Nevada Faculty Alliance Announces Endorsements for the Board of Regents

The NFA Political Action Committee has vetted candidates for the Board of Regents office in the 2024 Primary 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 Distrist 1), 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	No endorsement for the primary election.	Candidate questionnaires and forum
District 9 – Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Storey and southern Washoe Counties	Carol Del Carlo (incumbent)	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. 

Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers

Part 2 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. Part 1 outlined the preliminary recommendations by the committee’s consultant, HCM Strategists, which will be considered further by the Committee on May 30 and July 25.

The ad hoc NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding has been tasked with evaluating other states’ higher education funding models to support their NSHE-similar institutions. These models are to be compared to Nevada’s current model, including allocation and institutional costs to deliver instruction. The committee will then determine whether other funding-allocation methods would be appropriate for NSHE. The Nevada Faculty Alliance has stated to the committee that a new formula will be a failure if it merely redistributes the existing funding without new resources. 

Impact of Formula Changes

The total funding per student at Nevada’s public colleges and universities is third-from-bottom among all states. It can be simultaneously true that certain institutions–for example, Nevada community colleges–are disadvantaged by the current formula and that all institutions are underfunded. Presidents will naturally recommend formulas that favor their own institutions, but the Committee must balance students’ different needs and resources and recommend an equitable funding formula.

The current formula distributes funding to the seven NSHE colleges and universities in proportion to resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCH). A change from the resident WSCH to a different formula could result in a major disruption to funding. For example, as the following data will show, changing from WSCH to “unduplicated resident headcounts” in 2021–2022 would have decreased UNLV’s state appropriation by $55 million (−29%) and increased CSN’s by $69 million (+74%), out of a total $500 million appropriated to all seven institutions. 

NFA maintains that any additions to the formula (e.g., including summer school courses in the WSCHs) must be fully funded. Any changes to the distribution formula must be implemented only with hold-harmless provisions for at least two biennia to allow institutions to adjust. Furthermore, different measures may be appropriate for a portion of the budget—for example, headcounts for non-instructional student support services—but not for the entire budget.

Comparison of Different Formula-Distribution Metrics

The following tables and charts show how different distribution formulas would affect the seven NSHE colleges and universities, using 2021–2022 data. Tables 1A and 1B show the state appropriations in percentages of the total and estimated percentage change after a shift from resident WSCHs. Tables 2A and 2B show the appropriations and changes in millions of dollars.

Switching completely from WSCHs to other enrollment metrics for the funding distribution formula would benefit the community colleges and NSU, but without additional funding would require drastic budget cuts at UNLV and UNR, comparable to recent pandemic budget cuts.  Alternatively, different funding distribution formulas could be implemented for different institution types. Without additional funding, however, that could bake in disparities in the current formula.

The first data column in Table 1A shows resident WSCH percentages, which is how the current formula distributes funding. That is compared to unweighted student-credit hours (same as average annual full-time-equivalent enrollment) in the second column. The weightings of courses by levels and discipline are intended to account for the different costs of instruction.

The tables and Chart 1 compare three different headcount measures. Headcounts generally peak in the Fall semester. Total headcounts include out-of-state students; resident headcounts do not and are therefore lower. The “unduplicated resident headcount”, however, counts any individual student who has taken a state-supported course during the year. These can exceed the peak total headcounts because some students take courses sporadically. Because most of those students do not need year-round support, the unduplicated resident headcounts are a poor measure for the resources needed for student support services. We recommend the Fall headcounts, or an average of Fall and Spring, as more accurate for distributing funding for student services.

Finally, maintained square footage is included in the tables and Chart 2 because a bill in the 2023 legislature would have shifted the formula to consider only building square footage on each campus.  Square footage has been mentioned in the funding committee discussions mainly in the context of fixed facility operations and utility costs.

Conclusion and Future Analysis

The current Weighted Student Credit Hour formula attempts to recognize the costs of offering courses to students at various levels in various disciplines. That’s appropriate for funding instructional staff and operations.  Student support services geared to individual students are better correlated with student headcounts, including part-time students. There are also fixed facility and administrative costs that depend weakly on student numbers. In later posts, we will analyze these various cost drivers and how they might equitably be incorporated into a new formula for appropriate portions of the budgets.

