Director of Research Geoffrey Lawrence and Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan op-ed in the Reno Gazette Journal about short term rental regulations.
Director of Research Geoffrey Lawrence and Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan op-ed in the Reno Gazette Journal about short term rental regulations.
Nevada Policy’s Anahit Baghshetsyan’s informative commentary in the Las Vegas Review-Journal
The Las Vegas Review-Journal published an op-ed letter by Nevada Policy’s Policy Analyst, Anahit Baghshetsyan, about the future of film tax credits in Nevada.
Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan’s op-ed for the Las Vegas Review Journal about the New York City Mayor’s race and what it could mean for Nevada.
Read the op-ed here.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote an article based on Policy Fellow Cameron Belt’s piece about a need for changing regulations in Nevada. Read the article here.
The Reno Gazette interviewed Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan about the changes to Nevada’s home insurance law. Read the full story here.
The Las Vegas Review Journal cited Nevada Policy’s research in its article about Governor Lombardo’s vetoes this legislative session.
The Review-Journal’s editorial quotes Research Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan.
Article written based on Nevada Policy’s 200 Boards report
Please put “Media” in the subject line and include your questions, deadline, and contact information, and we will respond as soon as possible.
Email: pr@nevadapolicy.org
The Legislature cannot effectively serve the public if policy is being shaped based on outright falsehoods and misinformation, which is why it is illegal to knowingly submit false testimony before a legislative committee.
Nevada Policy has alerted Legislative Counsel Bureau Director Rick Combs and the attorney general’s office to what appears to be a clear violation of NRS 218E.085(2) — the state law that makes it a crime to knowingly misrepresent any fact when testifying before a legislative committee.
The false statements were made by lobbyist Marlene Lockard during the March 1, 2019 Senate Government Affairs Committee hearing on SB224 — the PERS secrecy bill.
Ms. Lockard appeared on behalf of the Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN), and was featured as part of Senator Julia Ratti’s formal presentation for Senate Bill 224.
As part of this formal presentation, Ms. Lockard relied almost entirely on known falsehoods when explaining why the secrecy proposed by SB224 is ostensibly necessary.
Specifically, Lockard told the committee that passing SB224 was necessary because of a recent court order that allegedly requires PERS to disclose its members’ passports, addresses of ex-spouses, birth certificates and other similarly invasive information. In reality, no such court order exists and none of that information is, nor has it ever been, public under Nevada law.
Given the status bestowed upon her by Senator Ratti, Ms. Lockard’s demonstrably false comments were accorded extra weight. Indeed, the first time a member of the committee had a question about SB224, that question was posed to, and answered by, Ms. Lockard rather than the bill’s sponsor, Senator Ratti.
More information about that hearing can be found here.
Because the knowingly false statements were made specifically to justify the secrecy proposed by SB224, and were made by a paid lobbyist invited by the bill’s sponsor to help present the bill, they represent precisely the type of deception NRS 218E.085(2) was designed to prevent, according to NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner.
“It is fine to have different policy views and argue those differences vigorously,” Fellner said. “But I think we all would agree that enacting law based on falsehoods and misinformation is wrong, and erodes confidence in our public institutions.”
“It is hard enough for ordinary Nevadans to be engaged with the legislative process thanks to the proliferation of tax-funded government lobbyists and other special-interest groups,” Fellner continued. “Requiring that citizens fact-check all of the claims made by those who help introduce bills is an impossible task, which is precisely why Nevada state law prohibits the making of knowingly false testimony before the Legislature.”
“NPRI has long fought for transparency in government,” Fellner added. “Nowhere is transparency more important than in the legislative process. We hope that legislators remember their duty to serve the public and ensure any bills brought on behalf of lobbyists are done so in an open and honest manner.”
A copy of the complaint can be viewed by clicking here.
For more information, please contact NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner at Robert@NevadaPolicy.org.
[sgmb id=”1″]
Nevada is one step closer to ending the perverse “policing for profit” program, thanks to yesterday’s introduction of Assembly Bill 420.
Existing law allows police to seize property from those never convicted, or even charged, with a crime. Making matters worse, the seizing agency is entitled to a sizeable portion of the proceeds generated by forfeited property.
AB420 proposes two critical reforms. First, it requires a conviction (or similar plea agreement) before forfeiture proceedings can be initiated. Second, it eliminates the “policing for profit” incentive by directing the bulk of forfeiture proceeds towards the State Permanent School Fund, rather than law enforcement.
