Print
E-mail
Share
delicious
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitter
UNLV today announced significant staff reductions.
University President David Ashley has written a letter to staff noting:
"This spring we have issued 99 notices of non-reappointment, 29 of which were given today. We are losing valued members of our university community, many of whom have made significant contributions to UNLV, and they will all be missed. This is a stressful time to those affected, and to the campus community. I know you join me in your appreciation of their service and the value they have provided to the university with their individual talents. These difficult budgetary decisions were guided at all times by passion for the university’s mission tempered by compassion for the individuals affected."
Michael Wixom, chairman of the Board of Regents, said, "I’m deeply, deeply disturbed by these developments. I know (Ashley's) doing his best to preserve the university’s core mission, but it’s a challenge."
(An irritated source on the UNLV faculty, granted anonymity so the person could speak freely, noted that the parking lot was re-striped today, "cuz that's essential to our core mission," while also advocating cuts for the athletic department.)
The news of layoffs at the university system comes on the heels of a study showing Nevada now ranks 45th on the Milken Institute's 2008 State Technology and Science Index, in which the quality of education systems -- and higher education in particular -- are important benchmarks.
Wixom, appointed by Gov. Kenny Guinn, said he wants to bring together Republicans and Democrats, business and education leaders, to discuss a long-term funding solution. He said the strong political rhetoric on both sides, which could be heard before and during last week's special legislative sessions, needs to change so that leaders can find a solution.
The reality however, is that for anti-tax Republicans, there can be no compromise on Gov. Jim Gibbons' no-tax pledge, so a compromise seems highly unlikely.
Enter state Sen. Bob Beers, who said the layoffs are the natural result of full professors being asked to take on a full course load, meaning three classes. He said he has no problem with research professors who go out and find grants to pay for their research. The rest, he said, should be teaching.
"I think that's a very good development. It's wasteful to have professor teaching two or fewer classes."
I guess Gibbons and Raggio have secretly agreed to reduce the education level to less than 8th grade so that the casino moguls have plenty of dumb people to work low wage casino jobs and serve in McCain's and Sheldon Adelson's 100 year wars with Iran, Iraq and everyone else outside of the borders of Israel in the Middle East. Smart move, conservatives.
Now the sheriff and his highest paid cops in the world (starting at $56 an hour after probation) want a new headquarters. Teachers union let the hotels off the hook (the ballot question will just be a survey). I guess it is Sin City.
Education Quiz:
How many state workers will get laid off because of the 4% COLA raise (on average it is $31 a week after taxes per worker)?
Did anyone ever propose cutting part of the COLA? If the 4% increase was going to cost 132 million, cutting 1% would have given back 33 million. That could have saved a lot of jobs.
jfnance32 and seasinger, COLA cuts were considered but quickly taken off the table when the governor realized that he would be the target of hate for every parent (at least in Southern Nevada) with a child in any k-12 grade because cutting COLA's would mostly effect those teachers.
The broader problem is that we are talking about layoffs vs. cutting the COLA (which is meant to keep public employees' pay even with inflation, but it doesn't even fulfill that need most years), rather than talking about new revenue streams for education. Even Terri Lani, Republican CEO of MGM Mirage, said Nevada should double the payroll tax (paid mostly be large employers). That's telling.
It is the case that Nevada has the lowest number of public employees (this includes k-12 teachers, as well as anyone who works at a university of community college) per capita than any other state in the nation and including the District of Columbia. The public sector is asked to do a lot more with a lot less all the time. The notion that "government has gotten to big" is a complete farce in Nevada.
Everyone needs to get behind Barbara Buckley's "Had Enough?" tour she'll launch during the next legislative session. She's just as sick of these knuckle-dragging neanderthals as the rest of us. Kinda reminds me of that classic scene when they've got Charlton Heston on trial in Planet of the Apes, and the king ape pretends not to understand the bigger picture. Well...our problem is that Gibbons either doesn't want to understand the bigger picture or he REALLY can't understand the bigger picture. But we're at the tipping point, folks.
Also, I'd just like to point out that Bob Beers has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. First, there are no professors at UNLV or UNR who do not teach if they are not full time research faculty and their salary is paid for by an outside grant.
