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.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Responses to HCM Strategists Recommendations
• Part 8. NFA Work Session Recommendations

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).

Following the NFA's call for Patrick Boylan to resign from the Board of Regents after his hostile response (7:53:16) to a student leader's public comments (7:52:00) hoping Boylan would "expand and change [his] paradigm" regarding LGBTQIA+ individuals, the Nevada State Student Alliance issued a powerful statement denouncing multiple regents for inserting ideological, geopolitical, and regional rhetoric into Board deliberations. 

"We are learning from our regents that many are controlled by singular issues that do not promote progress within institutions. Some board members, like Regent Brooks, fixate on geopolitical matters, some, like Regent Arrascada, focus on perpetuating regionalist and irrational ideologies between the north and south of our state, and some, like Regents Boylan and Goodman, regurgitate extreme ideologies that manifest in racist and transphobic remarks. These dogmas have no place in the realm of higher education." - NSSA statement

 The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance applauds the NSSA for their courage to speak truth to power, and we echo their observations. Too frequently, substantive and legitimate deliberations about the oversight of NSHE are derailed when a Regent raises a divisive and irrelevant issue instead discussing the substance of athletic reports and deliberating on the budgetary challenges confronting our programs that will lead tolong-term deficits. As the students of the NSSA pointed out, "[t]hey are not fulfilling their responsibilities to the students and citizens of Nevada."

Worse still are some of the reactions of these Regents toward their constituents who are bold enough to publicly disagree or challenge them. This was on full display on March 1 in Regent Boylan's response to NSSA President Kevin Osorio Hernandez exercising his right through Public Comment to share his perspective on the language used earlier in the meeting and to challenge Boylan to do better. NSHE Chief General Counsel James Martines had toinform Boylan (7:53:08) that he could not engage in back-and-forth debate with Mr. Hernandez during the Public Comment period, so Boylan insisted on making a public comment himself (another disturbing trend among Regents). 

The irony is probably lost on Regent Boylan, but by refusing to walk up to the podium where everyone else makes comments, and remaining in his seat at the Regents' table to decry that his First Amendment rights were being violated, he used a literal position of authority to denounce the criticism. As the NSSA students recommend, the Regent should become a student again and review the First Amendment, which prohibits those in power from suppressing the speech of others, not the other way around.

During a congressional hearing several years ago, former chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, Alan Greenspan, likened statistics to skimpy swimwear. "What they reveal is interesting," Greenspan said, "but what they conceal is critical." In the case of the annual employee buyouts report presented to the Board of Regents earlier this month, NSHE delivered the documentary equivalence of a bell diver suit, revealing almost nothing. While the Board of Regents set transparency and accountability as a strategic goal, the staff of the System Administration appear intent on moving in the opposite direction.

The annual reports are the result of a policy passed by the Regents in early 2019. It requires NSHE to share information regarding employee buyouts and settlements following the revelation in November 2018 that approximately $8.8 million had been spent by NSHE institutions in the previous biennium on employee-related buyouts. As previously reported in Missing Buyouts in NSHE Buyouts Report, the Regents received the first detailed report in March 2020, another in March 2021, and a third in March 2022. Those multi-page reports, however, gave way to a single page report with virtually no details in March 2023, and again this year.

NSHE institutions frequently use settlement buyouts and termination agreements to avoid negative publicity about its employment practices. The detailed reports provided a much-needed glimpse into the extent of these practices. 

A review of the early reports reveals that individual institutions interpreted the policy language differently from one another, resulting in some inconsistent reporting. The drastic change in the March 2023 report, however, did not result from a change of policy. Instead, we can attribute the change in reporting to a new general counsel at NSHE, James Martines, and his interpretation of the policy language.

The briefing paper prepared by Martines for the 2022 report indicated that only payments directly associated with terminations and notices of non-reappointment are included. Amounts paid out to settle actual or anticipated litigation are no longer reported, and apparently, any payment made to an employee who agrees to resign to avoid termination is omitted as well. NFA is aware of at least one such case where a substantial payout under these terms was not reported.

Unfortunately, no Regents appeared to have noticed this dramatic change in the reports. It is clear from the minutes of the November 16, 2018 Board meeting that Regents at that time did intend for the report to include settlements.