“For decades, forfeiture laws have upended the due-process rights of ordinary Nevadans,” said Nevada Policy Senior Policy Analyst Daniel Honchariw. “It’s well past time for legislation of this type.”
AB420 is being spearheaded by Asm. Steve Yeager, who has firsthand experience of how forfeiture is abused under the current system, thanks to his experience as a public defender.
Forfeiture has been shown to have a disparate impact on communities of color and the impoverished within Clark County, meaning the people most often impacted by current forfeiture policies are those least capable of defending themselves in court.
“Nevada Policy applauds Asm. Yeager for bringing AB420 forward and for all his efforts to end the unjust practice of civil asset forfeiture,” said Honchariw.
“The Legislature should join the broad, bipartisan reform movement sweeping the nation and restore the due process rights of all Nevadans by passing AB420.”
To learn more about this issue, be sure to visit the “civil asset forfeiture” section of NPRI’s Solutions 2019 policy sourcebook.
This week, a bill was proposed to preserve scholarships for low-income students, by continuing a $20 million increase made to the Opportunity Scholarship program during the last legislative session.
Senator Heidi Gansert’s bill to continue the higher level of funding offers hope to the low-income students who would see their scholarships taken away should funding not continue.
“This program is about making sure low income, at risk, students have access to the classrooms that give them the best opportunity to succeed in life,” said Nevada Policy Communications Director Michael Schaus. “We are thrilled that Senator Gansert has taken the lead in making sure these children continue to have access to quality educational options.”
The bill also expands the program, by waiving the income restriction for special needs students, giving even more students access to the kind of educational options that can make a fundamental difference in their lives.
“This bill focuses on giving opportunities and options to the very students who are most in need,” said Schaus.
Introduction of the bill, however, is just the first step in a long process. Schaus says it’s unclear if Democrat majorities will entertain Gansert’s proposal without significant pressure from parents, citizens and voters.
“If Gansert’s bill isn’t passed, and signed into law, nearly 1,000 kids will have a life changing opportunity taken away from them, and they’ll be forced back into the very schools where they struggled to succeed in the first place,” says Schaus.
“Parents need to let their lawmakers know that this program deserves their support. It’s up to citizens, parents and voters to make sure lawmakers understand their vote will directly decide the educational future of countless low-income and special needs students,” said Schaus.
Media inquiries should be directed to Michael Schaus, Nevada Policy’s Communications Director.
michael@nevadapolicy.org
* * *
Read more about how Opportunity Scholarships benefit students and taxpayers alike, while also reducing overcrowding and increasing available per-pupil funding for public schools: Nevada’s Opportunity Scholarships: A Win for Students and Taxpayers
Granting collective bargaining powers to Nevada state workers will increase annual spending by an estimated $500 million annually, a cost that will be passed onto taxpayers through higher taxes, reduced services or both.
The arguments most commonly used in support of Senate Bill 135, which is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Government Affairs Committee next Wednesday, is the false belief that state workers are underpaid.
But a new study from Nevada Policy, The Political Push for State-Worker Collective Bargaining, shows that compensation for Nevada state workers already ranks among the highest nationwide, and dwarfs the amount earned by the average taxpayer.
Specifically, the report found that average compensation for Nevada state workers ranks 10th highest nationwide on a raw, unadjusted basis, and fifth highest when accounting for the different price levels among the 50 states.
At 49 percent greater than the average private-sector worker, compensation for Nevada state workers ranked second highest nationwide:
Perhaps most revealing is the expressed preferences of Nevada state workers themselves, who have a voluntarily quit rate of roughly one-third the level found in the private sector nationwide.
So why do so many lawmakers support a policy that will require raising taxes on those earning less to enrich those making more?
Politicians embrace the unionization of government workers for political reasons, according to NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner.
“Politicians are happy to promise above-market compensation to government unions, as they do so with other people’s money. Moreover, politicians are keenly aware of the outsized role these organizations play in the election process, essentially operating as tax-funded political action committees.”
This “corrosion of the democratic process” comes at a heavy price for ordinary Nevadans, Fellner said.
“Raising taxes on private-sector Nevadans, who on average earn much less themselves, to further inflate the pay premium enjoyed by Nevada’s government workers is neither fair nor sustainable,” Fellner said.
At the very least, the public deserves to have accurate information about the laws that are ostensibly being passed on their behalf, Fellner says.
“Lawmakers should not be enacting policies based on misinformation. Those arguing for collective bargaining for state workers, and the additional $500 million in annual spending that comes with it, have repeatedly espoused falsehoods regarding state worker compensation.
