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.
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 Reno Gazette Journal featured an op-ed by Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan about film tax credits in Nevada. Read the full article here.
Nevada Policy’s Policy Analyst, Anahit Baghshetsyan, was interviewed by NPR affiliate KUNR about the legislature’s options for the difficult insurance situation in the Silver State. Read the article here.
Nevada Policy President, John Tsarpalas was interviewed on the American Potential Podcast about the grassroots victory over RCV ballot question in the 2024 election. Watch the interview 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
For Immediate Release
Contact Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS — A new national survey indicates that nearly 30 percent of union members would opt out of union membership if they knew they could keep their job and not face any penalties.
The survey is part of National Employee Freedom Week (NEFW), an annual national campaign that informs union members about their workplace rights, including their right to exit union membership. NEFW runs Sunday, August 14th through Saturday, August 20th and consists of more than 80 organizations in over 35 states.
Responding to charges by labor leaders that opting out of membership makes employees into “free riders,” the NEFW coalition conducted additional state-specific surveys to test support for a new policy known as “Worker’s Choice” — a policy that would allow workers who opt-out of paying membership dues to represent themselves in negotiations with their employer.
Nationally, more than two-thirds of union members agreed with the proposal, and over 60 percent of union members in Nevada were supportive.
NPRI’s communication director, and executive director of National Employee Freedom Week, Michael Schaus described the results as a “huge win for employee freedom.”
“No workers should feel trapped in their union. It’s not fair to them, and it’s not fair to the union,” explained Schaus. “This year’s poll results show that, nationally and locally, majorities support this concept of worker’s choice — letting employees decide for themselves whether or not they will belong to a collective bargaining unit.”
In addition to educating union members about their rights, NEFW also helps them exercise these rights. The NEFW website features an interactive map that includes information on opt-out windows, sample opt-out letters, and information about union alternatives.
The surveys were conducted by Google Consumer Surveys, between July 13th and August 2nd, 2016. They each surveyed roughly 300 people and have a margin of error of approximately 6 percent.
###
For Immediate Release
Contact Robert Fellner, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS— A lawmaker received numerous threatening phone calls and emails from Vegas police officers after he suggested a slightly less generous pension enhancement than the one demanded by unions — one of the most shocking findings from a historical analysis documenting how the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (PERS) grew to become the nation’s richest public pension plan.
“The fact that a lawmaker received threats after proposing an enhancement, albeit one not as rich as demanded, demonstrates how pervasive this culture of union entitlement has become,” said Robert Fellner, director of transparency research at the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
The union’s preferred enhancement ultimately passed, paving the way for one 38-year old to draw an annual $110,804 pension, while working full-time. Given the individual’s age, actuaries project he will receive a total of over $13 million in combined lifetime PERS payouts.
The Nevada Policy Research Institute’s just-released white paper, “Footprints: How PERS, step by step, made Nevada government employees some of the nation’s richest,” documents how PERS was covertly turned into a government-union gold mine, at taxpayer expense, over the past 40 years.
Government unions repeatedly stormed the Legislature, demanding that short-term investment gains be used to pay for new enhancements, rather than pay down the system’s multi-billion dollar deficit or be saved as security against a future market downturn.
Financially naïve citizen-lawmakers were all too happy to go along, as the enhancements appeared free during their term — allowing them to curry favor with government unions while postponing any cost increases until well after their personal legislative terms ended.
This is one reason why plans like PERS are fundamentally flawed, according to Fellner.
“Public pension plans are inherently opaque, with PERS in a class of its own. By design, the system shrouds cost from public view, pushes those costs onto future generations, and ultimately, exposes both taxpayers and employees to tremendous risk. If properly understood, Nevadans would demand immediate system reform.”
Compounding the problem is a retirement board that consistently exclusively of PERS members — one of only four plans out of 87 major public plans surveyed nationwide to do so. Several current PERS board members are union bosses themselves, and appear earlier in the legislative-sessions records as lobbyists for enhancements, before ending up on the board itself in later years.
Excluding both government employers and taxpayers completely — despite both being stakeholders in PERS — sends a clear message: only plan members’ interests will be represented.
In fact, that is just what has happened, according to Fellner.
“Requiring the PERS board to consist exclusively of plan members reveals the premise underlying the past 40 years of PERS-related legislative history: The system exists to serve government unions, at the expense of both employers and taxpayers.”
Soaring costs
In a recent Forbes.com column, Chuck DeVore of the Texas Public Policy Foundation calculated the cost to pay down Nevada’s pension debt as the 4th-highest nationwide, requiring a 16 percent hike in all state and local taxes for the next 30 years.
Last year’s 2.3 percent investment return means that PERS has failed to hit its investment target over the past 5-, 10-, 15-, 20- and 25-year periods, the first time in history this has happened, and a strong indication that costs will continue to grow.
Footprints concludes by urging the Legislature to adopt reforms similar to those enacted by the federal government and several states — such as Arizona and Utah — and move employees to a defined contribution plan.