NFA urges the Board of Regents to correct Chief Counsel Martines' misinterpretation of this policy and provide a full accounting of all independent payments made to employees associated with their separation from employment with any NSHE institution.

Read Missing Buyouts in NSHE Buyouts Report >>

The Nevada Faculty Alliance strongly condemns discriminatory, harassing or otherwise unacceptable behavior by any members of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) community. As such, we are deeply angered by repeated anti-transgender comments made by Regent Patrick Boylan during the quarterly Board of Regents meeting on Friday, March 1st. We are especially appalled by his aggressive response to a student leader who gave public comment decrying remarks made earlier in the meeting. In the March 1 meeting, Regent Boylan also questioned the qualifications of students from underrepresented minority groups. These are not isolated incidents. Regent Boylan has a history of racist and discriminatory remarks that have been condemned by a number of NSHE students, including the Senate of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada.

This behavior is not only offensive, it violates the NSHE Board of Regents Anti-Discrimination Resolution, which states that “the Board recognizes its resounding responsibility to the NSHE community, the State of Nevada, and its higher education families throughout the nation to denounce any words or actions with discriminatory intent or effect, and such efforts are exemplified by the leadership and representations of its Regents.”

Because Regent Boylan’s comments have directly attacked thousands of members of the NSHE community and are in direct violation of the Regents’ own anti-discrimination resolution, the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance calls for his immediate resignation.

The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance

Jim New, President and TMCC-NFA Chapter President
Shantal Marshall, Vice President
Joey Ray, Secretary
Cheryl Cardoza, Treasurer
Ted Chodock, CSN-NFA Chapter President
Pete Martini, NSU-NFA Chapter President
Doug Unger, UNLV-NFA Chapter President
Todd Ruecker, UNR-NFA Chapter President
Heather Reardon, WNC-NFA Chapter President
Kent Ervin, Past President
Staci Walters, Collective Bargaining Committee Chair

NSHE Buyout/Settlement Reports Omit Buyouts

Since 2019, the Board of Regents has required that NSHE institutions annually report their contract buyouts and settlements for transparency in the use of public funds and for holding institutions accountable for employment practices. However, while Regents have set transparency and accountability as a strategic goal, NSHE has recently allowed for the omission of several types of buyouts and settlements from the institutional reports to the Regents.

The proponents of Question 1 (to remove the Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution) have attacked NSHE for a lack of transparency and accountability. To counter those arguments, the Regents should take prompt action to correct the NSHE General Counsel’s new interpretation of the buyout reporting policy. Without this action, institutions can hide their settlement and buyout activity.

Omission of Cases

The Regents’ briefing paper for the 2022 buyout report partly signaled the change in the implementation of the buyout reports:

"Due to the form currently used for institutions and units to report employee contract buyouts, the amounts reported include sums that are not directly associated with the contract buyout amount, such as required payouts of accumulated annual leave and amounts that may settle actual or anticipated litigation. Accordingly, the Chief General Counsel will update the reporting form to allow more accurate reporting in the future."

This implies that buyouts and settlements related to litigation or even the possibility of litigation are now excluded from the reports. In addition, buyouts and settlements are apparently not being reported in cases where no Notice of Non-Renewal is issued, such as agreements resulting in termination following disciplinary proceedings or other voluntary separation agreements. It is also not readily apparent which categories of NSHE employees are included in the reports. Starting in 2022, the annual reports were retitled from “Employee Buyouts/Settlements”  to “Employee Contract Buyouts.” As a result of the change in the interpretation of Title 4 Chapter 3 Section 49 of the NSHE Handbook, the reports are obscuring the number and magnitude of contract buyouts, which in some cases have been used to remove employees who have brought complaints against the institution and to establish non-disclosure agreements.

Buyout Report Summaries, 2019–23

Tables 1 & 2 summarize the buyout reports for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Looking at the NSHE report for 2023, it would appear that the number and amounts of buyouts have declined. Although such a scenario would be welcome, the definition of reportable buyouts has been narrowed into meaninglessness. 

