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
CARSON CITY — The Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation (CJCL) today appealed District Judge James Russell’s decision dismissing a lawsuit against State Senator Heidi Gansert for violating the state constitution’s separation of powers clause.
“Defying the clear language of the Nevada constitution, Nevada Supreme Court precedent, and a 2004 Attorney General Advisory Opinion by then-attorney-general Governor Brian Sandoval, Judge Russell relied upon a non-binding opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau in his ruling from the bench—but we believe the actual words of the state constitution should matter more,” explained CJCL Director Joseph Becker.
Representing plaintiff Doug French, The Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation filed the suit in February, alleging Gansert is violating Article 3, Section 1 of Nevada’s State Constitution by occupying a seat in the state legislature while also working in Nevada’s executive branch as Executive Director of External Relations for the University of Nevada, Reno.
Article 3, Section 1 — the separation-of-powers clause in Nevada’s constitution — reads quite clearly:
The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments,—the Legislative,—the Executive and the Judicial; and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others… [Emphasis added.]
“Judge Russell seemed determined to protect a member of the political class, irrespective of what the law says,” commented Becker at the time of the ruling.
Becker further stated that Judge Russell’s dismissal flatly ignored the legal arguments put forward in the case, instead choosing to adopt as law a Legislative Counsel Bureau opinion.
“We believe the plain language of the constitution should take precedent over a non-binding LCB opinion, or the preferences of the ruling class,” commented Becker. “And we look forward to the appeals process finally giving further legal clarity on the issue.”
To read more about Judge Russell’s dismissal, click here.
Click here to view a copy of the Notice of Appeal and here to view a copy of the Case Appeal Statement.
In response to last week’s Nevada Journal report — which found that the Incline Village General Improvement District’s records retention policy violates state law — the Nevada Policy Research Institute has chosen to file a formal complaint with the Attorney General’s office.
NPRI president John Tsarpalas issued the following statement:
“Nevadans deserve maximum transparency from their government, which is something the state’s public records law is supposed to provide. But this law means nothing if governments are free to defy it without consequence. The Attorney General must ensure all governments provide their citizens with the maximum transparency they deserve, and that the law demands.”
Click here to read more about the Incline Village General Improvement District's efforts to conceal their records from the public.
For more information, please contact NPRI transparency director Robert Fellner at 702.222.0642 or rf@npri.org.
In a stunning admission reported earlier today exclusively by the Nevada Journal, staff at the Incline Village General Improvement District (IVGID) openly confessed to destroying or concealing public records as a matter of policy — a felony-level crime under Nevada state law.
After area resident Mark Smith submitted a public records request for, among other things, copies of all email correspondence between IVGID general manager Steve Pinkerton and the district’s trash company, Waste Management, IVGID staff responded by only providing copies of emails from the past 30 days, citing a “retention policy” whereby any emails older than 30 days were either destroyed or withheld from production.
Yet, NAC 239.155 expressly requires that local governments permanently retain the email correspondence of executives like IVGID general manager Steve Pinkerton. The only exception to this mandate is if a local government adopted their own written records retention schedule, which had received the approval of the State Library, Archives and Public Records Administrator. Yet, by IVGID’s own admission, their 30 day retention policy received no such approval.
As Nevada Journal managing editor and NPRI senior vice president Steven Miller reported:
If any of the requested emails still exist in some form of digital backup, IVGID would have illegally concealed them, a category C felony under Nevada law, specifically NRS 239.320. If the emails were destroyed, that, also, is a C felony under the same statute.
In addition to the District’s policy violating the letter of the law, it also eviscerates the spirit and intent of the state’s public records law, as this exact case demonstrates:
On August 1, 58 days after the initial request, IVGID finally turned over a handful of emails. Although Smith’s request had covered multiple years, with special attention to 2016, the district had released only a dozen recent emails. And the earliest was dated a couple of weeks after his June 4th request.
“So the two problems,” Smith told Nevada Journal, “are, one, they didn’t [provide] anywhere near [the records requested], but, two is, they received my email on June 4th, and after they received my request, they deleted emails.”
In responses to the allegations of criminality at IVGID, NPRI communications director Michael Schaus released the following statement:
It is imperative that local governments be transparent and are held accountable to the people they serve. In order to keep taxpayers in the dark, IVGID has chosen to blatantly and flagrantly defy state law. The State must immediately investigate IVGID’s unlawful actions and take any means necessary to bring them into compliance with the state’s public records law.
Be sure to visit NevadaJournal.com or click here to read the story, IVGID’s efforts to conceal public records gets bizarre, in its entirety.
