY2026, $1.7 million in FY2026, and $3.5 to $6.3 million in future biennia. These projections appear to be based on the assumption that all eligible employees – and some not eligible under AB 191 – would form bargaining units within the next two or three years. This is highly unlikely, since only four bargaining units have formed in the last 50 years – these four units represent 14% of all eligible employees, fewer than 1,000 of 7,200 eligible faculty.

NSHE’s fiscal note claims that the implementation of AB 191 would require 20 new staff, including seven labor attorneys. In contrast, the State’s Labor Relations Unit (LRU) for the 12 bargaining units for 19,000 Classified employees has only two attorneys and four other employees to handle collective bargaining negotiations, contract administration, and litigation. NSHE’s staffing requests are highly exaggerated.

The current faculty bargaining units at NSHE (CSN, TMCC, and WNC) are handled by existing administrators and human resources, and since NSU's new bargaining unit has already formed under NSHE’s internal regulations for collective bargaining, AB 191 does not add to any future negotiation costs for these four bargaining units. In addition, only one new bargaining unit, for graduate assistants, would be likely in the next year if AB 191 is enacted. 

NSHE’s projected high staffing needs and costs could represent: 

• An attempt to make AB 191 unaffordable and kill the bill; 
• An attempt to slow down the formation of new bargaining units even under the old rules citing budget constraints;
• An expectation that NSHE will be defending against a great number of prohibited labor practices by NSHE institutions; 
• A desire to deploy a team of labor lawyers for anti-union activities; or 
• A lack of understanding of collective bargaining. 

With its costly fiscal note, NSHE is approaching collective bargaining with an adversarial mindset. That is an unfortunate choice. Collective bargaining does not need to be adversarial, time intensive, or costly. Professional employees who seek to join together do so out of a desire to have a stronger voice in their workplace. Nevada’s higher education employers should embrace the opportunity this bill provides to strengthen relationships and improve collaboration. NSHE should only expect increased costs to defend themselves if they interfere with workers’ efforts to organize or if they refuse to recognize employee collective bargaining rights under the law. The employer can avoid the costs of defending themselves against prohibited practice charges by committing not to violate the law.

NFA’s summary of AB 191 cites studies that show that faculty unionization is actually associated with lower institutional costs and improved student outcomes.

Moving Forward

For both PEBP and NSHE, some modest additional costs and appropriations may be reasonable. NFA has been ready to discuss reasonable expectations (as we have in previous sessions) but neither agency has moved from their fiscal notes.

NFA members celebrate the historic vote to establish collective bargaining rights for faculty at Nevada State University in Henderson.

Faculty at Nevada State University are celebrating today after winning the right to collectively bargain for a safe workplace, for faculty voice in decision-making through shared governance, and to address low and stagnant wages. The American Arbitration Association certified that an overwhelming majority of the roughly 120 faculty voted "yes" in the in-person election that took place April 1-2, by a vote of 104 to 8.

Nevada State University faculty have formed the fourth collective bargaining chapter of the Nevada Faculty Alliance, joining hundreds of colleagues who are members of the AFT and American Association of University Professors across the state, and more than 1.8 million members of the AFT across the United States. The AFT is the largest higher education union in the country. The AAUP represents faculty and other higher education professionals and has defended and advanced higher education since 1915.

Corey Fernandez, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology and Counseling, said, "This win is the result of countless conversations, collective courage and a faculty who care deeply about one another, our students and the mission of Nevada State University. We are so proud to have reached this point—and even more excited to begin the next chapter: negotiating a contract that protects what we love about NSU and ensures it remains a place where we can all thrive."

Despite challenging union election regulations imposed on public higher education workers in Nevada, faculty organizers persevered, winning an overwhelming majority of faculty support for their union. Having won their election, faculty members will now turn their attention to negotiating a strong first contract.

"This work could not have been done without the countless hours of organizing, research and outreach executed by faculty on our Collective Bargaining Organizing Committee. I have had the distinct pleasure of working with and leading some of the most incredible people at Nevada State over the past year and half, and it is so fulfilling to see all of that work come together," said Andrew Lavengood, lecturer of Mathematics in the Department of Data, Media and Design. "We look forward to negotiating with NSU administration directly for a fair, collaborative contract that protects faculty needs."

"Faculty understand that now more than ever we need to be united to advocate for ourselves, our students and our professions. The small college culture of collegiality that was the hallmark of this effort is the culture faculty were trying to preserve by voting for our union," said Pete Martini, president of NSU-NFA.