For example, the University of Nevada, Reno, reported zero buyouts in 2023. However, NFA is aware that a former employee agreed to resign from their UNR position in 2023 in exchange for a large settlement payout. In addition, the buyout reports for 2022 do not include the well-publicized $27,000 per month paid to former UNR Athletic Director Doug Knuth after he was fired in April 2022 nor the roughly $100,000 per month due to former UNLV football coach Marcus Arroyo after he was fired in November 2022. (Update 3/1/2024: According to public compensation records for 2023, Arroyo was paid $1.16 million in 2023 after his termination in 2022.  The UNR employee received a six-figure payout in 2023. )

(Update 3/1/2024. NSHE Chief General Counsel reported to the Board of Regents that the buyouts listed in the 2023 report "saved" $95,000 compared with the standard notice periods for Notices of Non-Renewal.  However any putative savings are almost certainly surpassed by settlement amounts that are not being reported.)

Table 1. NSHE Reported Buyouts/Settlements - Total Amounts

Calendar Year	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
UNLV	$347,406	$90,409	$0	$0	$58,087
UNR	$91,201	$53,144	$38,479	$40,310	$0
NSU	$0	$0	$0	$0	$13,767
CSN	$77,295	$0	$63,314	$0	$0
GBC	$25,000	$184,001	$0	$0	$0
TMCC	$71,988	$543,992	$403,097	$46,881	$75,235
WNC	$0	$196,327	$122,583	$356,645	$55,192
DRI	$40,000	$7,308	$0	$0	$0
System	$60,741	$27,102	$154,158	$869,564	$15,533
Total	$713,631	$1,102,283	$781,631	$1,313,400	$217,814

 Table 2. NSHE Reported Buyouts/Settlements - Number

Calendar Year	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
UNLV	6	2	0	0	1
UNR	4	2	1	2	0
NSU	0	0	0	0	1
CSN	3	0	1	0	0
GBC	1	3	0	0	0
TMCC	2	13	12	1	2
WNC	0	4	3	6	1
DRI	1	1	0	0	0
System	1	1	3	5	1
Total	18	26	20	14	6

Full Transparency and Accountability

As stewards of public funds, the Board of Regents should clarify the reporting policy to encompass ALL compensation that is not earned through service, for all classes of employees and former employees. This includes but is not limited to:

Transparent reporting of these items would not require the identification of individuals or release of confidential information, only the aggregate numbers and monetary amounts by institution and type of payout. Payments for attorney fees and expenses as part of a settlement or termination agreement should also be reported. Note that the former NSHE General Counsel told the Board of Regents that settlement agreements are not confidential per Nevada Revised Statutes:

"NRS provides that any agreement to settle a claim or action brought against an employee must not provide any terms of the agreement be confidential. NRS also provides that the settlement must include a number for attorney’s fees and costs to be paid pursuant to the agreement and that any settlement is public record."

The omission of relevant data in reports to the Board allows NSHE institutions to obfuscate the use of public funds and to avoid accountability for employment practices. 

As always, faculty members with an employment-related issue should feel free to contact the NFA for guidance. 

***

Data and interpretations are based on the cited reports and other Board materials. Corrections from authoritative sources are welcome (Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org).

Recently, the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance reached out to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to express concerns about violations of shared governance at the University of Nevada, Reno. The AAUP acknowledged NFA’s concerns about the climate at UNR and responded with an advisory letter that included relevant AAUP statements on aspects of shared governance.

The AAUP informed us that only about 10% of the complaints they receive rise to the level of our letter. The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance has sent UNR leadership a copy of this letter, and we hope they will read through these materials and work with faculty via the Senate and other groups to improve the climate at UNR. We are confident that faculty members across the institution will value this effort, which will also help improve some of the widespread retention and morale issues reported to us and others.

Our complaint to the AAUP began with expressing concerns about ongoing threats to shared governance and academic freedom. Our formal complaint was that:

. . .various members of the administration, guided by UNR’s Office of the General Counsel, have facilitated the dismissal of academic misconduct charges and/or the altering of student grades without faculty permission; have set an unreasonably high bar for removing disruptive and threatening students from classes; have greatly limited faculty’s ability to revise college bylaws; have undue influence on the Title IX/EEO process; have engaged in problematic hiring practices for institutional leaders; and provided overly restrictive guidance around DEI work. 

The AAUP quickly replied that the described behaviors were concerning and that only 10% of the complaints they receive rise to this level of action–the full letter can be seen below. The AAUP recommended that the NFA send the upper administration a letter explaining relevant AAUP guidance around some of the described issues.