Table 1A. NSHE Institutional Appropriation Percentages using Various Distribution Metrics

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	37.9%	33.7%	28.8%	28.2%	27.0%	34.2%
UNR	25.2%	20.6%	18.9%	16.7%	15.3%	37.7%
NSU	5.8%	6.8%	6.8%	7.6%	7.6%	2.0%
CSN	18.6%	24.7%	29.3%	30.8%	32.4%	14.7%
GBC	2.7%	2.9%	3.3%	3.9%	3.2%	2.7%
TMCC	6.7%	7.8%	9.3%	9.7%	10.4%	5.5%
WNC	3.0%	3.4%	3.5%	3.1%	4.1%	3.1%

Sources: NSHE public reports and records. Maintained square footage includes non-instructional space.

Table 1B. Estimated Percentage Changes in State Appropriation using Various Distribution Metrics

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	0.0%	-4.2%	-9.1%	-9.7%	-10.9%	-3.7%
UNR	0.0%	-4.6%	-6.3%	-8.5%	-9.9%	12.5%
NSU	0.0%	1.0%	1.0%	1.8%	1.8%	-3.8%
CSN	0.0%	6.1%	10.7%	12.2%	13.8%	-3.9%
GBC	0.0%	0.2%	0.6%	1.2%	0.5%	0.0%
TMCC	0.0%	1.1%	2.6%	3.0%	3.7%	-1.2%
WNC	0.0%	0.4%	0.5%	0.1%	1.1%	0.1%

Table 2A. NSHE Institutional Appropriations using Various Distribution Metrics (Million $)

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	$189.5	$168.5	$144.0	$140.8	$135.0	$171.0
UNR	$126.0	$103.0	$94.5	$83.6	$76.5	$188.5
NSU	$29.0	$34.0	$34.0	$38.1	$38.0	$10.0
CSN	$93.0	$123.5	$146.5	$153.8	$162.0	$73.5
GBC	$13.5	$14.5	$16.5	$19.4	$16.0	$13.5
TMCC	$33.5	$39.0	$46.5	$48.7	$52.0	$27.5
WNC	$15.0	$17.0	$17.5	$15.5	$20.5	$15.5

Sources: NSHE public reports and records. Assumes $500 million total appropriation.

Table 2B. Estimated Changes in State Appropriation using Various Distribution Metrics (Million $)

Institution	Resident Weighted Student Credit Hours	Unweighted Resident Student Credit Hours	Total Fall Headcount	Resident Fall Headcount	Unduplicated Resident Headcount	Maintained Square Footage
UNLV	$0.0	-$21.0	-$45.5	-$48.7	-$54.5	-$18.5
UNR	$0.0	-$23.0	-$31.5	-$42.4	-$49.5	$62.5
NSU	$0.0	$5.0	$5.0	$9.1	$9.0	-$19.0
CSN	$0.0	$30.5	$53.5	$60.8	$69.0	-$19.5
GBC	$0.0	$1.0	$3.0	$5.9	$2.5	$0.0
TMCC	$0.0	$5.5	$13.0	$15.2	$18.5	-$6.0
WNC	$0.0	$2.0	$2.5	$0.5	$5.5	$0.5

Chart 1. Headcount numbers by institution and type

Chart 2. Distribution Formulas by Institution for Various Measures

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources.  Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Series on the NSHE Funding Formula

• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers

There are four seats on the Board of Regents up for election in 2024. The primary election is on June 11 with early voting starting May 25. The primary will narrow the field to two candidates for each race going forward to the general election in November--unless one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote in primary in which case that candidate is declared elected and there is no general election.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance Political Action Committee (NFA-PAC) sent a questionnaire exploring NSHE and faculty issues to each candidate's email address. Seven of the 13 candidates have responded. 

The NFA-PAC is also conducting candidate forums that are open to all NFA members. Video recordings of the forums will be available for review once all candidates have responded to our request to participate. Candidate endorsements may be made by the NFA-PAC at the conclusion of the process. Only candidates who offer unqualified support for the principles of shared governance and collective bargaining rights will be considered for endorsement.