For Immediate Release
Contact Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS — Today, the Nevada Policy Research Institute is highlighting the results of a new study by Dr. Lloyd Corder of CorCom Inc, comparing union employee workplace experiences and satisfaction in Right-to-Work and non-Right-to-Work (Union) states. Findings include:
Additionally, the study found that union employees in Right-to-Work states have similar satisfaction levels with wages and workplace conditions compared to those in Union states, casting doubt on union leaders’ criticisms of Right-to-Work laws. These responses include:
“Union bosses just lost one of their favorite talking points: that union workers are unhappy under Right-to-Work laws,” said Michael Schaus, communications director of the Nevada Policy Research Institute. “And this study makes clear that union employees are hungry for even more freedom and accountability at work.”
Union employees (1,687) were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and surveyed between April 24th and May 2nd, 2017. The study results have a margin of error of 4 percent (Right-to-Work states) and 3 percent (Union states).
For more information, visit EmployeeFreedomWeek.com. To view the full study, click here.
###
For Immediate Release
Contact: Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
CARSON CITY, NV — Ignoring a 2004 AG advisory opinion, a 1967 binding Nevada Supreme Court precedent and the plain language of the state constitution, District Judge James Russell Tuesday dismissed a separation of powers lawsuit against State Senator Heidi Gansert.
“Judge Russell seemed determined to protect a member of the political class, irrespective of what the law says,” commented Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation Director Joseph Becker.
Representing plaintiff Doug French, The Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation filed the suit in February, alleging Gansert is violating Article 3, Section 1 of Nevada’s State Constitution by occupying a seat in the state legislature while also working in Nevada’s executive branch.
Judge Russell dismissed the lawsuit in a bench ruling, saying in part that because other legislators would be negatively impacted by any potential ruling, the suit should have named every single lawmaker similarly employed in the executive branch as “necessary parties.”
“Essentially, we were told that in order to sue Senator Gansert for a constitutional violation, the Plaintiff must file similar suits against every other potential violator.” explained Becker.
“However, in 2004, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in Heller v. Nevada Legislature that such is simply not the case.”
Becker further stated that Judge Russell’s dismissal flatly ignored the legal arguments put forward in the case, instead choosing to adopt as law a Legislative Counsel Bureau opinion.
A 1967 Nevada Supreme Court decision, on the other hand, makes it clear that strict adherence to the separation of powers provision is vital to preservation of individual liberty. The court explained that even ministerial function by persons conducted across branches violates Nevada’s separation of powers clause. And a 2004 Attorney General Advisory Opinion authored by then-Attorney General Brian Sandoval advised that attempts to hold positions in more than one constitutional branch, as Gansert is attempting, are patently unconstitutional.
“Rather than following binding legal authority, however, the judge treated a proffered LCB opinion as law,” explained Becker. “Apparently the non-binding LCB opinion held more weight with Judge Russell than the actual text of the Nevada constitution or the Nevada Supreme Court opinions, which interpreted that constitutional provision in Plaintiff’s favor.”
The Judge’s order will likely be filed within the next two weeks, at which time CJCL and Plaintiff Douglas French will determine whether or not to appeal this issue of critical importance to all Nevadans.
###
For Immediate Release
Contact Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS — With the two week window allowing for Nevada teachers to opt out of union membership quickly approaching, the Nevada Policy Research Institute is preparing to launch a social media campaign to inform educators and support staff of their options.
“The teachers union has done its best to make opting out of union membership as difficult as can be,” said Nevada Policy Research Institute Communication Director Michael Schaus.
“Giving teachers a mere two weeks — in the middle of summer vacation no less — is hardly what someone would call accommodating.”
In order to opt out of their unions, teachers must do so during a two week period in the middle of summer. In most cases, if teachers do not submit an opt-out letter to their union or district between July 1st and July 15th, they will be forced to keep paying dues until next year’s opt-out window.
“At the end of the day, many teachers may prefer to stay in the union, and they have the right to do so,” said Schaus. “But not every teacher feels like they’re actually getting the value they deserve from membership. In the end, unions aren’t the only resource for teachers — and they certainly aren’t always the best.”
Clark County teachers, for example, pay as much as $800 per year for union benefits — benefits that are often inferior to the benefits offered by alternative, non-partisan educator associations such as the American Association of Educators.
Schaus says that there are many teachers who are thankful for NPRI’s campaign to let teachers know they have a choice about union membership. Since NPRI began its annual campaign in 2011 to remind teachers of their right to leave the union, more than 5,000 teachers have chosen to do so.
“The bottom line is, Nevada is a state that allows workers to choose for themselves whether or not they want to be a part of the union,” said Schaus.
“The only caveat is that teachers need to know how to do so — and let’s face it, the unions aren’t in a hurry to get that information to their members.”
Click here to download opt-out letters.
###
Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.