The AAUP also provided three relevant guidance documents–we are including links to and relevant excerpts from each letter below:

Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities

The variety and complexity of the tasks performed by institutions of higher education produce an inescapable interdependence among governing board, administration, faculty, students, and others. The relationship calls for adequate communication among these components, and full opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort.

Faculty Participation in the Selection, Evaluation, and Retention of Administrators

…the composition of the search committee should reflect the primacy of faculty interest, and the faculty component of the committee should be chosen by the faculty of the unit or by a representative body of the faculty. The person chosen for an administrative position should be selected from among the names submitted by the search committee. The president, after fully weighing the views of the committee, will make the final choice. Nonetheless, sound academic practice dictates that the president not choose a person over the reasoned opposition of the faculty.

The Role of the Faculty in Budgetary and Salary Matters

The faculty should participate both in the preparation of the total institutional budget and (within the framework of the total budget) in decisions relevant to the further apportioning of its specific fiscal divisions (salaries, academic programs, tuition, physical plant and grounds, and so on). The soundness of resulting decisions should be enhanced if an elected representative committee of the faculty participates in deciding on the overall allocation of institutional resources and the proportion to be devoted directly to the academic program. This committee should be given access to all information that it requires to perform its task effectively, and it should have the opportunity to confer periodically with represen- tatives of the administration and governing board.

Despite the gravity of the issues discussed in our original letter and in the AAUP response, NFA leadership remains hopeful for positive changes in shared governance at the University of Nevada, Reno. In the meantime, we advise faculty to do the following:

1. Contact their faculty senators to express any concerns about violations of shared governance and encourage the Senate to engage on these issues.
2. Share instances of shared governance violations with NFA leadership, so that we can advocate accordingly.
3. Share relevant concerns with one’s regent.

Fiscal Analysis of UNLV and UNR Annual Athletics Reports for 2022-2023

[Update:  After NFA called out these projected deficits [1], revised Annual Athletics Reports for UNLV and UNR were posted as supplemental materials for the March 1 Board of Regents meeting.  UNLV raised various projected revenues to about break even for FY2025 through FY2028.  UNR raised projected revenues and reduced some projected expenses, but still projects about $2 million per year in deficits for FY2025 through FY2028 (after spending the $10 million per year in additional institutional support).  Neither UNLV nor UNLV provided public explanations for how or why they revised their budget projections.]

Both UNLV and UNR are projecting multi-million dollar annual deficits through fiscal year 2028, which would lead to cumulative deficits of $27 million at UNLV and $38 million at UNR by 2028. At the March 1, 2024, Board of Regents meeting, the Intercollegiate athletics programs at UNLV and UNR will present their 2022–23 budget information for the past five years and projected budgets for the next five years. Institutional presidents and the Board of Regents are responsible for holding athletics programs, as well as other “self-supported” university programs, accountable for fiscally sound practices. Alarmingly, the UNLV and UNR presentations contain no strategies for avoiding these unsustainable budget deficits other than vague mentions of increased gifts or university subsidies.

Here, we provide a fiscal analysis of the two NCAA Division I programs at UNLV and UNR, highlighting issues of concern.

Charts 1A and 1B (below) show the reported* annual operating revenues from the athletics self-supporting budgets for UNLV and UNR, respectively, from FY2016 through FY2023 (actuals) and FY2024 (projected).  The revenues are categorized as (a) state appropriations, (b) student fees, (c) tuition and fee waivers, (d) institutional support, or (e) athletics income.  Athletics income includes ticket sales, NCAA and conference distribution, media revenue, contributions designated for athletics, and all other program revenue of the athletics programs.

Charts 2A and 2B (below) show the annual operating surplus (or deficits) reported* to NCAA by UNLV and UNR, respectively, along with cumulative surpluses (deficits) starting with FY2019, the most recent annual athletics reports that stated the ending reserve balances, with projections through FY2018.  The cumulative deficit for UNR does not include $8.25 million in "historical debt" that was assumed by the university in 2018.

UNLV

UNLV increased institutional support by about $10 million in FY2021 using federal COVID relief funds to cover pandemic-related losses, then returned university support to previous levels (see Chart 1A). 

Contributions increased from $4.6 million in FY2023 to a projected $14 million in FY2023, and then are projected to continue at $10 million per year (see “Contributions” under Revenue on page 25 of the UNLV Annual Athletics Report). The source of these higher contributions to the UNLV athletics program was not discussed in the 2023 Annual Athletics Report.