AAUP President Todd Wolfson said: "In joining together in a union, the faculty are laying the foundation to improve faculty working conditions and student learning conditions at Nevada State University. They are also part of the nationwide union movement at a time when our work to defend workers and higher education has never been more important. We welcome them!"

AFT President Randi Weingarten said: "Today's vote shows that the Nevada State University faculty want a real voice at work. Their perseverance is a testament to their commitment to the university and to fighting for the funding and resources they and their students need. While President Trump and Elon Musk attempt to ban federal employees' collective bargaining rights, gut federal services and attack the whole idea of the college promise, we stand with Nevada State University faculty in their fight for the right to collectively bargain for a safe workplace, a voice in decision-making and the compensation they deserve."

The Nevada Faculty Alliance at Nevada State University is affiliated with the Nevada Faculty Alliance, the American Association of University Professors and the AFT.

Assembly Bill 188: Restore Retiree Health Benefits for State Employees

• AB 188 restores retiree health benefits for state employees hired after 2011 and for PEBP Medicare Exchange retirees.
• State employees hired after the Great Recession deserve the same benefits as those hired in better economic years.
• Robust retiree health benefits are needed to compete with other Nevada public employers, especially to retain  mid-career employees, who carefully consider health care and retirement benefits.

Problems: Cuts to retiree health benefits are unfair to newer state employees and hurt retention

• When state employees hired after 2011 retiree they will receive no retiree health benefits through the Public Employees Benefits Program (PEBP).  Because none of these state employees have met the minimum of 15 years of service for the retiree benefit, , this has resulted in no cost savings for the State.
• In 2011, retirees on Medicare were removed from PEBP coverage and required to buy supplemental coverage through a private exchange. Instead of secondary PEBP plan coverage, Medicare retirees only receive a contribution in their Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). The HRA contribution has not been increased since 2015 and has not kept up with cost increases for Medicare B premiums and Medigap insurance.
• A retiree's ability to drop PEBP coverage (e.g., due to coverage from other employment or through a spouse) and rejoin was reduced to once in a lifetime.
• Retiree HRA account balances are capped at $8,000, which means they have fewer funds for out-of-pocket costs or catastrophic health events.

Solutions: AB 188 reverses cuts to retiree health benefits for state employees

• Restore retiree health benefits for employees hired after December 31, 2011. These employees would receive subsidies for PEBP health benefits upon retirement and after at least 15 years of service. [Sec. 3]
• Encourage the Governor and Legislature to provide equitable subsidies to PEBP Medicare Exchange retirees. Require PEBP to calculate and report the cost of supplemental insurance to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to those for pre-Medicare PEBP retirees [Sec. 1].
• Allow retirees to reinstate PEBP coverage aftermore than one gap [Sec. 4].
• Prohibit PEBP from capping HRA balances for Medicare Exchange retirees [Sec. 3(7)].

Cost analysis: Minimal impact on fringe rate for retiree health benefits

Retiree health benefits are paid by a fringe-rate assessment on all state salaries, which averaged 2.50% since FY2010. Because the number of retirees relative to the total salary base will not change, the fringe rate should remain about the same with AB 188.

January 1, 2027, is the earliest that post-2011 state hires could retire with the minimum 15 years of service to receive a subsidy under AB 188. PEBP estimates 73 such retirees in FY2027, compared with a total PEBP state retiree population of 12,776. That would raise the fringe rate by only 0.01% (from 2.50% to 2.51%) for FY2027 (Fig. 1), which the Retired Employee Group Insurance Fund could absorb. PEBP predicts a total of about 1,000 additional retirees over 10–12 years, which could raise the fringe rate by 0.2%, but that may not consider the natural decrease of retirees hired before 2011. The cost of restoring retiree health benefits is very modest, and no general fund appropriation for 2025–2027 should be required. PEBP's fiscal note request for four new staff positions over its current 34 positions is not justified by a 0.15% projected increase in caseload in FY 2027 (73 out of 49,200 covered employees and retirees) or up to a 2.2% increase after 10 years (1000 out of 49,200).]

Removing the cap on HRA balances and allowing more than one reinstatement will have little fiscal impact.

AB 188 increases the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) accounting liability that must be reported (Fig. 2), but the Treasurer's Office has indicated that AB188 is unlikely to affect the state's credit ratings. PEBP has always been on a pay-as-you-go basis, and AB 188 will not change that. 

