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
LAS VEGAS — TransparentNevada.com, the website that allows users to search public employee salary and benefit information by name, jurisdiction or job title, has been updated with 2014 compensation data for over 122,000 Nevada government employees.
The 2014 data includes salary and benefits information from 123 Nevada jurisdictions, although Clark County and the City of Henderson have yet to provide 2014 data.
Now, for the first time ever, the website — operated by the Nevada Policy Research Institute as a public service — includes compensation information for charter school employees.
“Each year, we update TransparentNevada.com with new public employee compensation information that is both shocking and eye-opening,” NPRI President Andy Matthews said.
“In 2014, we again saw countless instances of over-the-top compensation to government employees,” he said, adding that, “More than 1,300 government employees were paid in excess of $200,000, and 2,011 employees received higher compensation than did Gov. Brian Sandoval. The site is full of examples like these which, unfortunately, seem to be the norm rather than the exception.”
Thanks to the new information, users of the site may now view compensation data on charter school employees and compare them to those of public school employees. The new data shows that public school teachers, on average, received $75,974, versus charter school teachers who received $59,408 on average in 2014.
Some takeaways from the 2014 data:
It should be noted that the City of Henderson and Clark County have yet to provide 2014 data, so the numbers do not reflect the thousands of employees that work for those governments.
“Transparent Nevada is the go-to website for lawmakers, media, the public and even government employees who want to gain a better understanding of how Nevada government is spending taxpayer money,” Matthews said. “In 2014, Transparent Nevada earned 2.98 million page views and was cited by countless individuals trying to enhance government accountability.
“As state lawmakers consider reforms to collective bargaining, the new data on Transparent Nevada shows those reforms are needed now more than ever.”
TransparentNevada.com launched in September 2008 and has served as a unique source of government-financing information for hundreds of thousands of citizens, journalists and elected officials. Recently, Transparent Nevada added pension data from the Nevada Public Employees’ Retirement System to the site at TransparentNevada.com/nvpers/2014.
The site will be updated as other government entities provide salary information.
###
CARSON CITY – In response to today’s hearing by the Senate and Assembly Taxation Committees on Gov. Brian Sandoval’s Gross Receipt Business License Tax, NPRI Executive Vice President Victor Joecks released the following comments:
Gov. Brian Sandoval can put on a political circus, but his dog-and-pony show can’t mask the problems with SB252, his Gross Receipt Business License Tax. In November, voters rejected a similar proposal by a 4-to-1 ratio, because they understood that raising taxes on businesses that are losing money will kill jobs and force struggling businesses to close their doors.
Sandoval’s own witness, Jeremy Aguero, admitted that SB252 doesn’t solve the tax pyramiding problems inherent in gross receipts taxation. These structural problems are part of the reason why the Tax Foundation has said that, “There is no sensible case for gross receipts taxation.”
Sandoval’s staff says that they’ve modeled this tax after Texas, but earlier this month, Texas held a hearing to eliminate its margin tax. Texas wants to eliminate this tax because of the many problems Texas businesses have had with this tax. This includes 20 percent of small businesses having to lay off employees the year after the margin tax was implemented.
Joecks noted that Sandoval is pushing the Gross Receipts BLT as being broad based, but two years ago, Sandoval bragged about exempting three of four Nevada businesses from the Modified Business Tax. The concern about a narrow base is an issue that Sandoval created with his own policies.
Joecks noted that Sandoval’s proposal to dump more money in education has a 50-year track record of failure.
It’s amazing to watch three former governors talk about the need to dump more money into our failing education system without acknowledging that education funding increased during their tenure.
Gov. Bob Miller touted the start of class-size reduction during his testimony, but failed to acknowledge that spending billions on CSR has failed to increase student achievement.
What Nevada needs is fundamental reform, like universal Education Savings Accounts or paying top teachers in failing schools premium wages, instead of paying more for more of the same.
Sandoval’s education plan isn’t new. It’s the same plan politicians have been pushing for the last 50 years. It’s a shame that Sandoval wants to ignore 50 years of state history and doom tens of thousands of students to the same failing education system.
Nevada’s students need courageous leaders who are willing to fight for needed reforms, instead of further entrenching the status quo.
###
For immediate release
Contact Chantal Lovell, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS — The Nevada Policy Research Institute announced today it will again offer a $2,500 scholarship to a graduating Clark County high school student who shows the potential to make a significant contribution to the cause of economic liberty.
This is the fifth year that the Professor R.S. Nigam & NPRI Freedom Scholarship is being offered. It is open to all Clark County high school students — whether they attend a public, private, online or home school — who plan to attend college beginning in the fall of 2015.
This year students interested in applying for the scholarship are asked to write a two-page essay on this topic:
Improving education: raise taxes or allow school choice?
Gov. Brian Sandoval has proposed raising taxes by $1.3 billion to increase education funding. Do you support the governor’s plan? Or, do you support improving education by introducing school choice programs — such as opportunity scholarships, online learning, charter schools and education savings accounts — in Nevada?