District	Questionnaire Responses	Forum Video
District 1 - northern Clark County	Matthew Bowen Carlos David Fernandez Ida Zeiler	April 30, 2024 Matthew Bowen Carlos David Fernandez Ida Zeiler
District 4 – northeastern Clark County	Aaron Bautista Richard Andrew Carrillo Donald Sylvantee McMichael (incumbent) Shawn Stamper Tonia Holmes Sutton	April 24, 2024 Aaron Bautista Tonia Holmes Sutton
District 9 – Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Storey and southern Washoe Counties	Carol Del Carlo (incumbent) Bret Delaire Gary T Johnson	May 13, 2024 Carol Del Carlo
District 12 – southeastern Clark County	Amy Carvalho (incumbent) Jonathan Maxham	April 29, 2024 Amy Carvalho Jonathan Maxham

UNR Budget and Enrollment Update

This is an update to NFA’s eight-part series on the University of Nevada, Reno budget crisis published in January 2024. (Some of the original articles have been updated–most recently Part 3B. Growth of Executive Positions and Salaries). 

Budget Shortfall for 2024–2025

At the April 30 UNR Campus Conversation, Vice President for Administration and Finance Andrew Clinger reported the “good news” that the previously projected shortfall of $31.7 million for FY2025 has been reduced to about $12 million. The stated reasons for a lower shortfall were the three-month delay in faculty COLAs, the 5% increase in student registration fees and tuition, and an improved enrollment outlook. VP Clinger clarified that the FY2024 budget cuts would remain in place, including 108 faculty and staff positions being held vacant and 5% cuts to department budgets. The administration has told the Faculty Senate Budget & Planning Committee they found additional commitments to be budgeted. 

The UNR budget is not out of the woods: it is deep in the forest. Previous administrations would have considered a $12 million budget hole to be a crisis. No information was provided about how the $12 million shortfall will be addressed for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024, but it is equivalent to an additional 100+ faculty and staff positions being kept vacant or eliminated. The cumulative budget shortfalls of $25 million in FY2024 and $12 million in FY2025 represent over 10% of the state-allocated operating budgets at UNR.

Enrollment Status

UNR’s Spring 2024 FTE enrollment is up 5.5% overall from Spring 2023 and the headcount is up by 15.3%. However, that counts the huge growth in enrollment from non-degree seeking undergraduates (a 190% increase to 4,900 students), primarily high school students taking dual and concurrent enrollment classes. Concurrent enrollment fees are only $75 per course, compared with the $788 UNR undergraduates pay in registration fees for a three-credit course. Future credit for concurrent Weighted Student Credit Hours would apply to the budget in the next biennium. In the meantime, this program, part of the UNR instructional budget, requires UNR personnel, including pay for the high school instructors, coordinators for each subject, travel funds to visit high schools, and administrative oversight. 

If we look at the enrollment of degree-seeking students, the headcount is down 1.3% from Spring 2022 to Spring 2023. At the most recent Campus Conversation, Provost Jeff Thompson reported that although new enrollment for Fall 2025 is down from this time a year ago, he did not have a percentage due to data-collection changes. In addition, continuing delays and errors in federal financial aid applications are impacting student recruitment and retention.

Possible Real-Estate Deals with Long-Term Consequences

At the April 30 Campus Conversation, President Sandoval talked about two potential real estate transactions, which were also announced at Faculty Senate meetings. First, the President is hoping to sell UNR land north of the Med School to the Department of Veterans Affairs as the site for a new VA hospital to replace the existing facility on Kirman Avenue. As reported to the faculty senate, the VA is considering the UNR location and one or two other potential sites to build the new hospital. Selling this land to the VA would rule out future northward growth for UNR and would displace lower-cost parking lots as well as several buildings. Proceeds from a land sale would be one-time money that could not be used for continuing budgets. Financial and other details of UNR’s offer to the VA were not disclosed.

Second, UNR is considering buying 18 parcels with homes and apartments south of I-80 between Lake and Evans streets, north of Sixth Street. To be dubbed “University Village,” the 49 or so residential units would provide faculty and graduate students with much-needed affordable housing in Reno’s expensive market. While we appreciate helping faculty and graduate students with housing, the projected price is $6.5 million plus an estimated $825,000 for improvements. The down payment would come from UNR’s property acquisition fund, while the rest would be financed with a loan from UNR’s Operating Fund assets (account reserves held at NSHE) and paid back through rent revenue. 

In another budget circumstance, we would applaud this decision. However, the long-term debt on this acquisition would limit future capital improvement funding because it would be added to the Business Building 30-year lease and bonds for the new engineering building, student achievement center, wellness center, and other buildings still being paid for. Another question is whether the properties in that neighborhood would be attractive to new faculty or graduate students at the rents required to pay for the loan, maintenance, and management, and President Sandoval did not mention a market study or business plan. The President has requested feedback through the Faculty Senate; you can provide comments here about whether future faculty and graduate students would be interested in living there.