“A defined contribution plan benefits government employers and taxpayers by providing complete cost stability and transparency, while providing government employees a fair, sustainable retirement benefit that they can count on,” says Fellner. “The current system, by contrast, exposes retirees to a substantial risk of pension cuts, should we see a serious market downturn in the next 10 years.”
# # #
For Immediate Release
Contact Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS — Due to the Federal government’s decision to divert water away from a church group’s private land in Nye County more than five years ago, the most recent rains in Southern Nevada have resulted in yet another flood — forcing the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Center for Justice to file a new takings claim in federal court on behalf of Ministerio Roca Solida (Solid Rock Ministry).
“Because of the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s actions more than five years ago, less and less rainfall now results in greater and greater flooding,” said Joe Becker, director of NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation.
The trouble began in late 2010, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service illegally and deliberately diverted a spring-fed stream to which Solid Rock Ministry had vested water rights — a stream which had traversed the private property now owned by the church since at least as early as the late 1800s.
This movement of the waterway and taking of the Ministry’s vested water rights was done without the requisite Clean Water Act permits, in direct violation of FEMA requirements, and with no regard for the Ministry’s religious use of the water for baptisms.
The scofflaw water diversion project had other ramifications as well. In addition to stripping the Ministry of its access to its “river baptism” waters, the diversion has resulted in repeated flooding of the church property.
As predicted years ago by Solid Rock Ministry’s expert hydrologist, erosion from repeated floods — which began after the Fish and Wildlife Service finished its inadequate diversion channel around the property — has carved away large swaths of the once pristine 40 acre property.
And, because of the federal government’s dangerously negligent construction of the channel — never engineered to accommodate any rain or runoff waters — the damage has been compounding.
“A mini-grand-canyon now cuts through what was once lush wetlands, and the significant improvements made to structures and the land for the benefit of young campers are being undone with each recurring flood” explained Becker.
“Sadly, the damage done by this repeated flooding is now so severe, there is no choice left but to hold the federal government accountable for a complete taking,” said Becker.
Due to the excessive damage brought on by the government’s unconstitutional taking of the Ministry’s vested water rights, Solid Rock Ministry, represented by NPRI’s CJCL, filed its new Complaint for an unconstitutional taking of the entire 40 acre property plus the loss of its vested water rights for the past 5+ years, before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, DC — the only federal court with jurisdiction over a takings claim that has now risen to an amount in excess of 3 million dollars.
More background on the case:
Because the United States violated multiple constitutional rights in one factual swoop in August of 2010, the SOLID ROCK MINISTRY filed a Complaint for the tort, due process, and free exercise claims in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and a takings claim in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims back in 2012 — along with a motion to stay proceedings in that court pending the outcome of the injunctive relief sought in the District Court.
The UNITED STATES however, argued before the Court of Federal Claims that, pursuant to United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation and that case’s re-interpretation of a longstanding jurisdictional statute as to what constitutes the “same claim,” Plaintiff could not pursue all its claims. The Claims Court held that the Church could not bring a takings claim in the Federal Court of Claims whilst seeking relief for other government transgressions in U.S. District Court — despite the fact that no single federal court had jurisdiction over all the claims, or could make the Plaintiff constitutionally whole for each of the government’s constitutional violations.
Because justice demands that a jurisdictional statute cannot be interpreted to force a Plaintiff to forgo one constitutional right to remedy another, the church, pastored by Victor Fuentes, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court which, despite an amicus brief filed on the Church’s behalf by the State of Nevada, was denied.
Meanwhile, because the District Court moved so slowly on the Church’s remaining claims, Pastor Fuentes was left with no choice but to voluntarily dismiss claims at the District Court, simply so it could vindicate its constitutional right to be free of an uncompensated taking — a takings claim which, due to three more floods at the hands of government, has now become the claim on which the church can be made closest to whole.
Sadly, the damage done by this repeated flooding is now so severe, there is no choice left but to hold the federal government accountable for a complete taking, without the availability of the tort remedy or the injunctive relief originally sought to restore the property to its pre-diversion-project condition.
For these reasons, today, Solid Rock Ministry filed its new Complaint for an unconstitutional taking of the entire 40 acre property plus the loss of its vested water rights for the past 5 years, before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, DC, the only federal court with jurisdiction over a claim that has now risen to an amount in excess of 3 million dollars.
Download 
07-12-16-Fuentes Final Complaint FINAL DRAFT
Download 07-12-16-Notice of Directly Related Cases
###
For Immediate Release – July 7, 2016
Contact Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS — With just over a week left for Nevada teachers to leave their union, the Nevada Policy Research Institute is launching a social media blitz to let educators know about their options.
“The unions seem to make opting out as difficult as possible,” said Michael Schaus, NPRI’s communications director.
For a teacher to leave the union, they have to know about a short two-week period in the middle of summer. If they miss the July 1st through July 15th window, they’ll be stuck in their union for another year.
Many teachers may prefer to stay in the union — and Schaus says they should have the right to do so. But for teachers who would rather represent themselves, or don’t agree with the union’s political leanings, opting-out provides substantial benefits, and can actually save teachers money.