Fig. 1. Historical fringe rate assessments for state retiree health benefits, FY2010-2027. The retiree health fringe rate has varied from 2.13% to 3.18% since FY2010, and per GovRec it will be 2.59% in FY2026 and 2.50% in FY2027. The average is 2.50% of state salaries, paid by the employing agency funding source and deposited into the Retired Employees' Group Insurance (REGI fund 1368). Transfers from the REGI fund to PEBP pay for retiree benefits. The projected increase in the fringe rate due to AB 188 is  0.01% in FY2027 and 0.2% or less long term, smaller than the year-to-year fluctuation from other sources.

Fig. 2. Reported Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) accounting liability for PEBP from FY2008 to 2024. The OPEB liability declined after the major cuts to retiree benefits in 2011, primarily moving Medicare retirees to the private insurance exchange. According to the fiscal note from PEPB, the partial restoration of retiree benefits in AB 188 would increase the OPEB future liability by $179 million, from $1.46 billion to $1.64 billion (upon enactment). The Office of the State Treasurer has indicated that the increase in the OPEB liability from AB 188 is unlikely to change the state's credit ratings. PEBP is on a pay-as-you-go-basis; no annual payments against the future liability are being made or contemplated.

[Updated 4/16/2025 using enrollment data from the PEPB Budget Closing on 4/15/2025.]

At its meeting on March 30, 2025, the Public Employees' Benefits Program set rates for the FY2026 plan year beginning on 7/1/2025. Although the employee premium for the least-expensive High-Deductible Preferred Provider Plan (PPO) will not change, employee premiums for other plan options and dependent tiers will increase by up to 23%.  The table below lists the new premiums.

Most plan benefits will remain the same. For the High-Deductible PPO, the deductible will increase from $1600/$3200 to $1650/$3300 (Employee-Only/Family) and the Health Savings Account (HSA) contribution will increase from $600 to $700 plus $200 per dependent up to three dependents.

PEBP EMPLOYEE PREMIUMS (per month)
High-Deductible PPO with HSA	FY25	FY26	Change
Employee Only	$55	$55	0%
Employee + Spouse	$272	$314	15%
Employee + Children	$136	$152	12%
Employee + Family	$352	$411	17%
State Contribution Percent Employee	92.3%	93.5%
State Contribution Percent Dependents	69.1%	69.0%
Zero-Deductible PPO with Copays	FY25	FY26
Employee Only	$86	$92	6%
Employee + Spouse	$331	$387	17%
Employee + Children	$178	$202	14%
Employee + Family	$424	$498	18%
State Contribution Percent Employee	88.6%	89.6%
State Contribution Percent Dependents	66.8%	66.1%
HMO/EPO Plans	FY25	FY26
Employee Only	$181	$220	21%
Employee + Spouse	$523	$643	23%
Employee + Children	$310	$379	22%
Employee + Family	$652	$802	23%
State Contribution Percent Employee	78.7%	78.3%
State Contribution Percent Dependents	59.2%	57.5%
Employer Contributions--all plans	FY25	FY26
Employee Only	$660	$794	20%
Employee + Spouse	$1,143	$1,370	20%
Employee + Children	$841	$1,010	20%
Employee + Family	$1,325	$1,585	20%
State or Agency Subsidy Per Employee	$759	$991	31%

Note that although the employee subsidy per employee (paid by the employee's funding source) is increasing by 31% from $759 per $991 month, PEBP's contributions toward individual rates are increasing only by 20%.  The difference will apparently be used to replenish depleted mandatory reserves funds, although PEBP staff did not present any information on the speed at which reserves will be built back up.

Frequently Asked Questions on Assembly Bill 191

This FAQ on AB 191 addresses questions and corrects misperceptions of AB 191.

What is AB 191?

Assembly Bill 191 would establish regulations for collective bargaining for NSHE professional employees in Chapter 288 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, similar to those for local government employees and state Classified employees (including Classified staff at NSHE).

Where is AB 191 in the legislative process?

AB 191 had its first hearing in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on March 5, 2025.  The next step is a work session to vote the bill out of committee. It is then expected to be re-referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways & Means for consideration of fiscal issues.

Update: AB 191 was passed by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and has been re-referred to Ways & Means for a fiscal hearing. It is exempt from deadlines.

