The Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) includes Universities in Reno and Las Vegas, a State College in Henderson, and Community College campuses throughout the state. It has been on a wild spending spree for most of this decade, fueled by the political power of millionaire-turned-chancellor Jim Rogers. With his demands for even higher taxes to fund yet more hypergrowth falling on deaf ears, Rogers is now advocating putting the financial burden on those who can least afford it - students. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, his latest plan would move Nevada's universities from below-average tuition to above-average tuition.
According to the 2001 Appropriations Report and the 2007 Appropriations Report the student enrollment increase in the last six years (2002-03 to 2008-09) was about 13.4% at UNR, and about 20.1% at UNLV. In 2002-03 the budget for UNLV was $140,300,576 (Ed Sect. web page 30). Six years later the legislatively approved budget was $270,250,842 (Ed Sect. web page 44), a whopping 92.6% increase. Remember student enrollment only increased 20% during this period. At UNR in 2002-03 the budget was $115,985,430 (Ed Sect. web page 29). Six years later in 2009 the legislatively approved budget was $196,512,430 (Ed Sect. web page 43), a 66% increase. Remember student enrollment only increased 13.4% during this period. Below is the University spending since FY2002:
Year Total Spending General Fund Spending
2001-02 $495,831,297 $346,845,022
2002-03 $530,804,136 $370,593,608
2003-04 $623,544,443 $482,655,305
2004-05 $660,235,771 $506,746,590
2005-06 $734,687,365 $557,374,664
2006-07 $792,195,555 $591,813,068
2007-08 $837,905,664 $639,293,540
2008-09 $912,423,319 $677,091,932
So from FY 2002 to FY 2009 the legislative approved funding for higher education increased from $496 million to $912 million, an 84% increase.
Some of NSHE's luxurious policies include:
Posted by Webmaster on March 7, 2010 under Higher Ed
One of the most piercing of all sounds emitted by government is the collective shriek of the workforce at the Nevada System of Higher Education. They claim they’re actually having to take pay cuts as a result of Nevada’s shrinking population (and tax revenue).
While someday it might be true, it doesn’t appear to be true heading into the spring of 2010.
Most everyone agrees that the professors and teaching staff are enjoying a healthy increase in their income this year. It’s the “classified” staff that’s gaining sympathy through doe-eyed looks and cooked books. As it turns out, they generally get an automatic annual pay hike that exceeds any proposed cost of furlough.
Classified Salary Schedules and furlough information:
Teaching Faculty:
The Classified Salary step increases (the pay increase for being there an extra year, excluding increases for promotions and CPI increases) range from a low of 3.3% to a high of 4.6% per annual step. For some reason the highest paid get the biggest percentage step increases. The furlough plan reduced pay by 2.3% per year and the schedule reflects a very small pay decrease (about 0.5%).
The good news for the employees, then, is that they don’t have to work as much and their base pay is not affected; after the furlough is over pay pops right back where it was. The employees can elect to take the furlough at 2.3% a year for FY 10 and FY 11 or get full pay in FY 10 and take 4.6% furlough in FY11. So the furlough offsets most of the classified step pay increases. If someone was at the top of the salary scale, then they wouldn’t get a step increase so for those few employees there would be a small pay reduction (2.3%) to compensate for the fewer hours worked.
Secondly, as previously stated none of the tenured professors were required to take any furlough and thus saw zero pay reduction. The employee’s benefits are also not reduced, just their hours of work.
For an example, picking someone in the middle of the schedule (step 40-1) where the employer pays the full retirement: They were making $51,364.80 in 7/1/08. In 7/1/09 their salary would be $53,452.80 (having moved a step by being there another year). As a result of the furlough, they get approx. an extra hour off a week (taken as a periodic day off without pay). This would reduce the employee’s $53,453 salary by 2.3% to compensate for the time off, reducing her pay to $52,223.
The bottom line for this employee? She is making about $858 a year more than he was the previous year and had to work 2.3% less. This is not ideal, but I find it hard to see how it is some kind of tragedy – certainly not by private industry standards. The tenured profs naturally fair much better than this.
Note that this example is before the special session so it is possible (but not certain) the changes implemented by the Board of Regents following the session will result in a small pay decrease for this employee.
So while a few NSHE employees will see a very slight drop in pay in direct relation to not having to work as much, most will see an increase in pay for not having to work as much.