Outlook

Provost Thompson and VP Clinger professed “cautious optimism” about the 2025–26 and 2026–27 budgets in the next legislative session, but that does not help for FY2025. President Sandoval has proposed a new ⅛-cent Washoe County sales tax for UNR and TMCC infrastructure and capital improvements, which would require legislative, county commission, and possibly voter approval. New revenue to fund higher education is highly desirable, but this is apparently the first time since 1885 [1] that county taxpayers have been asked to fund the state university. As mentioned by a speaker at the Campus Conversation, sales taxes are regressive.

The Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding, which will make recommendations in July, is a wild card. NFA has been actively engaged with the funding formula committee, and the NFA state board has published a set of principles for funding higher education. Faculty feedback on the preliminary recommendations for funding formula changes by the committee’s consultant would be appreciated, especially from department chairs and others who administer state-supported instructional budgets. 

###

Our UNR budget analyses are based on public reports and records and interpreted as accurately as possible given uncertainties in the assumptions used for various reports. Corrections from authoritative sources are welcome. Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

Previous articles on the UNR budget crisis:

• Part 1. Overview (updated 1/3/2024)

• Part 2. Increased University Support for Athletics (updated 2/2/2024)

• Part 3. Growth of Executive Positions and Salaries (updated with total compensation data 5/1/2024)

• Part 4. Student Registration Fees (1/10/2024)

• Part 5. Business Building PPP (updated 2/6/2024)

• Part 6. Inflated Enrollment (updated 1/25/2024)

• Part 7. Underfunded COLAs (1/19/2024)

• Part 8. Summary and Solutions (updated 2/2/2024)

[1] In 1885, the Nevada Legislature directed Washoe County to issue $25,000 in bonds to fund the university’s move from Elko to Reno, to be paid by a property tax in Reno (1885 Statutes of Nevada, Chapter LXXI).

The NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding is working toward recommendations on changes to the funding formula for the seven NSHE colleges and universities.  At the April 26th meeting, consultants from HCM Strategists presented their preliminary recommendations for feedback from the committee.  The HCM recommendations were based in part on recommendations submitted by the seven presidents and on interviews with committee members and a few other stakeholders, but also represent HCM's view of best practices. 

The NFA is actively engaging with the committee, with little other faculty input so far in public comment periods. The NFA state board provided a set of Principles for Funding of Higher Education to committee members, and we have provided background data and analyses on how the current formula has affected funding and how it has been implemented in the state budgeting process.  Committee members have taken note of our information during the meetings.

The Committee has just two more meetings, on May 30 and July 25, to finalize its recommendations.

Here we present an outline of the main HCM recommendations as presented on April 26. Future posts will analyze some of the consequences if the recommendations are adopted.

HCM Recommendation 1: 

Create a separate enrollment-based portion of the formula that uses both full-time equivalent FTE and headcount enrollment and incorporates weights for Pell recipients and underrepresented minorities (URM)

HCM Recommendation 2: 

Modify the resident Weighted Student Credit Hours calculations:

• Include headcount enrollment with adjustments for student attributes
• Review nursing program costs in light of state needs and goals
• Include all summer course credit hours in WSCH
• Do a 3-year average for WSCH to avoid odd incentives of “every other year” counting for the year of measure.

HCM Recommendation 3:

• Include all  WSCH in the formula regardless of term (i.e., including summer) to remove the disincentive to offer summer courses. NSHE could request a budget enhancement but should pursue this policy with or without new funding.

HCM Recommendation 4:

Performance Pool changes. The current Performance Pool is a 20% carve-out from base funding that is at risk if an institution does not meet performance targets, but has rarely resulted in funding being jeapardized.

• (HCM preferred option 1) Performance Pool should incorporate or be based on share of outcomes or relative growth.

HCM-recommended Relative Growth Model:  A certain percentage of the total funding (20% in the HCM example) is carved out as a performance pool and earned back based on “relative growth” or how much an institution has changed from its own baseline on a percentage basis.  Institutions with higher relative growth get a larger share of the pool. Institutions with lower growth than other institutions (or negative growth) get a smaller share of the pool.