Don’t NSHE faculty already have collective bargaining?

Since the mid-1970s, the Board of Regents has allowed collective bargaining for faculty under its own constitutional authority. However, Title 4 Chapter 4 (T4C4) of the NSHE Handbook has not had a major update since 1990 and it has not kept up with changes in collective bargaining statutes for other public employees in Nevada. It also does not match current practices for the existing faculty collective bargaining units at CSN, NSU, TMCC, and WNC.  For example, T4C4 states there is a single bargaining unit for the community colleges, but de facto there are three separate negotiations and three collective bargaining agreements approved by the Board of Regents at the three community colleges with faculty bargaining units.

Couldn’t the Regents just update Title 4 Chapter 4 of the Handbook?

In principle, yes, but NFA has been seeking revisions to update and modernize T4C4 since 2022 to no avail–the proposals have not even been agendized for Board discussion. Regardless, only the Legislature can authorize important pieces of the provisions for collective bargaining and labor relations that other Nevada public employees have in NRS 288; for example, access to the state Employee-Management Relations Board for efficient resolution of disputes over contract provisions. T4C4 currently limits conflict resolution to fact finding and mediation while AB 191 also provides for arbitration. We see expanded conflict resolution options as positive. AB 191 creates a level playing field for negotiations between professional employee associations and management.

Would AB 191 expand the number of NSHE employees with collective bargaining agreements?

Not by itself.  AB 191 provides the framework for organizing bargaining units, the first step toward negotiating a collective bargaining agreement.  With AB 191, groups of professional employees with a shared community of interest could come together and ask for recognition and for NFA or another employee association to represent them.  

Would AB 191 increase the number of NSHE employees with collective bargaining from 930 to 22000 (as implied by Deputy Counsel Carrie Parker at the March 7th Board meeting)?

No. The current number of NSHE employees eligible to form bargaining units includes 2500 Classified employees, 3200 full-time academic faculty, and about 4000 full-time non-managerial administrative faculty (total of about 9700 employees). Under AB 191, the additional eligible employee groups would include about 2400 graduate assistants, 550 postdocs and medical residents, 53 DRI technologists, and an unknown number of part-time instructors (LOAs) and hourly workers who work over 160 hours per year (more than one 3-credit course for LOAs). The 22000 number quoted by NSHE is an exaggeration–it appears to be the headcount of all NSHE employees other than Classified staff and Executives, including part-time and temporary workers who would be excluded by AB 191.  

The number of members of the current faculty bargaining units at CSN, NSU, TMCC, and WNC is about 870.  The new bargaining unit at NSU adds 126 academic faculty, for a total of under 1000. That is, 33 years after the first faculty bargaining unit formed at TMCC only 14% of the eligible 7200 faculty employees have chosen to form bargaining units by a majority vote.

By their nature, collective bargaining agreements are collective, group contracts, not individual faculty contracts where the workload would scale with the number of employees. So although 1000 faculty are members of bargaining units, there are only four CBAs to be negotiated and managed.

How would the number of NSHE employees with collective bargaining agreements increase with AB 191?

By itself, AB 191 does not increase the number of collective bargaining agreements from the current four at CSN, NSU, TMCC, and WNC, with a total of about 1000 faculty members in those bargaining units. New bargaining units would first have to be established under the rules of AB 191, then negotiations would ensue leading eventually to new agreements. 

How many new bargaining units are likely to form under AB 191?

Beyond the four current faculty bargaining units at CSN, NSU, TMCC and WCN organized under the T4C4 rules, Graduate Assistants represented by the Nevada Graduate Student Workers-UAW union are seeking recognition. Graduate Assistants are asking NSHE to ‘count their cards’ showing their super majority. Organizing any units beyond those will be a deliberative and democratic process, often taking a few years.

Even in the unlikely scenario that all eligible professionals chose to organize, the total number of bargaining units would likely be fewer than a dozen bargaining units. Some employees are challenging to organize, some might not want to. The principle we hold is that all employees should have equal rights and equal terms. AB 191 rationalizes and simplifies the process not only for workers, but for NSHE, too.

Because Section 25 of AB 191 establishes a presumption that academic faculty bargaining units will be formed within each institution, there are four additional possible academic faculty units (DRI, GBC, UNLV, and UNR academic faculty).  Other occupational groups such as Graduate Assistants would presumptively have a single bargaining unit statewide, but ultimately the membership of bargaining units results from consultation between NSHE and the professional organization seeking to be designated as an exclusive representative.