For FY2023, UNLV reported an operating account deficit of $10 million.  For FY2024, UNLV projects breaking about even. For FY2025 through FY2028, UNLV is projecting annual deficits of $4.2 to $5.8 million, which would result in a cumulative deficit of $27 million in FY2028 (see Chart 2A). The 2023 UNLV report does not indicate how this deficit will be addressed, only stating the athletics budget office is seeking to clarify institutional support (page 24).

Compensation for coaches at UNLV is increasing from $7.9 million in FY2023 to $11.4 million projected for FY2024, a 44% increase (compared with 12% cost-of-living adjustments).

UNR

UNR increased institutional support by about $10 million per year beginning in FY2021, initially to cover pandemic-related losses (see Chart 1B). UNR projects that higher level of university support to continue through FY2028. Reportedly, the initial funding for the increased institutional subsidy came from federal COVID relief funds while current and future funding is from Marigold Mine royalty income. However, the UNR Marigold Mine royalties are a finite and variable source of funds so it is unclear whether that is sustainable.  

For FY2023, UNR reported breaking even with an operating account surplus fo $23,339.  For FY2024, UNR projects a deficit of $2.9 million. For FY2025 through FY2028, UNR is projecting annual deficits of $7.4 to $9.7 million, which would result in a cumulative deficit of $38 million in FY2028 (see Chart 2B). These deficits are projected to occur despite the $10 million per year in additional university support. The 2023 report suggests that “additional University support” from UNR will be requested (see “Institutional Revenues” footnote on page 12) in an attempt to maintain parity within the Mountain West conference. That contradicts assurances from the UNR administration that UNR will hold the line on any further increases in institutional support and that Athletics cannot come back and ask for more.

Compensation for coaches at UNR is increasing from $8.8 million in FY2023 to $9.4 million projected for FY2024, a 7% increase (compared with 12% cost-of-living adjustments).

Chart 1A.

Chart 1B.

Chart 2A.

Chart 2B.

###

 *Notes: The annual reports for the NCAA Division I programs at UNLV and UNR contain revenue and expense data as reported to the NCAA and as tracked for the self-supporting budgets internally in Workday. The latter exclude various indirect and indirect support, and different accounting standards may apply (e.g., cash vs accrual bases). Also, despite a 2018 NSHE internal audit review designed to make the UNLV and UNR financial reporting more consistent, the format and breakout details of the budget tables in the annual reports are different. Here only apples-to-apples data are compared as we understand the reports. Corrections from authoritative sources are welcome (Contact: kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org).

References

• 2016 UNLV Annual Athletics Report
• 2017 UNLV   Athletics Report
• 2018 UNLV Annual Athletics Report
• 2019 UNLV Annual Athletics Report
• 2020 UNLV Annual Athletics Report
• 2021 UNLV Annual Athletics Report
• 2022 UNLV Annual Athletics Report
• 2023 UNLV Annual Athletics Report [Update: Revised 2/27/2024]
• 2016 UNR Annual Athletics Report
• 2017 UNR Annual Athletics Report
• 2018 UNR Annual Athletics Report
• 2019 UNR Annual Athletics Report
• 2020 UNR Annual Athletics Report
• 2021 UNR Annual Athletics Report
• 2022 UNR Annual Athletics Report
• 2023 UNR Annual Athletics Report [Update: Revised 2/27/2024]

[1] The revised reports for Agenda item 20 appeared sometime after 5:35 pm on February 27.  NFA's written public comment to Regents reprising the data in this blog post of February 23 was submitted on the morning of February 27 at 7:14 am.

The board of the UNR Chapter of the Nevada Faculty Alliance expresses concern about the integrity of hiring processes for leadership positions at UNR. In the past week, a blog post raised concerns about the publication record of Dean Erick Jones of Engineering and led to additional coverage in the Sagebrush, This Is Reno, and Retraction Watch. While we believe that Dean Jones deserves due process in the investigation of these allegations, as would any faculty member, we have heard concerns from faculty across campus about his hiring process, as well as the hiring processes for various executive-level leaders. Given that UNR has seen record turnover in dean and vice president positions since 2020, with additional searches ongoing, ensuring full consideration of stakeholder input in these processes is paramount for hiring the strongest candidates who have the qualities to lead effectively while also being respected as leaders in their fields.