“The Professor R.S. Nigam & NPRI Freedom Scholarship gives up-and-coming thinkers the opportunity to consider free-market solutions to real-world problems,” said Swadeep Nigam, who funds the scholarship program in the name of his father, an advocate of freedom and a professor of business in India and Nevada. “The question of how best to improve education is a question not only faced by districts in Nevada, but across the country. This year’s essay challenges graduates to think outside the box and find real remedies for public problems.”
All applicants must have a grade point average of at least 3.2 and complete an application, which includes the above essay question.
To be eligible, a student’s parents must have earned less than $125,000 in income in 2013, and the student must plan to attend a four-year degree program in business, economics, political science, public administration or a related field, at an accredited college or university.
Professor R.S. Nigam was a director of the Delhi School of Economics at the University of Delhi, a visiting professor at the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a senior fellow at the University of Wisconsin, in addition to academic engagements in Europe, the West Indies and Asia, including North Korea.
“This scholarship is a fitting way to honor Professor R.S. Nigam, who was devoted not only to free-market thinking, but education,” NPRI President Andy Matthews said of the professor who taught at UNLV, among other institutions across the globe. “We appreciate the opportunity to help an upcoming Clark County graduate further his or her education and honor Professor Nigam.”
Essays and applications are due to NPRI by May 1, 2015.
Full details of the scholarship and applicant requirements are available at:
http://www.npri.org/docLib/20150305_ScholarshipApplication2015.pdf
###
The Nevada Policy Research Institute ∙ 7130 Placid Street, Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-222-0642 ∙ Fax: 702-227-0927 ∙ Web site: www.npri.org
For immediate release
Contact Chantal Lovell, 702-222-0642
RENO — The Nevada Policy Research Institute rolled out a new billboard to help lawmakers and citizens understand how they can improve education in Nevada.
The billboard, located in Reno along the I-580 just north of W. Huffaker Lane and visible to northbound commuters — including lawmakers on their way to Reno or the airport — demonstrates why simply spending more on education won’t create better outcomes for students.
In 1983, Nevada spent $53,788 on a classroom of 25 students. In 2011, it spent $219,525 on 25 students, according research from Nevada’s Legislative Counsel Bureau. If the 1983 numbers are adjusted for inflation, Nevada still spent just $121,475 on a classroom of 25 students. Despite the dramatic increase in inflation-adjusted, per-pupil education funding, Nevada students continue to rank among the worst in the nation when it comes to performance.
NPRI’s Executive Vice President Victor Joecks issued the following statement regarding the billboard and Education Awareness Day:
If merely spending more on education were the way to achieve better education outcomes, test scores in Nevada would be soaring. As NPRI’s new billboard clearly shows, Nevada has been increasing education funding for decades, but we’re still waiting for results. It’s not how much we spend on education that matters, but how we spend that money that’s important.
Today, union members are wearing buttons that demand, “More for our students.” We at NPRI couldn’t agree more with that call. The time has come to give more choice to our students and their families and, thereby, bring more success to our students.
Nevada students deserve more from the adults controlling their futures. It’s time to step past the self interest of special interests and support school-choice measures such as opportunity scholarships and education savings accounts — which have nationwide records of proven success.
As detailed in NPRI’s study 33 ways to improve education in Nevada without spending more, Nevada can provide a better education to students with the funds currently spent on education by reallocating dollars from programs like full-day kindergarten, that produce no lasting results, to school choice programs that are effective.
“Unions continue to hold our children’s education hostage by demanding more money to pay for more of the same,” Joecks continued. “If we really want students to have a chance at success, if we really want ‘more for our students,’ we need 21st century reforms like AB165 and forthcoming legislation creating Education Savings Accounts, which would mean proven solutions for Nevada’s families.”
###
Nevada Policy Research Institute ∙ 7130 Placid St., Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-222-0642 ∙ Fax: 702-227-0927 ∙ Web site: http://npri.org
For immediate release
Contact Chantal Lovell, 702-222-0642
CARSON CITY — Three polls released today by the Nevada Policy Research Institute show strong opposition to the property-tax rollover contained in Senate Bill 119.
SB119 contains both a repeal of prevailing wage requirements for public school and university construction and a property tax rollover by authorizing school boards to conduct 10 additional years of bonding without a popular vote. SB119 has passed the Nevada state Senate and is scheduled for a hearing today, Thursday, February 26 in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs at 8 a.m.
The polls, written by NPRI and conducted by Google Consumer Surveys, each questioned 500 Nevada residents about the property-tax increase portion of SB119.
The first two questions show that Nevadans who had an opinion are, by a 3-to-2 ratio, less likely to vote for elected officials who supported a property tax increase for school construction. Residents were slightly more opposed when asked about a bond rollover compared to identifying the rollover solely as an increase in property taxes.
Are you more of less likely to vote for a lawmaker who votes to increase property taxes through a bond rollover to pay for school constructions?
Much/somewhat more likely: 20.7%
Would not affect my vote: 9.7%
Much/somewhat less likely: 32.3%
Are you more of less likely to vote for a lawmaker who votes to increase property taxes for school construction and repair?