Can’t UNLV, UNR, and DRI help graduate assistants (GAs) without allowing them to collectively bargain?

The power imbalances and resulting mistreatment reported by graduate assistants are best addressed through collective bargaining, giving GAs input in their workplace policies. Only recently have institutions provided any due process for terminating GA positions; NSHE Handbook policy is mostly silent as it relates to GAs--there is no grievance process for them. Allowing GAs to collectively bargain ensures that everyone (GAs and their supervisors) know their rights and responsibilities and hold to them. A supermajority of GAs at UNLV, UNR, and DRI have requested recognition of their union for collective bargaining.

Do Nevada Revised Statutes currently allow NSHE to collectively bargaining with (a) faculty and (b) graduate assistants?

Yes.  Under NRS 396.110 and 396.280 as well as its constitutional authority, the Board of Regents can and does collectively bargain with faculty employees, as provided in Title 4, Chapter 4 of the Board of Regents Handbook. 

NRS 396.251 exempts NSHE from nearly all statutes related to personnel for student workers (which includes graduate assistants), postdoctoral scholars, and medical residents.  That means NSHE is not bound by state personnel law and is free to recognize an association of graduate assistants and collectively bargain with them.  Title 4 Chapter 4 would simply need to be revised by the Board of Regents to include graduate assistants as a bargaining unit.

However, only the Legislature can provide for certain aspects of collective bargaining; for example, access to the state Government Employee-Management Relations board by employees and governmental employers for resolution of issues regarding formation of bargaining units, negotiations, and contract compliance. AB191 provides the same rights and responsibilities for NSHE professional employees that other Nevada public employees have. AB191 would also ensure the rules of engagement for collective bargaining would not be entirely under the control of management, an apparent conflict of interest.

How does collective bargaining work for tenured or grant-funded faculty?

All academic faculty share most working conditions and employment policies, but with different contract termination provisions for tenured, tenure-track, non-tenured-track and grant-funded faculty members.  A negotiated collective bargaining agreement can take those differences into account and provide appropriate due-process provisions for all. A collective bargaining agreement bolsters, rather than replaces, shared governance and peer review processes--which would remain in place for academic faculty. For public colleges and universities with faculty collective bargaining units, it is common for negotiated provisions about tenure procedures to be limited to permanent state-funded positions, for example. 

Does AB 191 increase the compensation and benefits of professional employees? How would that be funded?

Not without mutual agreement in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Compensation and benefits are a topic of negotiation for CBAs, but any compensation approved that requires new state appropriations for implementation would be a budget request by NSHE through the regular state budget process. Such provisions would not go into effect unless and until the state funds are appropriated. The Governor is not required to include funding of collective bargaining agreements in the Executive Budget, and the Legislature is not required to approve them.  However, NSHE and the employee association could to to the Governor and Legislature with a united message to implement a collective bargaining agreement.

Important cost-free policies and procedures can be negotiated in CBAs to improve working conditions and the efficiency of the colleges and universities.  Studies show that institutions of higher education with faculty unionization have lower costs and better student outcomes. The current CBAs at CSN, TMCC, and WNC are available for review at https://nevadafacultyalliance.org/page-1464388 .

How much would AB 191 cost NSHE to implement?

NSHE’s fiscal note claims it would need to hire 20 new staff including seven new labor attorneys to implement AB 191, but at the three current bargaining units at CSN, TMCC, and WNC, negotiations have been handled by existing administrators and human resources staff. Since NSU's bargaining unit has already formed under T4C4, AB 191 does not add to the cost at NSU. In the Labor Relations Unit of the Office of the Attorney General, two attorneys handle collective bargaining negotiations and litigation for the 12 statewide bargaining units for Classified employees. NSHE's fiscal note for AB 191 is a gross exaggeration of any realistic needs. NFA has prepared a full analysis of the fiscal impact of AB 191, including a recommended appropriation for reasonable expense. 

After CSN faculty negotiated their first CBA in 2019, the labor-related staff in CSN legal and human resources departments did not require an increase in positions–although the responsibilities of some positions may have shifted for different processes under the CBA.  

The NFA supports appropriations to cover reasonable costs of implementation.  AB 224 in 2023 included appropriations, but was vetoed by Governor. It would be reasonable for NSHE to add a labor attorney and a labor relations specialist at the system level to provide support for the institutions and to handle an additional bargaining unit for Graduate Assistants. 