“It’s really about individual choice, and worker freedom,” Schaus said. “No one should be forced or tricked into paying dues to a union they don’t feel adequately represents them.”
It’s a message that seems to be resonating.
Since NPRI began the annual campaign to let teachers know about their right to leave the union, more than 3,500 teachers have decided to opt-out — saving up to $800 per teacher in annual union dues.
“Many of these teachers realized they could get much better benefits — such as insurance, instructional resources and other representation — through alternative trade organizations, such as the American Association of Educators,” explained Schaus.
Many private sector professions, such as doctors and lawyers, already depend on trade organizations rather than unions for protection, guidance and information.
“In the end, unions aren’t the only resource for teachers — and they certainly aren’t always the best,” said Schaus.
The largest challenge for most teachers who would like to leave their union, however, is that many teachers simply don’t know opting out is even an option.
In addition to NPRI’s email and social media campaign, letting teachers know that the opt-out period runs from July 1st to July 15th, the Institute also has pre-written opt-out letters for interested teachers to download on npri.org.
“The bottom line is that teachers deserve to be treated with respect, and they deserve the right to choose for themselves whether or not they want to belong to a union,” said Schaus.
“And these two weeks, as short as that period is, lets teachers take advantage of that right — but only if they know about it,” Schaus added. “That’s where we come in.”
###
For Immediate Release
Contact Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS — Following a 2013 Nevada Supreme Court opinion, Nevada’s Public Employee Retirement System intentionally altered the way it maintained key documents in an effort to render them largely useless to the general public, according to a Petition filed by the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
”By replacing names with ‘non-disclosable’ social security numbers in its actuarial record-keeping documents, PERS has attempted to circumvent the 2013 ruling of the Nevada Supreme Court requiring disclosure,” explained Joseph Becker, the director of NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation.
CJCL today petitioned the court to once again order PERS to comply with both the letter and spirit of the Nevada Public Records Act and hand over the retirement payout information.
In 2015 NPRI requested retirement records to include on its TransparentNevada.com website — a free resource for public-sector administrators and taxpayers interested in learning about the cost of public sector compensation.
The requested information — similar to that which NPRI had received in the past — was to include the names, employer information, and payments made by PERS to public-sector retirees.
However, following that 2013 decision requiring PERS to provide such details, the agency altered the way it maintains these records — rendering them virtually useless for transparency purposes.
“No retiree names were part of the newly engineered report,” said Becker.
The new report replaces names with social security numbers, which by law cannot be made public. PERS then asserts it is therefore “required” to redact the very social security numbers they inserted instead of names.
“This leaves nothing more than a list of payments to unknown individuals,” explained Becker. “It’s a clear attempt to keep the actual payments from public view.”
The agency has gone even further than simply altering the way in which it maintains payment information to keep it hidden from the public: It has also refused to accommodate NPRI’s requests to adjust the list so that full disclosure of PERS payments can be made public.
Despite admittedly having access to a full list of the names that match the social security numbers included on the report, PERS officials claim that it has no duty to provide the names of these recipients to the public — because doing so would require compiling the requested information from two known sources.
However, a 2015 Nevada Supreme Court decision involving the Las Vegas Metro Police Department strongly indicates otherwise:
When an agency has a computer program that can readily compile the requested information, the agency is not excused from its duty to produce and disclose that information.
Despite having the clear ability to provide the public with useful and complete records, PERS has deliberately subverted transparency by altering its record keeping, and refusing repeated requests for full disclosure.
“Not only has PERS attempted to re-engineer its record-keeping in a way that obscures from public view its critical financial instability — for which the taxpayers of Nevada are ultimately on the hook,” said Becker, “PERS is also violating both the letter and spirit of the Nevada Public Records Act — the express legislative purpose of which is to ‘foster democratic principles by providing members of the public with access to inspect and copy public books and records.’”
Download PERS Petition July 6 2016,
###
For Immediate Release
Contact Michael Schaus 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS — Real educational choice for parents and children is one step closer to becoming a reality in Nevada, after a Clark County District Court Judge dismissed the ACLU’s pointless lawsuit against the state’s Education Savings Account program.
The ACLU had argued that ESAs violated the state constitution’s “little Blaine amendment,” because parents would have the option of spending ESA funds at private religious schools. After District Judge Eric Johnson rightly dismissed the lawsuit, NPRI Communications Director Michael Schaus issued the following statement:
Judge Johnson made the right decision in dismissing the ACLU’s attempts to derail the most expansive and inclusive educational choice program in America. By using a law based in bigotry from the 1800s as justification for denying students expanded opportunity in education, the ACLU lawsuit sought to limit the options available to parents and students who are desperate to escape from failing government schools.
Empowering parents, rather than bureaucrats or politicians, is inherently in line with Nevada’s constitution. Giving individual families control over their own future is not only a foundational element of a free society and its citizen-driven economy, but it is a fundamental human right no court should consider infringing.
We’re happy to see that Judge Johnson reached the decision he did. And we’re even more pleased to see that nearly universal educational choice is one step closer to reality in the Silver State.
The court’s decision can be read by clicking here.
###
Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.