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
CARSON CITY — Nevada’s Catalyst Fund, administered by the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, provides unconstitutional taxpayer subsidies to private businesses, charges a new lawsuit filed today by NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation.
CJCL filed the lawsuit on behalf of Michael Little, an alternative-energy entrepreneur and a taxpayer whose alternative-energy competitor, SolarCity, has received a commitment from GOED to provide it with a $1.2 million taxpayer-funded subsidy. Named defendants in the lawsuit include the State of Nevada, the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, and GOED Executive Director Steven Hill.
State subsidies to a private business, according to the complaint, violate Article 8, Sections 9 and 10, of the Nevada Constitution. Article 8, Section 9 reads, “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.”
“Nevada’s constitution clearly states that state government has no business picking winners and losers in the economy by subsidizing the favored,” said Joseph Becker, chief legal officer and director of the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation. “Subsidies from state government to private businesses are unconstitutional and directly harm both taxpayers and competing businesses.
“Fully aware that Nevada’s constitution prohibits business subsidies by state government, politicians have tried to circumvent this constitutional prohibition by routing Catalyst Fund payments through local government agencies that it itself authorized to provide handouts. But GOED is still selecting and approving the subsidy-fund recipients and may not contract with or delegate to others authority it itself does not have.
“Having a so-called regional development authority or a local government give money it received from the state to a private business doesn’t change the fact that state taxpayer dollars are going to private businesses in violation of Nevada’s constitution,” said Becker.
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.
“Unable to get the voting public to change Nevada’s constitution, politicians have resorted to law-circumventing pass-through entities to dole out these subsidies. Nevada’s constitutional protections will be rendered meaningless if state politicians can avoid them by creating a local government agency for the express purpose of taking constitutionally prohibited actions,” said Becker.
“We urge the court to uphold and defend Nevada’s constitution by holding that subsidies through the Catalyst Fund are unconstitutional.”
Becker also noted that forcing a business to subsidize its competitor is fundamentally unjust and that similar programs in other states have led to charges of political favoritism.
“Taxpayers, at the federal level and in states like Texas, have given hundreds of millions in loans and subsidies to the companies of politically connected donors,” said Becker. “After receiving taxpayer handouts, numerous companies, including Solyndra, Abound Solar, Fiskar and ThromboVision, have gone belly-up. Along with being unconstitutional and unjust, GOED subsidies are bad economics.”
The lawsuit calls for 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 — Graduating Clark County high school students who show the potential to make a significant contribution to the cause of economic liberty should seek a $2,500 college scholarship being awarded by the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
This is the fourth 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 2014.
This year students interested in applying for the scholarship are asked to write a two-page essay on this topic:
Downtown sports arena: public or private funding?
The Las Vegas City Council is considering a proposal to give government handouts to a private company to build a downtown sports arena. Should Las Vegas subsidize a sports arena? What pitfalls could come from the government picking winners and losers in the economy? Provide examples of similar projects from around the country, and how those projects turned out.
“This scholarship provides a great opportunity for the next generation of thinkers to begin thinking about and formulating arguments in favor of free markets,” said Swadeep Nigam, who funded the scholarship program in the name of his father, an advocate of freedom and a professor of business in India and Nevada.
While the idea of the government picking winners and losers in the economy is always a relevant topic, the essay question of publicly subsidized sports arenas is particularly timely given the Las Vegas City Council’s ongoing consideration of such a plan, Nigam added.
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 April 5, 2014.
Full details of the scholarship and applicant requirements are available at: http://www.npri.org/docLib/20140218_ScholarshipApplication2014.docx
###
LAS VEGAS — Nevada PERS pension payouts for January 2014 are now online and searchable by name at TransparentNevada, the Nevada Policy Research Institute announced today. For the first time, the searchable database at TransparentNevada.com/nvpers will allow taxpayers to easily see how much money former government employees are collecting from Nevada’s taxpayer-backed and woefully underfunded Public Employees’ Retirement System.
The database features retired employee names, January 2014 gross payout amounts and projected 2014 total payout amounts, calculated by multiplying the January payout by 12.
Despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that PERS payouts, retiree names and other pertinent information, including retirement dates, years of service and job titles are public record, PERS continues to defy public-records requests from NPRI and others and has only provided data for January 2014.
On TransparentNevada, users will find that 1,054 past workers are poised to receive more than $100,000 this year in their retirement payouts from the Public Employees’ Retirement System. Another 10,755 are on pace to take in more than the state’s median household income of $54,083. Over 22,000 of the 49,073 retirees collected more than $2,642, the maximum monthly Social Security benefit for someone retiring at 66. And PERS retirees can begin collecting in their 50s or even their 40s.