It has come to our attention that the processes set in place by college and university bylaws are not always being followed in leadership searches. Whereas the UNR Bylaws and University Administrative Manual have clear requirements for Vice President searches with faculty representation, we have seen at least two Vice Presidents (the VP, Governmental Relations and Community Engagement, and VP, Legal Affairs) appointed into their positions without a search, and the new Vice President for Information Technology was appointed after a search for a Vice Provost for Information Technology. The following table, based on data gathered via NFA public records requests, documents the searches and appointments of Vice Presidents by President Sandoval. In one case (VP, Governmental Relations and Community Engagement), there is no record of the required notice of appointment to the Board of Regents.

Position	Incumbent	Date Appointment Reported by President Sandoval to Board of Regents per NSHE Handbook 1.6.1(b,c)	VP Search following UNR Bylaws 3.6.3 and UAM 2,522	Search Firm
Executive Vice President and Provost	Jeff Thompson	12/13/2021	YES	WittKiefer
Vice President, Administration and Finance	Andrew Clinger	6/1/2023	YES	UNR search chaired by Patricia Richard
Vice President, Advancement	Patricia Richard	5/5/2023	NO (interim appointment)
Vice President, Governmental Relations and Community Engagement	Michael Flores	No record of notice to Regents in response to NFA public records request	NO
Vice President, Information Technology	Sasi Pillay	11/17/2022	NO (search for Vice Provost, Information Technology)	WittKiefer
Vice President, Legal Affairs	Mary Dugan	11/4/2022	NO
Vice President, Student Services	Catherine Cardwell	11/30/2023	NO (interim appointment)	Current UNR search for VP, Student Affairs, chaired by David Shintani

In multiple instances, the hiring of leaders has been perceived as being decided by who they know, rather than the qualities they bring to the positions. NFA has expressed these concerns in at least one previous letter sent to President Sandoval, to which NFA received no response. In the case of the search for the Engineering Dean in 2022, using the outside search firm AcademicSearch, five finalists were brought to campus, whose forums were announced via a campus-wide email. After this search failed to result in a hire, Dean Jones was invited to campus in the middle of the summer, when most faculty are off contract, and appointed a few weeks later. Engineering faculty have alleged this process bypassed the initial search committee and that faculty concerns were ignored.

Recently, we have seen a shift to simply appointing people into campus-wide leadership positions. After the departure of the previous Director of Latinx/Hispanic Community Relations in June 2023, who was hired via a formal search with campus and community forums, a new director was simply appointed. At the December 2023 Senate meeting, President Sandoval said that he was in talks with someone he would like to appoint as the permanent Executive Director of DEI. After some senators raised concerns, he opened a search with a short application window, but no information was provided about a search committee or campus forums for this important position. While opening a search was a promising step, a compromised search is just as bad as no search. Similarly, on February 5, 2024, the campus community was notified that Mehmet Tosun was appointed as the Chief International Officer for UNR–no search was conducted for what appears to be an important campus-wide position.

The Wolf Pack Rising strategic plan calls for UNR to “Increase faculty and staff diversity to achieve alignment with the National Association of System Heads (NASH) Equity Action Framework on hiring, retention, promotions, and rewards best practices.” Failing to conduct proper searches with input from a variety of stakeholders hinders the University’s ability to find talented candidates from a diversity of backgrounds, and risks people being promoted based on who they know, rather than the qualifications they bring to the position.

We are not questioning the qualifications of individual candidates, but rather calling for the administration to rebuild the UNR community’s confidence in our leadership by recommitting to shared governance in future executive hires. This work can include:

• Having search committees and public forums for all leadership positions at the Dean level or above, or those that have a campus-wide role.
  
• Ensuring that the chairs of search committees work closely with committees through every step of the process.
  
• Selecting search committees that represent a diversity of perspectives and empower those committees to have a strong role in shaping the hiring process.
  
• Conducting stakeholder surveys, and centering that feedback in the hiring process–consider releasing summaries of those surveys to the campus community.
  
• Ensuring that any person involved in the hiring process discloses any personal connections or conflicts of interest that may influence their hiring of a particular candidate, and recuses themselves from a decision-making role.
  

By taking these steps, we believe that UNR’s leadership can correct course and restore our faith in the hiring of future leaders.