fbpx
Nevada Policy

Press

Press Releases

Sleight-of-hand, intimidation used to make PERS the nation’s richest plan

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.”

# # # 

 

Learn More
Federal agency’s actions result in destruction and total taking of church property in Nye County

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.

Pastor Victor Fuentes (left) stands with NPRI’s CJCL Director Joe Becker (right) in an area of the property eroded away by repeated flooding.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.Due to the inadequate construction of the federal government’s diversion channel, a 2015 rainstorm, similar to the more recent storms of 2016, brought massive flooding.

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 Download file 07-12-16-Fuentes Final Complaint FINAL DRAFT

Download Download file 07-12-16-Notice of Directly Related Cases

###

Learn More
Time is running out for teachers who want to opt out of their union

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.”

###

Learn More
NPRI takes legal action after PERS intentionally evades transparency law

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 Download file PERS Petition July 6 2016,

###

Learn More
NPRI praises Judge’s decision to dismiss ACLU case against ESAs

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.

 

###

Learn More
$268,000 unused leave payout boosts Metro lieutenant’s pay package to over half a million dollars

For Immediate Release, 

Contact Robert Fellner, 702-222-0642

LAS VEGAS — Cashing in unused leave for hundreds of thousands of dollars propelled several Metro police officers into the stratosphere of the state’s highest-compensated list, according to a survey of just-released 2015 salary data from TransparentNevada.com.

A $268,076 unused leave payout boosted retired Metro lieutenant Dennis Flynn’s total compensation package to $500,835 — making him Nevada’s 2nd highest-compensated government worker, behind the $552,011 received by Las Vegas Convention and Visitor Authority President Rossi Ralenkotter.

The survey draws on over 125,000 records obtained via public records requests made to every state, county and city agency in Nevada, as well as public-school and special districts.

After Ralenkotter and Flynn, the next three highest compensation packages went to:

  1. Retired Metro deputy chief Albert Salinas, whose $305,753 unused leave payout boosted his total compensation to: $456,096
  2. Clark County manager Donald Burnette, who collected: $436,469
  3. Retired North Las Vegas police chief Joseph Chronister, whose $269,420 unused leave payout boosted his total compensation to: $432,006

Metro officials stated that the policies authorizing such inflated unused leave payouts — Flynn’s was more than double his regular salary — have been discontinued and only apply to older employees.

Nevertheless, because the costs of existing and future employees will be borne by taxpayers for many years to come, these examples show why Nevada must embrace transparency in collective bargaining, according to Robert Fellner, director of transparency research at the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

“Enshrouding public bargaining in secrecy gives undue leverage to public unions, at taxpayer expense. Consequently, taxpayers only learn they must pay for these exorbitant perks when it comes time to pick up the tab.”

Overtime payouts more than doubled regular salary

Clark County’s 31.2 percent increase in overtime spending was the highest of any Nevada government, followed by 29.3 and 22.5 percent increases, respectively, in the Reno and Henderson city governments.

The top five largest overtime (OT) payments as a percentage of salary went to:

  1. Washoe County Deputy Sheriff Joe Bowen, whose $111,899 OT payout was nearly 55 percent more than his $72,388 salary.
  2. Las Vegas Fire Material Management Supervisor Jordan Bridges, whose $107,069 OT payout was 50 percent more than his $71,450 salary.
  3. Clark County Juvenile Probation Officer Derrick Giles, whose $95,478 OT payout was 33 percent more than his $71,572 salary.
  4. Las Vegas Corrections Officer Rodolfo Padilla, whose $137,268 OT payout was 31 percent more than his $104,475 salary.
  5. State of Nevada Corrections Officer Tom Tolbert, whose $67,747 OT payout was nearly 30 percent more than his $52,328 salary.

Benefits push average compensation over $100k

The average compensation for full-time, year-round employees of the three largest Southern Nevada municipalities was:

  1. Clark County: $105,077
  2. Henderson: $128,872
  3. Las Vegas: $131,403

Fellner noted a key driver behind the average six-figure compensation packages are extraordinarily rich retirement benefits that, shockingly, are entirely funded by taxpayers.

“While the median private employer spends 3 percent of pay on his or her employees’ retirement accounts, Nevada’s safety and non-safety local government workers receive benefits that cost 28 and 40 percent of pay, respectively.

“Nevadans can expect higher taxes or service cuts if they are forced to continue paying for retirement benefits that are nearly ten times richer than what they themselves are likely to receive.

“In 2013 — the most recent year data was available — Nevada’s local governments spent a national-high 9.6 percent of direct general expenditures on retirement costs, nearly quadruple the 2.5 percent national average.”

To view the entire dataset in a searchable and downloadable format, visit TransparentNevada.com.

Compensation is defined as total pay plus the employer-cost of health and retirement benefits. Full-time, year-round employees are defined as those who worked at least 1,720 hours in 2015.

For more information or to schedule an interview with NPRI, please contact Robert Fellner at 702-222-0642 or RF@npri.org.

 

###

Learn More

Media Mentions

All Media Mentions

CCSD Administrators Hiring Outpaces Teachers over Past Decade

Policy director, Geoff Lawrence, was interviewed about CCSD’s hiring trend.

This North Las Vegas official quit in May. He made $1M anyway

Las Vegas Review-Journal article featuring interview with Policy Director, Geoff Lawrence

November Could Determine Future of Ranked Choice Voting in US Elections

Daily Signal article featuring quotes by Nevada Policy President, John Tsarpalas

Nevada Policy

Media Inquiries

Please put “Media” in the subject line and include your questions, deadline, and contact information, and we will respond as soon as possible.

Email: communications@nevadapolicy.org

Phone: (702) 222-0642
Contact
Download Media Kit

Join the fight to save Nevada.

Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Media Inquiries

Name(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
DONATE
Search
Facebook Linkedin X-twitter Instagram Youtube