State Question 1 - Remove Constitutional Status of Board of Regents Amendment

Summary

This amendment would remove the Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution and would authorize the state legislature to review and change the governing organization of state universities.

A "Yes" Vote would amend the Nevada Constitution by: (1) removing provisions governing the election and duties of the Board of Regents and its control and management of the affairs 5 and funds of the State University and requiring the Legislature to provide by law for the governance of the State University and for the auditing of public higher education institutions in Nevada; and (2) revising provisions governing the administration of certain funding derived under federal law and dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University.

A "No" Vote vote would retain existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution governing the election and duties of the Board of Regents and its control and management of the affairs and funds of the State University and would not revise existing provisions governing the administration of certain funding derived under federal law and dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University.

Arguments

"The Legislature already has control over the state allocated portion of our institution's budget; the Legislature has the power to implement furloughs or mandate cost of living increases. Budgeting, in turn, affects hiring our institution can do, programs we can support, or initiatives we can pursue. This legislative session has also shown the Legislature has the power to give tuition or fee waivers to some populations (leaving our institutions to address budget impacts and provide support for those groups), and address other topics as wide ranging as providing education on FAFSA, providing information to students on mental health resources, and compensation for college athletes." - Amy Parson, Chair of the Faculty Senate of the University of Nevada, Reno, in opposition to State Question 1 (Learn more)

"Elected boards are in place to ensure schools and colleges reflect the values of the people, providing direct lines of accountability to the community. This is the main reason elected boards are preferable to appointed or hybrid models. Appointed officials are shielded by an appointing authority who typically has significant other responsibilities in addition to board appointments. It is extremely rare to see an elected official voted out of office over the actions or conduct of another official they have appointed. This is truer still when the appointment is made by another deliberative body." - NSEA (Nevada State Education Association), in opposition to State Question 1 (Learn more)

"The students we are educating today will be taxpayers tomorrow and will help our state and its economy to diversify and grow, even when tough times hit. These students and communities are now being let down by a large, centralized state bureaucracy that is inflexible and tone deaf to their needs and the needs of the institutions educating them. By ensuring that NSHE and the Board of Regents are held accountable, like every other state entity, and not shielded from critical oversight, we will be in a better place to meet the future needs of our state economy" - Dr. Carol Lucey, President Emerita of Western Nevada College Dr. John Gwaltney, President Emeritus of Truckee Meadows Community College, in support of State Question 1 (Learn more)

"We know the key to economic diversification and workforce development lies in agility of program development and an abundance of resources to provide our students with a quality education. This is just one step in many that will help ensure the $1 Billion dollars spent biennially on higher education is strategically spent to improve student outcomes. It is time we put student achievement first" - Hawah Ahmad, Clark County Education Association, in support of State Question 1 (Learn more)

Measure Details