In response to the findings, Andy Matthews, president of the Nevada Policy Research Institute, issued the following remarks:
The PERS payouts now available on TransparentNevada show exactly why PERS bureaucrats worked so hard to keep this information secret. The information shows — in inflated retirement payout after inflated retirement payout — what Nevadans have long suspected: Public employee pensions are exorbitant and unsustainable.
Taxpayers will be shocked to learn that over 1,000 retirees are on pace to receive over $100,000 this year, including 11 over $200,000 a year, and more than 10,000 look to receive retirement payments exceeding the state’s median income. Such payouts reveal part of the reason why the Nevada PERS unfunded liability is around $41 billion, according to normal accounting standards.
Such payouts appear even more problematic for government workers who then retire in their 50s or even their 40s and immediately begin collecting six-figure, taxpayer-guaranteed pensions for 40 years or more.
Finally, in many cases, these projected payouts underestimate the cost to the pension system and taxpayers, because they do not include disability payouts or any health benefits. These payouts, thus, may actually be higher by tens of thousands of dollars annually.
An analysis of the data reveals many reasons for concern over “spiking” — the practice by which public employees inflate their pay during their final year, two or three in their government job in order to generate the most lavish guaranteed pension possible.
For instance:
“Given the incomplete data PERS has provided the public, we cannot yet confirm any individual case of spiking or inflated compensation, but the data suggests that may be happening in hundreds of cases,” said Matthews. “Is this why PERS officials continue to hide this data from the public and from lawmakers? They appear to fear the public’s reaction, should taxpayers learn the full picture.
“Ultimately, PERS officials are doing a disservice to their members, since hiding this data only fuels public distrust for all government employees, even those who didn't game the system.”
Among the retirees are many current or former elected officials, including:
Matthews praised the Reno Gazette-Journal, which spent years fighting PERS in court to gain access to these records. While the Nevada Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the RGJ's public-records request, PERS only provided the RGJ and other requesters, such as NPRI, incomplete January 2014 data and continues to fight the release of other reports it has already created.
“We applaud the work of the Reno Gazette-Journal and its commitment to transparency in government,” said Matthews. “While citizens have a fundamental right to know what their government is doing, when a government agency refuses to comply with the Nevada Public Records Law, the public right to know can only be enforced by going to court.
“Court battles are long, tiresome and expensive, but they are essential to ensuring transparency in government. Nevada's citizens are better off and our right to access government information is better established thanks to the commitment — in time and finances — of the Reno Gazette-Journal.”
Matthews noted that NPRI is currently engaged in a public-records lawsuit against the Clark County School District. The lawsuit is on appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada recently filed an amicus brief supporting NPRI's case.
PERS has pledged to provide NPRI with monthly payout data going forward. When PERS makes additional information available, TransparentNevada and retirees' projected yearly payouts will be updated to reflect the new data.
Since 2008, NPRI has operated TransparentNevada as a public service. Last year, it received over 1.98 million page views.
More information:
###
Nevada Policy Research Institute ∙ 7130 Placid St., Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: (702) 222-0642 ∙ Fax: (702) 227-0927 ∙ Web site: http://npri.org
This press release has been updated to include a more presise number of retirees who received more than $2,642 in the month of January.
CARSON CITY — The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has just filed an amicus brief expressing support for the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s efforts to require the Clark County School District to abide by the state’s public-records law.
The 28-page brief, filed in the Nevada Supreme Court, reinforces the merit of NPRI’s argument that CCSD’s directory consisting of taxpayer-funded email addresses is a public record and should be made available to the taxpayers who fund them. In the document, three attorneys with the ACLU, Staci J. Pratt, Allen Lichtenstein and Amanda Morgan, explain why the August 2013 decision of the Eighth Judicial District Court to keep the email directory of CCSD teachers from the public is erroneous and should be reversed:
The email directory in question is a public record … of a local governmental entity that is “created, received or kept in the performance of a duty and paid for with public money,” as set forth in NAC 239.091, and is used by public school teachers in the ordinary course of their public occupations. The directory is not confidential because the email addresses contained within are generated by, maintained by and paid for by CCSD.
NPRI sued CCSD after the district refused to disclose the email directory of public school teachers. CCSD then moved for dismissal and the District Court granted that motion, enabling the directory to remain secret despite provisions in the Nevada Public Records Act directly to the contrary. Earlier this month, NPRI filed its opening brief in the Nevada Supreme Court, which has a history of overturning lower-court decisions that hinder transparency.
ACLU’s brief notes that the state’s public-records law is to be construed liberally with the goal of providing transparency:
Thus it is clear that the Legislature intended liberal construction of all provisions of the Public Records Act, with the further clarification that any restrictions on that openness must be construed narrowly. While paying lip service to this principle, the District Court rendered a decision that directly contradicts both the spirit and the language of NRS 239.001.
