Further on Gibbons' request for deeper cuts

Some further observations on the meaning for Higher Ed faculty in Governor Gibbons' comments yesterday. He said, in short, that the shortfall in state revenues means there will need to be across-the-board cuts of 1.4 to 3%, which will lead, he was pleased to say, to deeper furloughs and layoffs of public service workers in all agencies.

First of all, what was clearly laid out in the Chancellor's comments at the Board meeting last Friday, that a University can only budget for an academic year. We can't change, midway through the year, student fee levels; we can't change course schedules for spring classes in which students are already enrolled and for which faculty are already contracted to teach.

Which means that in effect, what the Governor is asking for is a plan to cut up to 6% during the 2010-2011 academic year.

That, in turn, would clearly necessitate program terminations and separations (ie layoffs of faculty). Precisely which programs would presumably be based on the currently on-going JET process, which in turn is based on the System Code and the UNLV by-laws. So those recommendations are very serious, and the deliberative process that is now taking place -- including consultations with faculty through the survey being conducted currently -- is the proper, legal and smart way to implement such cuts, if they need to be implemented at all.

(Which, it appears, they do not. The state's line of credit ($160 million), established in the 2009-2011 budget, is three times the currently projected shortfall ($55 million), and using the line of credit is precisely what the state did in its December 2008 special session.)

But the Governor's office comments yesterday suggest that they not only are unaware of this on-going process but seem very eager to jump the gun and propose cuts directly. That would run contrary to the principle of shared governance, to the institutional by-laws and System Code, and to the state constitution which gives that authority to the Board of Regents.

So what does it all mean for faculty? That there's in effect a new angle to the budget problems, which is to defend our role in the shared governance of our institutions.

And it means that faculty will need a strong voice in Carson City for a special session, if we are to avoid deep cuts to our salaries, benefits and employment.

So once again, if you're upset by Governor Gibbons' comments, the appropriate response is to join the NFA.

Governor Gibbons call for further cuts. By next week.

Chancellor Klaich has released the letter that he discussed at least week's Board of Regents meeting, which is his official response to Governor Gibbons' request for plans to cut NSHE budget by 1.4% and 3% by December 15.

The letter points out what is evident to those of us who work in higher education -- that its almost impossible to implement budget cuts midway through the academic year. Student fees have been paid, students have enrolled for the spring term courses, and faculty and pro-staff have contracts that by law cannot be changed without extraordinary action by the Board of Regents.

Sun reporter Jon Ralston finds it "strongly worded", although its hard to find a strong word in it; it states what is well known -- that the state Constitution gives the Board of Regents budget authority over the System, and the System Code and institution by-laws mandate faculty-administration consultations on program eliminations (such as the consultations taking place now at UNLV in the form of the "Joint Evaluation Team").

The Governor's office responded with a vague threat, "If Higher Education leaders choose not to participate, we will make recommendations for them." We refer the Governor's office to our previous statements about shared governance.

From the front lines on domestic partner benefits

While most of the Higher Ed community is at the Regents meeting at UNLV, Jim Richardson reports from the PEBP Board meeting of an important victory for the cause of domestic partner benefits.

We just won a very close vote on domestic partner benefits at the PEBP meeting. The vote was five in favor to continue the process of offering such benefits on a self-paid basis, with one abstention. Since the Board has nine members, five votes are required to proceed. There are two vacant slots and one member was absent today, so t was a close call, but we won!

The NFA, and Jim in particular, have worked on this issue for years, and this is an important step forward in the long march for equality and fairness for all faculty and all people.

What would capping enrollment at Nevada community colleges mean for UNLV?

There are a lot of factors involved in the issues raised in this article about the prospect, to be discussed at this week's Board of Regents meeting, about possibly capping enrollment at CSN and other NSHE colleges.

Just a quick question

Can anyone explain why UNLV is renegotiating the basketball coach's contract to give him more favorable terms by agreeing to pony up another 200 grand to ensure his marketing venture carries no risk for him?

How many cancelled course sections could 200 grand pay for?

(The answer is approximately 33 presuming new instructors have to be hired; if these sections are to be taught by full-time faculty who are taking on their extra course assignment, then its closer to 50 sections for that money).

A quick note on shared governance

After our last discussion about the issue of administrative pay increases last week, another publication wrote a story and an editorial on the topic, essentially agreeing with our take on the matter.

It is important to note that the concern we and many others voiced about the increases in salary and new positions was due in large part to their concentration not because "raises could be approved for one department while other departments are having to trim costs because of state budget cuts" but because the hirings and salary increases were focused in a single administrative unit.

Moreover, and this is the true moral of the story from our perspective, we at UNLV are governed by a set of institution by-laws (PDF) and by the Code of the NSHE . These documents in turn are based on a fundamental legal and moral principal of higher education, that of shared governance.

This means that it is not, in fact true, as another publication wrote, that President Smatresk "does not need [Faculty Senate] approval for realigning departments."

Indeed, this is a significant issue, because the review process now going on, which could well lead to program eliminations and realignment of academic departments, is one in which Faculty Senate appointed faculty members are working in conjunction with administration selected members. Their recommendations will be reported back to academic units which will each be asked to vote to approve or not approve the recommendations. Then and only then will final recommendations be sent to President Smatresk.

So while we agree with the other publication's point, it is not merely a show of good faith by President Smatresk that is evident in his pledge of greater openness --- it is the good, ordinary functioning of a university.

Happy Holidays to all!

AAUP national publication covers NFA and NSHE

NFA's own faculty member-lobbyist Jim Richardson has an article in the new issue of Academe (the monthly magazine of the American Association of University Professors, which is sent to all members) outlining the budget crisis in Nevada and the impact on the NSHE budget.