The only direct cost of AB 191 is the fee to support the EMRB. That fee is up to $10 per year per bargaining unit member, so the fee will be roughly up to  $8700 per year until additional bargaining units are established.  The actual EMRB assessment for State Classified employees is currently $4.25/year, well below the $10 statutory maximum.  The EMRB fees would be offset by savings on resolution of bargaining unit, contract, or negotiation issues by the EMRB that would otherwise go to voluntary private arbitration or to litigation.

The costs of arbitrations for grievances will likewise be more than offset by savings from avoided litigation. While NSHE's fiscal note on AB 224 in 2023 projected 200 to 800 binding arbitrations for grievance appeals each fiscal year, the 2025 fiscal note indicates their are only 17 grievances last year statewide that escalated to a president or the chancellor.  Even if all of those were appealed to an arbitrator, the cost at NSHE's (high) estimate of $5600 each in the fiscal note would be $95,200 split between NSHE and NFA.  Much more is being spent by NSHE on litigation, both with internal general counsel and on outside counsel, that could be avoided through arbitration. 

Does AB 191 require binding arbitration for all grievances?

No, that is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. AB 191 allows arbitration as the final level of appeal of a grievance that is not resolved at lower levels.  Collective bargaining agreements negotiated under AB 191 would provide for binding resolution by an independent arbitrator of final appeals, but it would only apply to members of bargaining units with a collective bargaining agreement.  Arbitration avoids expensive litigation, a cost savings to NSHE which regularly hires outside counsel to handle lawsuits over personnel issues. Collective bargaining agreements can provide better methods for resolving workplace disputes; for example, TMCC has been able to reduce the frequency of grievances through provisions for informal resolution in its collective bargaining agreement.

Does AB 191 expand what is grievable in comparison to the NSHE Handbook? 

Yes, but only once a collective bargaining agreement is established for a particular employee group. The scope of grievances for faculty in Title 2 Chapter 5 is narrowly defined and does not encompass the standard definition of grievances NSHE classified employees in bargaining units currently have. There is no grievance policy in the Handbook for graduate assistants or other non-faculty professional employees. AB 191 provides the same foundation for all employees.

How many grievances will go to arbitration?

In 2023, NSHE claimed AB 224, the nearly identical predecessor of AB 191, would lead to hundreds of arbitrations over grievances. If that were the case, it would just show a dire need for collective bargaining to improve working conditions for professional employees at NSHE.  In the fiscal note for AB 191, NSHE reports that last year there actually were only 17 grievances statewide that were denied by Presidents, the final level of decision under NSHE Code. Those would be eligible for appeal to arbitration under AB 191.  To our information and belief, since collective bargaining agreements for Classified employees have been in place after 2021, only one grievance Classified employee at NSHE has gone to arbitration.

Does AB 191 allow NSHE professional employees to strike?

No, NRS 288 has strong prohibitions against strikes by public employees in Nevada, and AB 191 does not change that.

Does AB 191 change Nevada as a Right to Work state?

No.  Right to Work means that employees are not required to join a union or pay dues to receive the benefits of collective bargaining. Employees cannot be forced to join a union as a requirement of employment.  That will not change with AB 191.

What happens in case of an impasse in the negotiation of a collective bargaining unit? 

Under T4C4, there is a mediation and advisory fact-finding process but management is not required to accept the recommendation of the independent fact-finder. That means negotiations can drag out for a long time–the first contract at CSN took years to negotiate.  Under AB 191, which follows the same process as in NRS 288 for state Classified employees, an impasse first goes to mediation and then binding arbitration under strict timelines.  The arbitrator is required to choose the more reasonable proposal from the two parties based on stated criteria, and is not allowed to modify the chosen proposal. That forces both parties to make final proposals that are reasonable, not ask for exaggerated provisions hoping the arbitrator will split the difference.  The two parties can extend the times for negotiation, mediation, and arbitration only by mutual agreement.

Would AB 191 cover Unclassified or Nonclassified employees in state agencies outside of NSHE?

No.  The definitions of “professional employee” and “state professional employer” in AB 191 effectively limit its applicability to NSHE.

Would the Labor Relations Unit in the state Division of Human Resource Management negotiate with professional employee associations on behalf of NSHE?