Additionally, the ACLU’s brief exposes the hollow nature of the arguments provided by CCSD and accepted by the District Court on behalf of limiting transparency:
[T]he District Court appears to conclude that the actual emails themselves stored on the electronic InterAct system are public records, but that the email addresses contained within that system somehow fall out of the public record category. This distinction makes no sense. It would be the equivalent of stating that the books in a library are all public records but the card catalog would not be.
And:
Because [the directory of email addresses] is not confidential, it is not subject to any balancing test. Even if it were, the hypothetical list of horrors that might perhaps occur with disclosure, still cannot override presumption of openness and important public purpose of access to government and those who represent it.
Joseph Becker, director of NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, said the amicus brief is the latest in what has been broad and diverse support of NPRI’s case for transparency. Said Becker:
We are very appreciative of the support and the amicus brief from the ACLU, which has long been a champion for transparency in government. The ACLU’s amicus brief succinctly and persuasively shows that the records NPRI requested are public, must be disclosed and that the District Court erred in its ruling.
Government transparency is not a matter of left versus right, but government openness versus secrecy. We are grateful for the ACLU’s support and its willingness to lend its legal expertise in urging the Nevada Supreme Court to once again defend Nevada’s public-records act from a lower-court ruling that erroneously limited government transparency.
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 — In response to Nevada PERS’ release of limited information on the benefits paid out to retired public workers, and the disturbing, yet expected, confirmation that some many retired government employees are receiving massive payouts in their retirement, Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Executive Vice President Victor Joecks issued the following response:
The release of limited payout information from NVPERS shows exactly why pension reform is so desperately needed.
As the public has long suspected, hundreds of retired government employees are now receiving over $100,000 a year — in retirement payouts. And while those in the private sector typically retire in their mid-60s, many government employees retire in their 50s or even 40s.
For instance, former North Las Vegas firefighter and Assembly Speaker John Oceguera retired in 2011 at the ripe old age of 43. His pension payout for January alone was over $10,000. To get a $120,000 a year guaranteed payout for life at his age would cost a private citizen over $2.5 million.
Pensions like this are exactly why Nevada’s unfunded PERS liability is around $41 billion and why NVPERS needs to comply with the Nevada Supreme Court and release all requested information on pension payouts, including full payouts records for 2012 and 2013, accrued service time, job titles and retirement dates.
Joecks added that the limited data would be added to TransparentNevada.com in the upcoming weeks.
|
For Immediate Release |
Contact Chantal Lovell |
|
January 16, 2014 |
(702) 222-0642 |
CARSON CITY, Nev. — The Nevada Policy Research Institute today took its fight for transparency in the Clark County School District to the Nevada Supreme Court.
NPRI has just filed its opening brief in its appeal of the Eighth Judicial District Court’s September decision allowing a list of government-issued email addresses for teachers to remain private, notwithstanding the clear language of the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA).
Nevada’s Supreme Court has a history of overturning District Court decisions that have errantly limited disclosure under Nevada’s Public Records Act. With the law on its side, NPRI believes its lawsuit will become the next example of the Supreme Court reversing a lower court’s decision that limited transparency.
Joseph Becker, director of NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, released the following statement about the filing:
The District Court’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for transparency under the Nevada Public Records Act and needs to be reversed. Fortunately, Nevada’s Supreme Court has a history of reversing lower-court decisions that errantly limited transparency, and we urge the Court to do so in this case.
The state’s public-records law clearly makes government-issued email addresses for government employees available to the public. We believe that the lower court erred when it redefined NPRI’s request for government-provided email addresses for government employees as a “request for a communication device or method.” That ruling set a dangerous precedent that must be overturned. If not, government officials will be able to deny legitimate requests for public records based on their interpretation of how those records may be used.
The purpose of the NPRA is to ensure public records are broadly available, thereby furthering the necessity that government is accountable to the people. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court maintained the act should be “construed liberally” and we urge the court to maintain that precedent in this case.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and the Nevada Press Association have indicated that they think the Nevada Supreme Court will look favorably on NPRI's appeal.
Allen Lichtenstein, ACLU Nevada attorney, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the email addresses being sought by NPRI are “a public record” and he does not “know how the [Supreme] Court could view it otherwise.”
Lichtenstein went on to allude to the appeal’s likelihood for success.
“The Nevada Supreme Court has been quite clear that government records are public, with very limited exceptions,” he told the Review-Journal.
Becker reiterated the sweeping importance of the lawsuit to government transparency in Nevada.
The NPRA is about open government and is guided by the principle that government is to serve the public, not vice versa. If the District Court’s decision to dismiss this case is not overturned, government bureaucrats will be allowed to continue denying legitimate public-records requests based solely on their interpretation of how those records may be used.
Under the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Clark County School District has 30 days from the time the brief is served to file its response to NPRI’s appeal. Once NPRI is served with that response, it has 30 days to reply.
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/.
###
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.