Much/somewhat more likely: 21%
Would not affect my vote: 20.9%
Much/somewhat less likely: 29.3%
The remaining respondents were unsure.
The third question asked Nevadans their opinion on the tax while introducing the nature of SB119, which would not require a popular vote to roll such a bond over. Clark County voters had been assured, in the body of the 1998 ballot question, that the bonding was only for 10 years and that before seeking any rollover, spending proponents would again seek voters’ approval. This history may explain why support plummeted in the third survey, with residents’ opposition approaching a 3-to-1 margin.
Are you more or less likely to vote for a lawmaker who votes to roll over a property-tax rate for school construction and repair without requiring a popular vote?
Much/somewhat more likely: 12.4%
Would not affect my vote: 13.8%
Much/somewhat less likely: 31.1%
In response to the surveys, NPRI Executive Vice President Victor Joecks released the following comments:
As Nevadans have demonstrated at the polls multiple times, voters overwhelmingly oppose property tax increases. Voters are also less likely to vote for lawmakers who support the rollover of a previous property tax increase. Whether the tax increase contained in SB119 is labeled as a rollover or tax increase, the public opposes it by a significant ratio. When informed that SB119 would take away the ability of citizens to vote on a new rollover — breaking a promise to Clark and Washoe county property owners — support plummeted even further.
The elimination of the prevailing wage requirement included in SB119 is excellent public policy and would save taxpayers 10 to 15 percent on construction costs, by allowing government to pay market rates instead of union wage rates.
The problem with SB119 is that the primary savings would come from spending new tax dollars more efficiently, not more efficiently spending the tax dollars we currently pay.
For lawmakers interested in a proposal that would result in the elimination prevailing wage, while still respecting the ability of voters to vote on property-tax rollovers, Joecks proposed a compromise.
Since removal of the prevailing wage will save 10 to 15 percent in construction costs, a compromise that would be a win for taxpayers would be eliminating prevailing wage requirements in exchange for authorizing two additional years of bonding. This would allow the affected school districts to begin building immediately — their stated priority — while still allowing voters to decide in 2016 if they want their property taxes extended further to finance more school construction.
A conceptual amendment that NPRI also suggested would prevent any future use or extension of a property tax rate previously used by a school district for general obligation bonds without a popular vote.
The surveys were conducted from February 2 to 5, 2015, and have a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent. A white paper with more information on Google Consumer Surveys is available here.
More information:
School bond survey 1: http://www.npri.org/docLib/20150226_Schoolbondsurvey1.pdf
School bond survey 2: http://www.npri.org/docLib/20150226_Schoolbondsurvey2.pdf
School bond survey 3: http://www.npri.org/docLib/20150226_Schoolbondsurvey3.pdf
|
For Immediate Release |
Contact Chantal Lovell |
|
February 11, 2014 |
702-222-0642, 951-295-4855 (cell) |
LAS VEGAS — The Nevada Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in the Nevada Policy Research Institute lawsuit seeking to compel the Clark County School District to release its Directory of taxpayer-funded and government-issued teacher email addresses.
Joseph Becker, director and chief legal officer of NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, argued that the Eighth Judicial District Court erred when it dismissed the case under a judge’s theory that records of teacher email addresses — often posted on multiple district school websites — are exempt from public-record disclosure requirements under the Nevada Public Records Act.
NPRI sued CCSD in March 2013 after the school district refused to provide the email addresses existing in district records. Later that year, District Judge Doug Smith ruled the email-address records were not subject to disclosure under the Nevada Public Records Act.
Following today’s arguments, Becker issued this statement:
The Nevada Public Records Act considers all records to be public documents available for inspection unless otherwise explicitly made confidential by statute or by a balancing of public interests against privacy or law enforcement justifications for nondisclosure.
The NPRA exists to ensure that members of the public have broad access to government records so they can acquire information from government and keep it accountable. Should the District Court’s ruling not be reversed by Nevada’s high court, government bureaucrats will be permitted to withhold legitimate public records from the people of Nevada.
Fortunately for proponents of government transparency, the Nevada Supreme Court has a history of overturning lower court decisions that wrongly limit transparency in government. In previous open records cases, the Court has ruled that all records are public unless they are explicitly made confidential by statute, and directories of government-issued email address have never been made confidential by the Legislature. Furthermore, the Nevada Legislature and the Nevada Supreme Court have repeatedly held that disclosure under the public-records act is to be “construed liberally” and any limits placed on disclosure are to be “construed narrowly.”
NPRI’s case has been supported by a number of groups and individuals that don’t often see eye-to-eye. The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Institute. The Nevada Press Association, Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Steve Sebelius, and the Review-Journal editorial board have all expressed support for NPRI’s reading of the Act.
The Court did not issue a decision Wednesday.
More information:
The Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation is a public-interest law organization that litigates when necessary to protect the fundamental rights of individuals as set forth in the state and federal constitutions.
Learn more about the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation and this case at http://npri.org/litigation/.
###
The Nevada Policy Research Institute ∙ 7130 Placid St., Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-222-0642 ∙ Fax: 702-227-0927 ∙ Web site: http://npri.org/litigation
Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.