Second, if a professor has a course reassignment (meaning that the professor does not teach a full load), it is either because he or she is doing heavy service to the university (the university is self-governing, so the professors spend many hours as administrators as well as teachers), or the professor is working on research essential for obtaining tenure. For junior faculty especially, a course reassignment is essential for having the time to research, write and try to get published. It is important for all professors, however to continue to do research in their respective fields. That is what a research university is all about - the professors are active in their respective fields and they are then able to bring that up-to-date expertise to the classroom and their graduate students.
Third, it is important to remember that no matter how many classes the faculty teach there is no way to avoid the cuts that Senator Beers advocates. Faculty would be cut regardless if the faculty teaches one or 101 classes. And if we are to be very clear here, all of the cuts that occurred at UNLV today were of "professional staff" - otherwise known as the "creative class" former President of UNLV, Carol Harter, always talked about needing. They are mostly college graduates from other states that do things like made sure kids get financial aid, make sure kids graduate on time or within reason, and make sure that there is some semblance of "Information Technology" on campus.
UNLV functions with fewer professional and administrative staff than 99% of other universities of comparable size. UNLV also functions at a higher student/tenure faculty ratio than the average research university of comparable size. You may want to consider this: the University's costs aren't fixed. As inflation increases, the University's costs increase. Buildings need to be repaired, updated software needs to be purchased, etc. So when the governor talks about a "no growth budget," he really means that there will be massive cuts.
Also, Nevada is growing in population (and students) - we can't accommodate them with a stagnant budget. The only way the governor's "plan" (read "ideology") would work is if there were no inflation, and we were losing population, and we could easily abandon infrastructure like roads, buildings, software, books for schools, etc.
Let's take a moment and revisit history. Circa 2006, one of Gibbons' main campaign pledges was "Education First." In fact, he ran on a platform that codified that (insignificant at best) mantra into the state constitution.
Two years later, and is Education still First? Why yes! First to layoff staff.
Great job there, Gibbers!
These budget cuts are a win-win all around. The libertarians can take pride in transforming a budding research university into a 4th-tier glorified community college, while enjoying marginally lower taxes. The talented and overworked professionals at UNLV can leave for better professional support and a better campus environment just about anywhere else. Gifted young Nevadans, those who have managed to escape the gauntlet of the CCSD diploma factory, can also leave for more opportunity elsewhere, such as one of California's fine public institutions, out-of-state tuition notwithstanding. A lot of kids, of course, will be eternally grateful to their parents and grandparents for gutting their one realistic shot at a quality higher education in the interest of saving a few bucks on an already hardly arduous tax bill.
Buckley's plan for 2009:
1) Stick hand into taxpayers' pockets
2) Grab cash
3) Give to unions
jfnance32 has a plan for education in Nevada:
Dig hole faster, put Nevada on a par with poor nations, and cover bright children with the dirt.
mschaffer and Buckley's plan....
Give the unions more, more, more, more, more, more, more money.
This 4% COLA revealed what they are all about.
The rest of budget goes down in flames, but we got make sure that we do not delay a $31 a week after tax raise.
Over half of the state workers will get raises between 6% and over 10%.
They also have the golden retirement plan that many will get 80% of their salary when they retire.
Please we must understand, these poor nuckel-dragging neanderthals (Gibbons, Beers, and the likes) continue living with their heads burried in the sand suffering from a wreck in their one-track minds. There is so much damage in their brains they are incapable of understanding the difference and impact of a diversified economy, when compare to Nevada's obsolete centuries old economny dependant on unstable sources of revenue, gambling and turism. Folks this approach from the old wild west is not longer viable. We are in the 21st century, human capital, creation of new knowledge, and advancing high technology industries is driving this global economy. Wake up and fix your brains! Or get your little atrophied heads out of the sand (the kitchen as well). Maybe all the sleepless nights spent text messaging, holding his girlfriend's hand in the delivery room, and consoling her in darken parking lots have truly injured our poor, poor governator. Maybe for his own good we out to help get out of this painful state and counsel him to resign... All for his own good, we care about his well bing,
"incapable of understanding the difference and impact of a diversified economy, when compare to Nevada's obsolete centuries old economny dependant on unstable sources of revenue, gambling and turism. "
I am guessing that you are trying to pitch the broad based business tax which is really a red herring. You really just want more taxes.
Most of the state revenue does not come directly from gaming fees and taxes. Sales tax is number one and 1/3 comes from taxes and fees that are not associated with gaming.
Just say, you want more taxes and you want to get it from non-gaming. The taxes will still go up and down based on the economy.
If we raise taxes on non-gaming then how is that going to diversify our economy.