• (option 2) Modify the existing Performance Pool by re-baselining each institution’s targets each year.
• (option 3) No performance pool or fund with new money only

Other HCM recommendations:

• No new cost study to adjust student credit hour weightings—just modify key areas based on state workforce needs, such as nursing.
• No changes to Performance Pool metrics.
• Do not create separate formulas for different institutions

Committee Discussion on April 26

Some committee members pushed back generally on the idea of redistributing funding with no new funding. For example, the addition of all summer courses to WSCH counts in the formula would dilute the funding value per WSCH and redistribute funds among institutions by up to 0.5% of their total budgets. Chancellor Charlton and Chair Hardesty indicated that the charge of the committee was to recommend changes to the distribution formula, not to recommend additional funding, but there was also discussion that the Board of Regents could make budget enhancement requests to fund any formula changes. Some committee members also objected to HCM’s Relative Growth Model for the Performance Pool because it would be funded out of existing appropriations rather than new money.

NFA Analysis

Every formula change has “winners” and “losers” unless the changes are fully funded and there are hold-harmless provisions for a transition period.  Some of the HCM recommendations may have unintended consequences based on current budgeting practices at the various institutions at NSHE (for example, how or whether summer school revenue is shared with departments). NFA will be providing analyses of the consequences of the various funding proposals in forthcoming posts. 

We welcome feedback from faculty, especially department chairs and others who manage budgets on the ground.  Contacts: Kent Ervin (kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Doug Unger (doug.unger@nevadafacultyalliance.org), Jim New (jim.new@nevadafacultyalliance.org).

Series on the NSHE Funding Formula

• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers

As the end of the 2023-24 academic year draws near, we are happy to report that NFA has had one of its most successful years ever. It was a year marked by securing the largest-ever back-to-back cost of living adjustments for NSHE professionals in history, due in large part by the exceptional turn out of NFA members making public comment at Board of Regents meetings and advocacy on campus with constituents such as student leaders. We also saw restoration of long-term disability benefits, an NSHE priority, but one that past president Kent Ervin refused to let slip to the back burner. 

At the beginning of the academic year, the NFA State Board established five goals, and with a few weeks left before the year closes, we are happy to report that we have met or exceeded all of them.

Five goals:

1. Progress toward establishing one new collective bargaining unit - It is likely that a new bargaining unit may be established shortly after the start of the 2024-25 academic year. At least one chapter is reaching the critical level of support to ensure that more than 50% of their faculty will vote in favor. Once completed, it will take the remainder of the academic year, and perhaps the next, to negotiate their first bargaining agreement with administration.

2. Membership growth of 10% - Not only is membership growing, exceeding the 10% target by mid-January, it is accelerating. By April, growth has reached 20%, and we anticipate  22% before year-end. The story at some individual chapters is even more impressive. Both university chapters have grown about 15%, while the CSN chapter notched 19%, the TMCC chapter at 35%, and the GBC chapter a whopping 111%. In less than two years, TMCC-NFA has grown 121%, and is targeting 100 members before the end of the academic year. More than 54% of current teaching faculty at the college are now NFA members.

3. Restoration of GBC-NFA - As noted above, not only has the GBC chapter of NFA been reactivated, it is thriving. The State Board initiated a recruitment campaign in January, and by March the chapter had more than doubled in size and a new slate of chapter officers had been elected.

4. Quarterly newsletters - On this one we failed. The newsletters are not published quarterly because our activity has made it necessary to publish them monthly. All members receive the “Quarterly” Dispatch via email and readership exceeds 65% among the recipients.

5. Website update - Not only has the content on the NFA website been refreshed with dynamic content, such as current news and events, on the home page, we’ve also implemented electronic forms and payments for membership applications and PAC donations. Some membership growth is directly attributable to the new on-line application form that streamlines the process for applicants.

Of course, through the year, other issues and opportunities present themselves requiring our action. The passage of SJR7 in the 2023 legislature means that Nevada voters will be asked once again to determine if the Nevada Constitution should be amended to remove the status of the Board of Regents. The ballot initiative, known as Question 1, may offer many opportunities, but also creates uncertainty. NFA is organizing a series of town hall sessions for faculty to hear from and ask questions of stakeholders on both sides of the issue. No other constituent group will be as impacted as faculty if Question 1 passes.

