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
|
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
For immediate release
Contact Victor Joecks, cell: 360-359-2656
CARSON CITY – Responding to Gov. Brian Sandoval’s release of details of his new business-license tax proposal, NPRI executive vice president Victor Joecks issued the following comments:
As part of his push for the largest tax increase in Nevada history, Gov. Sandoval is unfortunately trying to subject all Nevada businesses to a destructive new gross receipts tax. His proposal is a modified version of the margin tax that voters rejected last fall by a massive 4-to-1 margin.
The governor’s tax proposal is complex and filled with dozens of rate variations that, if passed, would be sure to send armies of lobbyists to Carson City for decades to come. Although good tax structures are simple and straightforward, this administration is seeking to saddle Nevadans with a Byzantine confusion of tax rates and hard-to-understand formulas.
Just like the tax rejected by Nevada voters last fall, Sandoval’s plan would even tax businesses that are losing money. This, along with the other taxes Sandoval wants to raise, would lead to job losses throughout Nevada and force struggling businesses to close their doors.
The Business License Tax is modeled in part on the margin tax that Texas imposed in 2007. Joecks noted that the Texas office of the National Federation of Independent Businesses found that the margin tax devastated small businesses in the Lone Star State.
The year after Texas lawmakers implemented the tax, an NFIB-Texas survey found that around 20 percent of small businesses said that they would have to lay off workers and another one-third reported they wouldn’t be filling jobs, because of the tax. The tax also forced 3 percent of small businesses to close their doors.
Joecks continued:
The problems with Sandoval’s tax-and-spend proposal also include what he’s spending the money on. Pouring more money into Nevada’s broken education system, especially into programs like full-day kindergarten and pre-K that are proven to be ineffective, would only continue the waste and won’t produce lasting student-achievement gains.
It is an important step forward for Sandoval to propose a true education reform like Opportunity Scholarships and to suggest that collective bargaining needs to be changed. Those critical reforms, however, do not cost more. They allow lawmakers to increase student achievement by spending the money we already have more effectively. That makes this destructive and complex tax entirely unnecessary.
###
|
For Immediate Release |
Contact Chantal Lovell |
|
January 22, 2015 |
702- 222-0642, 951-295-4855 (cell) |
LAS VEGAS — Many of Nevada’s public employees are retiring in the lap of luxury, according to a new analysis by the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
The analysis, written by NPRI executive vice president Victor Joecks and transparency manager Robert Fellner, finds that public employees in Nevada often receive a pension larger than their final base pay. Using new data uploaded on Thursday to TransparentNevada.com, the researchers compared the full-year equivalent 2013 retirement payouts of 2011-2013 full-career retirees in 10 of Nevada’s largest government agencies with their final-year base pay.
In the seven municipal governments analyzed, Clark County, Washoe County, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas Metro, Henderson, Reno, retirees with 30-plus years of service credit average pensions worth more than their final year of base pay — 100.59 percent of their base pay. Clark and Washoe County School District retirees receive over 89 percent of their final year’s base pay as retirement, while State of Nevada retirees receive pensions equal to 83.71 percent of their final year base pay.
Police and fire retirees receive the highest pensions, receiving 114 percent of their base pay.
Fellner noted that the study demonstrates part of the reason the Nevada Public Employee Retirement System has an unfunded liability of over $40 billion.
Retirees receiving not only their final year’s base pay, but more, for decades-long retirements should concern every taxpaying Nevadan, including public retirees. PERS has an unsustainable unfunded liability that has, in the past decade, ballooned to over $40 billion — over $40,000 worth of debt per household in Nevada. Taxpayers have been forced to significantly increase the amount they are paying toward public employees’ retirements as a result.
If the current Nevada Legislature fails to implement meaningful PERS reform, something akin to what was approved in the State of Utah, the pensions of tens of thousands of Nevada retirees and the long-term financial stability of the State will remain in jeopardy.
It is also not equitable to raise taxes on Nevada residents, who struggle to save for their own retirements, in order to pay for income-replacement-level retirement packages for government retirees.
Fellner noted that though the system assumes an 8 percent rate of return on investment will provide the funds needed to meet its future obligations, PERS’ actuarial investment returns have only once topped 8 percent in the years 2002 through 2013. As a result, taxpayer contributions to police and fire pensions have jumped from 28.5 percent of salaries in 2002 to 40.5 percent in 2013. For regular government employees, the taxpayer contributions have risen from 18.75 percent to 25.75 percent over that same period.