This is in direct contrast to the biased pablum served to us each day by our TV stations and newspapers. They see the taxpaying private companies as under-taxed and believe increases are needed to pay the public employees what they believe they are due, so they present their viewpoint as fact.
In defense of NSHE classified employees, they correctly point out that their increases over the past decade have trailed those of other government workers. Does that make them poorly treated, or their richer employees of other branches and agencies shameless pillagers of the public trough?
Posted by Webmaster on March 2, 2010 under Higher Ed
UNLV officials strutted their stuff about town tonight. They were smug since they succeeded in hushing down plans to invest $14-million into a new “practice” facility for the basketball team until the Legislature finished its special session on how to deal with tax revenue falling short of targets.
The UNLV student government members who spent University dollars driving to and shacking up in Carson City to plead poverty at the Legislature must be terribly embarrassed.
Posted by Webmaster on June 26, 2009 under Higher Ed
The Reno Gazette Journal’s headline shouts: “UNR Eliminates 279 Jobs” but of course they are lying. If you read deep within Lenita Powers’ article, you’ll find the truth:
- UNR paid 37 people extra to retire who wanted to retire anyway (1% of the workforce)
- UNR didn’t extend the contracts of 37 employees (1.2% of the workforce) for whom there was no obligation to extend the contracts
- The other 211 “employees”, were either not actually employees (just new people UNR hoped it might be able to hire) or are employees that will remain as employees but will be “paid out of a different account” (6.7% of the workforce)
Prior to these “drastic” cuts, UNR counted 3,145 positions (not all actually filled) according to this spreadsheet:
http://www.unr.edu/vpaf/pba/budget/historical/09state&selfFTE.xls
Posted by Webmaster on April 2, 2009 under Higher Ed
But the Reno Gazette Journal has put together some great information on Nevada’s northern campus. 16% of UNR’s total payroll cost taxpayers half of all the salary money spent. A higher percentage of employees make over $100,000 per year than almost any other governmental institution in the state.
Posted by Webmaster on January 16, 2009 under Higher Ed, News
University Chancellor Jim Rogers’ grandstanding aside, the one-third reduction of taxpayer funding for Nevada’s system of higher education proposes to roll the clock back five or six years on spending.
Here’s the 2001 Appropriations Report, and the 2007 Appropriations Report. Together, they show student enrollment increase in the last six years was about 13.4% at UNR, and about 20.1% at UNLV.
They also show In 2002-03 the budget for UNLV, for example, was $140,300,576 (Ed Sect. web page 30). Six years later the legislatively approved budget was $270,250,842 (Ed Sect. web page 44), a whopping 92.6% increase.
The Gibbons proposal to prioritize government services and reduce NSHE tax proceeds by one third actually only reduces spending to around the same rate as enrollment growth.
“I would blow my brains out if I thought this was going through,” said Jim Rogers, apparently aching to take the place of Samuel Clemens in Nevada’s storied history.
Below is the University system spending since FY02:
| Year |
Total Spending |
General Fund Spending |
| 2001-02 |
$495,831,297 |
$346,845,022 (p.31) |
| 2002-03 |
$530,804,136 |
$370,593,608 (p.31) |
| 2003-04 |
$623,544,443 |
$482,655,305 |
| 2004-05 |
$660,235,771 |
$506,746,590 |
| 2005-06 |
$734,687,365 |
$557,374,664 |
| 2006-07 |
$792,195,555 |
$591,813,068 |
| 2007-08 |
$837,905,664 |
$639,293,540 (p.45) |
| 2008-09 |
$912,423,319 |
$677,091,932 (p. 45) |
Now, the Governor is proposing to reduce total spending down to a level that’s still higher than 2003/2004.
Posted by Webmaster on January 7, 2009 under Higher Ed, News, Tax Structure
An immense amount of planning and forethought has been invested by Jim Rogers in convincing Nevadans that our government has been already cut to the bone. No, beyond! Any more will destroy the state!
It’s gotta hurt, then, to wake up and read the Nevada Controller’s legally-mandated report on actual taxing and spending. Last fiscal year, state government spending increased 4.5% (although revenue “plummeted” by 2%).
We start with a media account of the critical 2008 CAFR. The actual CAFR will follow in a few days.