CSN-NFA also successfully re-opened negotiations on their collective bargaining agreement for modifications that were contingent upon the outcome of the 2023 Legislative session, which was underway when the agreement was originally approved. The modified agreement includes cost-of-living-adjustments for new faculty who were not included in the adjustments approved by the Board of Regents for fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25. Other changes addressed inequities in workload for faculty in studio and lab classes.

At this time, NFA Officers are working with other faculty leaders and members of the Board of Regents to update Title 4 Chapter 4 of the Board of Regents Handbook, the chapter that defines the rights of faculty members to organize for collective bargaining. The language was written over 30 years ago and has only had minor modifications since then. It is significantly outdated, and in some cases, doesn’t reflect the reality of NSHE practices. 

It’s also the time of year when we start formulating goals for the next academic year. 

Proposed 2024-25 goals:

1. Political action: Every election is consequential, but it’s not hyperbolic to say that the 2024 election may be the most consequential ever for faculty in Nevada and the NFA. In addition to Question 1, NFA will be very actively supporting candidates who actively support us.

   1. For the Board of Regents, we will endorse only those candidates who unconditionally recognize and embrace our critical role in collective bargaining and shared governance. 

   2. For state government offices, the NFA is supporting legislative candidates who support collective bargaining and academic freedom as NFA continues its work to establish bargaining rights for NSHE professionals in state law.

2. Membership growth - We hope for a repeat performance in growth. Another year with 15-20% growth is within reach.

3. What can NFA do for you in the next year?  Please reach out to your chapter leaders or state NFA leaders with your suggestions or concerns.  The NFA State Board will be setting new priorities and goals at our summer strategy meeting.

The Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Committee is charged with making recommendations on a new funding formula for NSHE colleges and universities.  The NFA has been actively engaged in providing background information for the committee.  The NFA state board has issued our priorities and principles for the funding higher education for the benefit of students and the state, copied here and also available as a one-page document.

Nevada Faculty Alliance Priorities for Funding Higher Education

Reinvesting in Higher Education for the Common Good

●   Higher education drives upward economic and social mobility and should be affordable for all.

●   NSHE colleges and universities provide workforce development, ranging from training in technical sciences and advanced manufacturing to educating future teachers, nurses, engineers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, scientists, accountants, business managers, hospitality workers, public health workers, policy-makers, communicators, etc. All are important for Nevada’s economic growth.

●   Workforce and economic development is fueled by discoveries made by basic and applied research.

●   Student debt is a national crisis preventing generational improvement in living standards. The burden on students should be reduced through direct debt relief and by restoring student fees to pre-2008 levels.

●   Funding must provide for the actual cost of delivering high-quality education for students. A new formula that simply re-slices the funding pie will be a failure.

Principles for Higher Education Funding

Caseload and Operational Funding

●   Headcount funding should be tied to standards such as advisers per student (1 per 300 students, or more) and counselors per student. Some students require more wrap-around services because of their educational, socio-economic, cultural, or military backgrounds. Funding enhancements for these students should apply to all institutions and programs.

●   Evidence-based discipline and course-level credit-hour weightings are important for instructional caseload funding, but so are standards for the number of full-time instructors per student (>1 to 18) and the percentage of courses taught by full-time instructors (60% to 80% depending on institution type).

●   Infrastructure for research must be funded, along with investment in partnerships between NSHE and the state to pursue federal and private research funding.

●   Allocate funds for fixed costs for facilities, operations, and administration not based on student numbers.

●   At least 80% of student registration fees should go to fund instruction and student services, not be diverted to other functions such as intercollegiate athletics or capital improvements.

●   Maintain established proportions of state funding versus student revenue, with inflationary factors applied to both. Budget shortfalls should not be made up by increasing student fees.

●   To avoid pressure to relax academic standards, no funding should depend on grade assignments.

Outcomes-Based Funding

●   Discontinue the ineffective Performance Pool carve-out and establish outcomes-based funding with truly aspirational performance metrics but without jeopardizing base funding.

●   Outcomes metrics should not be based on absolute student numbers, but rather ratios that demonstrate access or success relative to target populations.

●   Graduation rates have too long of a time lag for the biennial funding cycle. Semester completion better measures current progress and captures non-degree-seeking students and transfer students.

●   Phase in outcomes-based funding in the new formula over several years to allow the institutions to adjust.

●   Incentives should recognize an institution’s own performance, not make it compete against other institutions.