In conjunction with the analysis release, NPRI updated Transparent Nevada to include new 2013 PERS payout information. The new data is searchable by retiree names and payouts and now contains information on years of service and last employer. This is the first time that supplemental information has been publicly available and is necessary to confidently link the salary and pensions of government employees. The additional information provides further transparency to taxpayers and information to policymakers charged with curbing PERS’ burgeoning debt.
The full analysis can be read here.
###
Nevada Policy Research Institute ∙ 7130 Placid St., Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-222-0642 ∙ Fax: 702-227-0927 ∙ Web site: http://npri.org
CARSON CITY — Nevada’s Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court decision that NPRI’s Separation of Powers lawsuit, Pojunis v. State of Nevada, et al., was mooted by Sen. Mo Denis’ immediate resignation from his position with the Public Utilities Commission.
NPRI filed suit in November 2011 charging that Sen. Mo Denis was violating Article 3, Section 1, the separation-of-powers clause of Nevada’s Constitution, by simultaneously working in both the Executive and Legislative branches of Nevada government.
Within hours of being served with the initial Complaint in December 2011, state Sen. Mo Denis announced his resignation from his executive-branch employment with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Despite the important principle at stake and well-established, applicable exceptions to the “mootness doctrine,” the Nevada Supreme Court declined to rule on the important constitutional issue at stake in the case. In affirming a lower court ruling that the case was mooted by Sen. Denis’ resignation, the Supreme Court also didn’t address the “substantial public-interest” exception to the mootness doctrine raised by the Plaintiff.
In response, Joseph Becker, chief legal officer and director of NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, released the following comments:
It is unfortunate that the Court failed to address the “substantial public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine when ruling in the Pojunis v. State of Nevada, et al case.
Today’s decision focused only on the mootness issue, rather than on the merits of the separation-of-powers issue raised by the case. That issue is important because of the frequency with which Nevada politicians have exploited the court’s silence to amass personal — yet unconstitutional — power by simultaneously holding positions in separate branches and because of a long history of conflicting attorney general advisory opinions on this issue.
While Sen. Denis’ resignation from his executive-branch job with the Public Utilities Commission was a de facto admission that he had been violating the separation-of-powers clause, Nevadans would have benefitted from a clear Supreme Court ruling affirming this key constitutional principle.
The CJCL appeal also raised the issue of whether moneys paid by the state to Denis while he was unconstitutionally employed by the Public Utilities Commission and at the same time exercising power as a state lawmaker should be repaid. The court said that plaintiff/taxpayer Pojunis lacked standing to make such a request “because, even assuming that taxpayer standing is available in Nevada, his request would unwind the state’s previous expenditures….”
Because this constitutional violation is still occurring, Becker said that NPRI and its Center for Justice will continue to remain vigilant on this and other constitutional abuses by federal, state, and local governments.
Read more:
###
CARSON CITY — The Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation has just filed its motion for summary judgment in its legal challenge to the Nevada Catalyst Fund, administered by the Governor’s Office of Economic Development.
As detailed in the motion filed yesterday afternoon, the fact that state government subsidies violate the Nevada Constitution has even been acknowledged by GOED Executive Director Steven Hill during depositions.
CJCL Director Joseph Becker released the following statement after filing the motion with the First Judicial District Court:
That the Nevada Legislature has asked voters not once, not twice, but three times to allow the state to fund private corporations for economic development demonstrates that those legislatures were well aware that the Catalyst Fund is unconstitutional.
But, if there were any question as to that belief, GOED’s Executive Director Steven Hill admitted as much under sworn testimony. Hill stated that it would be unconstitutional for state government to give taxpayer money directly to private businesses.
Therefore, the court has but one issue to decide: whether the gifting of state funds to private companies becomes constitutional simply because the state uses intermediaries to disperse the funds. If the state can create political subdivisions and then delegate to those subdivisions authority it itself does not have, the Nevada Constitution becomes meaningless and lost.
In February, on behalf of plaintiff Michael Little, CJCL filed a complaint against GOED, against Hill in his official capacity, and against the State of Nevada over the Catalyst Fund —created by the State to dole out millions of public dollars to those private corporations favored by GOED staff. In April, the Nevada Legislature, at its request, sought and was granted intervention as an additional defendant in the suit. Through the unconstitutional program, Little, an alternative-energy entrepreneur, is compelled to subsidize his green energy competitor SolarCity, which received a $1.2 million subsidy.
Aside from the program being unjust in that it forces taxpaying business owners to subsidize their politically well-connected competitors, the Catalyst Fund is expressly prohibited by the Nevada Constitution.