“The data is clear and overwhelming: Nevada state workers receive compensation that ranks among the richest nationwide, regardless of the metric used.”
To read the full study, please click here.
[sgmb id=”1″]
In response to Governor Steve Sisolak’s announcement that he intends to reduce funding for the Opportunity Scholarship program, which would rip away scholarships from approximately 950 students just two years after receiving them, Nevada Policy Communications Director Michael Schaus released the following statement:
Our hearts break for the children whose scholarships are now at risk — and we will do everything we can to partner with parents to make sure their voices are heard during the legislative session.
Sisolak’s plan to slash the funding of Opportunity Scholarships means approximately 950 of the roughly 2,500 low-income students who take advantage of these scholarships are going to be forced back into the very schools where they struggled to succeed in the first place. They’ll be forced to leave the new teachers they have found who connect with them, the new friends who encourage them and the new schools that cater to their unique needs.
In short, if these scholarships are not continued, political leadership in Nevada will have told each one of these disadvantaged students that their shot at a good education isn’t nearly as important as protecting the political interests of the public-school system that left them behind in the first place.
Parents need to let Gov. Sisolak and the legislature know that lawmakers should be focused on helping kids get in the classrooms where they can truly succeed — not taking away scholarships that put such classrooms within reach.
Read more about how Opportunity Scholarships benefit students and taxpayers alike, while also reducing overcrowding and increasing available per-pupil funding for public schools: Nevada’s Opportunity Scholarships: A Win for Students and Taxpayers
Nevada Policy is one of 18 organizations across the country listed as co-signers on an amicus brief filed last week in support of Kathleen Uradnik, a university professor in Minnesota, in her US Supreme Court lawsuit, Uradnik vs Inter Faculty Association.
The brief, filed and authored by the Center of the American Experiment, urges the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization, which calls for an immediate end to laws that force public-sector employees to accept a union’s exclusive representation. The case, filed by The Buckeye Institute, is the first major post-Janus labor challenge filed with the United States Supreme Court. The counsel of record is Andrew Grossman of BakerHostetler.
The Uradnik case challenges state laws that appoint a union to represent and speak for all workers, even those who disagree with it – an arrangement known as “exclusive representation.”
Uradnik, who has had major disputes with her faculty’s labor union, which has discriminated against her, is nonetheless required by state law to associate with it and to allow it to speak for her. Nevada has similar laws imposing exclusive representation upon public employees, limiting their freedoms and opportunities for advancement.
A win for Uradnik would strike down such laws nationwide, another major blow against union favoritism and in favor of First Amendment rights. The amicus brief encourages the Supreme Court to hear the case, hopefully in its 2019 session.
Nevada Policy Communications Director Michael Schaus released the following statement:
“Exclusive representation laws deny government workers the right to vote on which union, if any, represents them. All workers — even those who opt not to pay union dues — are forced into a binding relationship with the union, as collectively-bargained agreements apply to the entire bargaining unit. The irony is that unions claim to have the best interests of their members at heart, yet exclusive representation does nothing but strip away their members’ workplace rights.”
Nevada lawmakers shouldn’t wait for the Supreme Court to declare this scheme unconstitutional, however. A simple legislative fix known as Workers’ Choice would restore workers right by as early as this summer, should the Legislature choose to act.
To learn more about Workers’ Choice in Nevada, click here to read Employee Freedom: A Primer on state-based, pro-worker reforms.
Seventeen groups signed on to American Experiment’s amicus brief including: the Alaska Policy Forum, Americans for Lawful Unionism, Americans for Tax Reform, the Beacon Center of Tennessee, the Center for Worker Freedom, the Freedom Foundation, the Illinois Policy Institute, the Liberty Justice Center—which successfully argued Janus v. AFSCME, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Maine Heritage Policy Center, Montana Policy Institute, Nevada Policy Research Institute, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Rio Grande Foundation, Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights, and the Wyoming Liberty Group.
Professor Uradnik’s case was filed on July 6, 2018, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, with a preliminary injunction motion filed on July 31, 2018. The motion for preliminary injunction was denied on September 27, 2018, and The Buckeye Institute immediately filed its notice of appeal and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to quickly deny its motion so the case could be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 4, 2018, The Buckeye Institute filed its appeal in Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization with the Supreme Court of the United States—the first major post-Janus labor challenge before the court. The counsel of record is Andrew Grossman of Baker Hostetler.
You can read Professor Uradnik’s commentary in the St. Cloud Times here.
Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.