No.  AB 191 both authorizes and requires NSHE to conduct its own labor relations and collective bargaining negotiations with its professional employee bargaining units.  NSHE could choose to use the services of the DHRM or the Office of the Attorney General for labor relations, but those entities could charge NSHE for any such service.

Are the rights reserved to management restricted by AB 191?

AB 191 recognizes the principles of shared governance, which is a good thing. Academic freedom means that the determination of the “means and methods” of delivering education and research are the responsibility of teachers and scholars, not management. Personnel decisions in academia involve peer review.  More expansive management rights for a governmental agency such as the DMV or Corrections, for example, for absolute control over staffing and services would not be appropriate for institutions of higher education.

Does AB 191 extend collective bargaining to “at will” employees such as Unclassified and Nonclassified employees in state government?

The Unclassified and Nonclassified employees in other state agencies are political appointees and upper management.  As “managerial” or “confidential” employees, most if not all would be ineligible to collectively bargain under AB191 if the bill included those agencies among “state professional employers”, which it doesn’t.

NSHE suggested that graduate assistants are “at-will” as a means to justify their current exclusion from T4C4 and implied that NSHE might oppose AB 191 because it includes graduate assistants. However, in practice, having any due process for termination (as we have with most NSHE employees, including graduate assistants) demonstrates exceptions to a position where “at-will” means firing anyone at any time. Collective bargaining allows for termination procedures to be standardized and negotiated with recourse for violations of them.

For further information contact: Kent Ervin, kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org

Updated 3/28 with additional information about fiscal impact and effect on tenured or grant-funded faculty.

Updated 4/6/2025 to recognize the successful bargaining unit election at NSU.

Updated 4/18/2025 with current legislative status and other clarifications.

Updated 4/23/2025 with a discussion of whether current state law allows NSHE to voluntarily recognize and bargain with profession employee associations.

On Monday, March 10th, The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision by a lower court to dismiss the case of Jensen v Brown, et al. and remanded it back to the US District Court of Nevada in Reno.

The case was brought by Dr. Lars Jensen, a tenured professor of Mathematics at Truckee Meadows Community College. Jensen alleges that he faced retaliation from multiple administrators after he voiced concerns about the college bypassing established shared governance procedures to impose weakened curriculum standards designed to make it easier for students to pass math courses. He used various methods to express these concerns including email communications and in a handout he distributed outside a mathematics summit organized by the college in 2020. After being denied the opportunity to speak during a question-and-answer session during the summit, he returned to his office, printed the handout, and distributed it to attendees during a break.

Professor Lars Jensen, PhD  (KJBursey Photography)

The college pursued multiple disciplinary actions against Jensen following the summit including a formal reprimand for insubordination, and an unsatisfactory rating on his annual evaluation. The college also initiated proceedings to terminate Jensen for cause, a process in which Jensen ultimately prevailed.

Jensen subsequently filed a federal lawsuit pursuant to Section 1983, seeking to protect his constitutional rights. The case was dismissed by former Judge Larry Hicks, who cited sovereign immunity, a legal principle that generally prevents individuals from suing the government without the government's consent; and qualified immunity, a defense that protects public employees from civil liability when they injure you or your property while carrying out their official job duties. Jensen successfully appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court.

In February 2024, the Nevada Faculty Alliance joined the American Association of University Professor to file a joint amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court in support of Dr. Jensen. The brief maintained that the district court erred in its decision that Jensen’s right to such speech in the workplace was not established. It further cited Demers v. Austin which clearly established the right of faculty to engage in academic speech as part of their official duties. Afterwards, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) joined the appeal and and provided the attorney, Daniel Ortner, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel last November.

The appeals court decision not only reverses Hicks’ decision and remands the case back to the district court, it also gives Jensen the right to amend his original complaint to address technical deficiencies claimed by TMCC’s attorney.

MORE: 
VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

Governor Lombardo's Executive Budget includes funding to cover the  continued cost the historic Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) provided to the faculty and Classified staff of NSHE colleges and universities in FY2024 (12%) and FY2025 (11%).  In advance of the legislative hearing on NSHE budgets on March 11, 2025, the Nevada Faculty Alliance is publishing a white paper on the history of the funding and budgeting policy for NSHE COLAs:

History and Analysis of Funding and Budgeting for NSHE Cost of Living Adjustments

Without the supplemental state funding for continuation of the COLAs, students will pay higher fees, the current budget cuts and position vacancies will become permanent, and/or additional cuts will be necessary to cover one-time budget remediations.