Article 8, Section 9 reads:
Gifts or loans of public money to certain corporations prohibited. The State shall not donate or loan money, or its credit, subscribe to or be, interested in the Stock of any company, association, or corporation, except corporations formed for educational or charitable purposes.
To date, the state has argued that the fund is permissible because the state itself does not hand out the money, but rather, state-created political subdivisions distribute state-provided funds to state-chosen businesses. When asked why GOED does not “just enter an agreement with the recipient directly,” Hill responded, “[w]e [GOED] feel that that’s unconstitutional.”
In 1992, 1996 and 2000, Nevada voters overwhelmingly rejected proposed constitutional amendments that would have allowed government loans or gifts to, or so-called “investments” in, private businesses.
“Because voters were unwilling to amend Nevada’s Constitution, politicians have decided to circumvent the law by creating pass-through intermediaries to dole out state subsidies,” Becker said. “If politicians are not held accountable to the Constitution, there’s no limit to what they could do in the future.”
The case against GOED could have far-reaching effects. In addition to determining whether the State of Nevada can gift public funds to private companies, protecting GOED would jeopardize constitutionally protected freedoms.
From the motion for summary judgment:
It is an illusion — one that seems to have the persistence of original sin—that prosperity can be attained by taking money from taxpayers and handing it to favored businesses.
The idea of government intervention to influence the composition of a country's output has long been derided by economists for breeding inefficiency, reducing competition, encouraging lobbying and saddling countries with factories producing products nobody wants.
The Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation asks the court to:
Case documents:
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/.
###
LAS VEGAS — Responding to media reports that Nevada’s Economic Forum panel is projecting that the State of Nevada will collect $6.3 billion in tax revenue over the next two fiscal years, Victor Joecks, NPRI executive vice president, released the following comments:
Today’s Economic Forum revenue projections show why Nevada lawmakers do not need to consider tax increases during the 2015 Legislative Session.
The forecast of $6.3 billion in revenue for the next two-year budget cycle is the highest amount ever projected for Nevada. Combined with reversions of existing funds from agency accounts back to the general fund and other transfers, Nevada will be able to finance a spending plan comparable to its current $6.6 billion budget without raising taxes.
It’s important to compare the Economic Forum projection to Nevada’s historical levels of spending, not wish-lists from government bureaucrats.
The 2011 Legislature passed a budget of $6.2 billion, which included re-authorizing of supposedly “temporary” 2009 taxes the Sandoval administration had earlier pledged would sunset. Then, in 2013, lawmakers approved a general fund budget of $6.6 billion, which also included around $600 million in tax increases from the “sunset” taxes.
Joecks then pointed out the problems of comparing the $6.3 billion projection with the $7.7 billion in agency budget requests.
State agencies have again submitted spending wish lists — which normally allows them to cry that receiving less than they wished for is a dire “cut.” But receiving an increase smaller than you desired is not a cut. It’s just a smaller helping of “more” than you wanted.
The appropriate budget number with which to compare this $6.3 billion revenue projection is the $6.4 billion Economic Forum revenue projection from May 2013, which included around $600 million from the sunset tax increases.
State government need only tighten its belt by a tiny fraction — balancing its budget without raising taxes — to impress all the businesses across the country that are looking for fiscally prudent state leaders.
Rapidly rising costs for Medicaid and public-sector pensions are eating increasingly larger portions of the budget. That’s a phenomenon that will grow worse in the next few years unless lawmakers find a way to reverse the 2013 agreement with Gov. Sandoval to expand Medicaid eligibility rules and double the number of beneficiaries. Cost-effective ways of providing key services do exist, and it is incumbent on policymakers to seek them out. Responsible policymakers will actively challenge the institutional, knee-jerk momentum through which agencies seek to do what they’ve always done.
The new numbers from the Economic Forum also show the strength of Nevada’s revenue structure, said Joecks.
Nevada would benefit from genuine revenue-neutral tax reform — like the plan NPRI has proposed. But the forum’s numbers show that a tax increase couched as “meeting the needs of a changing Nevada” is entirely unnecessary.
In November 2012, Nevada’s Economic Forum projected the state would collect $5.8 billion in revenue. Two years later that number has soared by $500 million to $6.3 billion. Nevada already has a generally stable group of taxes, and lawmakers should avoid introducing more volatile tax instruments like a corporate income tax or fundamentally flawed taxes like margin or gross receipts taxes.
Joecks noted that NPRI recently published Solutions 2015, a sourcebook of information in over 50 policy areas, which includes dozens of specific ways to increase results while lowering spending.
Read more:
###
Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.