Financial Aid

●   Set targets for state financial aid based on the financial needs of the students at each institution.

●   Provide need-based financial aid through state funding, not by redistributing student fees for Student Access.

●   Fee and tuition waivers for selected student groups should be 100% state-funded.

State Employee Healthcare Premium Increases for Plan Year 2025

The Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) Board has approved increases to employee premiums for Plan Year 2025.  Beginning July 1, 2024, monthly premiums will increase by $8 to $53 (percentage increases from 8% to 25%) depending on your plan choice and dependent tier, as shown in the following table. 

Most plan provisions will remain the same for FY2025. PEBP is implementing a centers-of-excellence program for specific surgeries and a cancer treatment concierge program, intended both to save money and help patients get better treatment. Some changes, however, will increase participants’ out-of-pocket costs. High out-of-pocket costs force some participants to forgo necessary medical care. The deductible for the High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) will increase from $1500/$3000 (single/family) to $1600/$3200 because of a higher IRS minimum for eligibility for Health Saving Accounts (HSAs). The supplemental contributions to HSAs or Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs) for all three plans will decrease from $600/$700/$800 (single/spouse or children/family) to $300/$400/$500, while the regular HSA/HRA contribution to the HDHP remains at $600.

Why Rates are Increasing

Each year, the PEBP actuary predicts medical inflation trends. Governor Lombardo used lower trends than those predicted by the actuary to design the 2023–25 executive budget for PEBP, and the legislature adopted those low trends. Because FY2024-to-date expenses and the actuary’s projection for FY2025 now indicate higher expenses, PEBP must fund the higher costs through employee premium increases or with reserves. Without using reserves, the employee premium increases would have been twice those shown in the table above. However, PEBP is potentially dipping into the Catastrophic Reserve (formerly known as the rate stabilization reserve) to mitigate employee costs.

PEBP Reserves

As of December 2023, PEBP’s total cash balance was $121 million, including $42 million in the Catastrophic Reserve. The cost to mitigate 50% of the employee premium increases for FY2025 is $7.3 million. Although PEPB will not go broke, spending reserves below the mandatory levels set by the actuaries means the difference must be made up in the next budget cycle. However, we won’t know whether the reserves are being depleted until the close of each fiscal year.

For the past dozen years, as the following chart shows, PEBP has often generated excess reserves because actual claims have come in lower than projected, especially after benefit cuts. Excess reserves are cash balances above the mandatory reserves set by the actuary, and have ranged up to tens of millions of dollars. Although excess reserves declined in FY2023 and FY2024, because they partially restored benefits cut during the pandemic, these reserves have never gone negative. However, the excess reserves have helped the governor and legislature justify lower budgets for PEBP.  The result is that PEBP’s actuaries predict shortfalls, inducing PEBP to raise employee premiums or cut benefits. This perversely leads to the generation of more excess reserves. 

NFA Positions

Given the realities of PEBP funding, these more moderate premium increases approved by the PEBP Board are about the best that can be done at this time. Therefore, NFA supported the 50% mitigation plan over the alternatives of higher charges to employees. We appreciate that PEBP Executive Officer Celestena Glover proposed the mitigations after the initial plan for higher employee premium increases was announced. 

However, the NFA believes that the state should pay 100% of single-employee premiums in the basic plan, as most local governments in Nevada do this for their employees. Benefits have been cut or employee premiums have been raised every time there has been a budget shortfall or projected shortfall. PEBP should use its ample reserves instead of making employees pay for fluctuations in claims that are typical of any self-funded insurance plan. The State should be responsible for funding stable benefits for its employees.

###

The Nevada Faculty Alliance has strongly advocated for faculty and other state employees with the Public Employees Benefits Program since the PEBP Board was established in 1999 and before that with the state Committee on Benefits. It is a constant battle to maintain benefits and keep employee costs in check. Currently, Kent Ervin and Doug Unger represent NFA members at every PEBP Board meeting and meet regularly with PEBP staff along with our public employee advocate partners. To support these efforts on your behalf, join NFA now if you are not already a member.

NFA would like to hear members’ concerns about PEBP. Contact kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org or doug.unger@nevadafacutlyalliance.org. You may also contact the NSHE representatives on the PEBP Board, Michelle Kelley (mkelley@nshe.nevada.edu) or Jennifer McClendon (jmcclendon@unr.edu).