EDITORIAL:

Voting yes on Question 1 would bring Nevada’s higher education system into the 21st century

Sun, Oct 25, 2020 (2 a.m.)

For an idea of why Nevadans should feel good about voting for Ballot Question 1, which would set the stage to reform Nevada’s higher education oversight structure, take a look at who’s supporting it and who’s opposing it.

The formal support group, “Yes on 1,” includes groups that don’t often agree on much of anything: Democratic and Republican lawmakers, mayors of large Southern Nevada cities and rural Northern Nevada communities, and business and labor groups. Question 1 is even endorsed by both the Sun and the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is remarkable given the two newspapers’ very distinct editorial stances.

Who’s voting yes?

Here’s a look at some of the individuals and organizations supporting Question 1.

• Political leaders: North Las Vegas Mayor John Lee, Henderson Mayor Debra March, Fallon Mayor Ken Tedford, and West Wendover Mayor Daniel Corona.

It’s also worth noting that in the two votes by the Legislature to put Ballot Question 1 before voters, lawmakers approved the measure by overwhelming margins: 38-4 in the Assembly and 18-2 in the state Senate in 2017, and 36-5 in the Assembly and 20-0 in the state Senate in 2019.

• Business groups: the Nevada Mining Association, Vegas Chamber, the Latin Chamber, the Las Vegas Asian Chamber, the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada in Reno, and the Nevada division of the National Federation of Independent Business.

• Labor organizations: SEIU Local 1107, Nevada AFL-CIO, Culinary Workers Union Local 226, the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, and the Professional Firefighters of Nevada.

• Educational leaders and organizations: The Clark County Education Association, and past presidents of several of the state’s colleges, including Dr. John Gwaltney, former president of Truckee Meadows Community College; Dr. Carol Lucey, former president of Western Nevada College; and Chet Burton, former president of Western Nevada College and chief financial officer of NSHE.

When such a diverse group coalesces behind a ballot question, you know there’s something to it.

And who’s opposing the question?

Well, first of all, know that there’s no formal opposition group.

But here’s what is even more telling: The only voices opposing the question are coming from the Nevada Board of Regents — the very board that would be reformed under the measure. In other words, the only people who are pushing to maintain the status quo are the ones with a personal, vested interest in protecting it.

That speaks volumes about the importance of passing Question 1, which would allow state lawmakers to restructure the highly problematic Board of Regents and the umbrella administrative agency for the state’s universities and colleges, the Nevada System of Higher Education. The ballot question is a keystone for this reform, as it would remove the Board of Regents from the state constitution and end its status as essentially a separate branch of government.

Nevada’s structure is the only one of its kind in the U.S., and in this case unique isn’t good. In our setup, the regents and NSHE have roles similar to a school board and a superintendent’s office in a K-12 school district. In this analogy, the presidents of the universities and colleges would be the school principals, and the NSHE chancellor would be the superintendent.

The problems stem from the wording about the regents in the constitution, which in a de facto manner makes the 13-member board accountable only to itself and the small number of voters who pay attention to its actions. That lack of accountability has led to all manner of problems, including rampant abuses of authority, and a history of mismanaging and micromanaging the university system.

Removing the regents from the constitution would allow Nevadans to rein in the regents, by giving state lawmakers clear authority over them and NSHE. This would allow the state to restructure the system. Although the ballot question doesn’t specify how the new structure would look, ideas include reducing the size of the board and folding it into the state departments overseen by the governor (like the Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture, etc.) Nevada could also model other states by creating a hybrid board in which some members are elected and some are appointed by the governor with confirmation by the Legislature, which would create further accountability.

As is, Nevada’s universities and colleges have suffered as a result of the current set-up. UNLV has been hit particularly hard, as the regents’ meddling played a significant role in constant leadership disruptions in recent years. The university is on its seventh president (including temporary ones) since 2006, resulting in a “two steps forward, one step back” era in which UNLV was hindered from meeting its potential.

UNLV has made progress regardless, including by achieving elite Carnegie R-1 status as a research institution, but we can only imagine how much more the university could have achieved under an oversight system that supported it instead of constantly undercutting it.

That’s the essence of the message from the “Yes on 1” support groups: Getting a handle on the regents is good not only for UNLV and Southern Nevada but the entire state. Not only is it critical for Nevadans to provide our families with high-quality post-secondary education, but a vibrant higher ed system also serves employers in need of well-qualified staff, and helps attract businesses from outside of Nevada.

This works across the board: North and South, in big cities served by four-year universities and small towns served by community colleges, for both businesses and labor groups. That’s why you see such a diverse group of interests supporting the question.

They understand that passing Question 1 would put Nevada on a road to getting the kind of competent, professional and accountable leadership we need in our higher education system.

It’s a simple matter of a state maturing. When the regents were written into the constitution, Nevada had more cows than people. Now we have more people than we can adequately educate given all the drama that the dysfunctional Board of Regents brings upon the universities and colleges. That drama takes the institutions away from their central mission: to educate.

To be sure, there are some regents who care deeply and should continue regardless of whatever structure. There are too many others, though, who couldn’t make the cut if the Legislature and governor weigh in on the kind and quality of talent needed to advance higher education.

Pick out the states with high-quality higher education, and none of them are stuck in the ways of the 1800s. Nevada needs to modernize and mature. Question 1 is a necessary first step.

Back to top

SHARE