I am sure that more non-gaming companies will be rushing to Nevada to pay the new taxes.
Nance, essentially you're arguing that the gambling industry is just as susceptible to market fluctuations as other industries, which is patently false. During times of economic hardship, tourism is one of the first markets to suffer, as people tighten their belts and reduce unnecessary spending.
They do not stop buying groceries, or patronizing small businesses, or Wal-Mart, or Bank of America, or Chevron, or any of the numerous other necessities. And in-turn, those companies can profit in bad economic times.
In fact, a broad-based business tax can help the casinos by reducing some of the tax burden, particularly on room taxes, that might spur a little more tourism.
Considering tourism is our second-most important revenue source (according to you), we're highly dependent on it's performance.
Yes, a broad-based business tax would be "more" taxes, but doesn't necessarily bring in more revenue. That's a distinction you seem unable to grasp. In essence, you're arguing we shouldn't balance Gibbons' budget.
"If we raise taxes on non-gaming then how is that going to diversify our economy." That's not the argument, and you know it. The argument is to diversify our source of tax revenue, not the economy as a whole.
Non-gaming companies will be rushing to Nevada to take advantage of our (still) low tax burden and rate of population growth. Business exist and expand every day in markets which tax them far more than the proposals on the table, why do you think Nevada would be any different?
"Yes, a broad-based business tax would be "more" taxes, but doesn't necessarily bring in more revenue."
What fairy land are you living in?
It is ALL about bringing in more revenue and nothing else.
Ok, I call the bluff. We are OK with REDUCING taxes on gaming and only raising taxes on other business. The net revenue will stay EXACTLY the same.
LOL...you think the taxpayers are that dumb.
You are in denial.
First, admit it is all about raising net revenue.
Then you can make the argument that gaming does not need more taxes. I disagree on that point, but at least be honest about the desire to get more net revenue.
This stable revenue is all nonsense.
First, most of the revenue comes from sales tax with most of the sales coming outside of the gaming tax. The biggest drops in tax revenue is sales tax from bars and food places. 2nd is retail sales tax. 3rd is car sales. You would think that these sales taxes would bring in the mystic stable revenue.
There is another 1/3 of revenue already comes from non-gaming taxes and fees. You would think that would bring on the mystic stable revenue.
Second, there must be some secret very large industry that will float the government revenues when the economy and gaming is on the downturn. Help me find that secret industry. Perhaps we should legalize the sex industry and tax it.
Third, there is not a state in the union that is not getting hammer in tax revenue. I guess none of them have this mystic stable revenue either.
Can you point to one state that has this mystic stable revenue that has significant revenue to float the state budget during a downturn?
How about this brillant idea?
When are in a boom period don't spend all the money? Wow.....we could put all the excess, not a fraction, into the rainy day fund. Shocking concept!!!!!
Whoops, you just completely contradicted yourself.
Today, you wrote: "When are in a boom period don't spend all the money? Wow.....we could put all the excess, not a fraction, into the rainy day fund. Shocking concept!!!!!"
On Sunday, after I took Bob Beers to task for his payout of the rainy day fund, you wrote: "If Beers was more successful into letting the taxpayers keep more money then the result might have been a healthier economy for Nevada which would help out the tax revenues now.
theBS and Buckley just cringed at the thought of taxpayers getting to keep their cash."
Now, suddenly, you think the state should have a savings account? So you agree that Beers' rainy day payout was wrong? You're agreeing with Buckley? LOL, you can't even keep your own arguments straight. It's embarrassing.
My goal is to balance the budget. Gibbons biennial budget required more than 7 billion dollars. His bean counters overestimated revenue by upwards of 18%. Of all the people talking about a BBB tax structure, I haven't heard a single argument for increasing state income.
Do you really think Terri Lanni, Republican Chairman of MGM/Mirage wants more state revenue? No. He wants to relieve some of the burden on the gaming industry and shift a portion to general business revenues which aren't as volatile. That's why he supports the BBB tax.
It's a really simple concept. While gaming revenues have decreased in the past year, general business receipts have not, to the same degree. The argument is NOT that revenues will always be stable. That is not possible. No one is arguing that, except you.
The argument is to make state revenue less dependent on a volatile industry. You keep screeching about how gas prices are going to collapse the tourism industry, so... following that logic, it would be fiscally irresponsible for the state to continue relying so heavily on gaming.
Your arguments recently are directly contradicting themselves.
Let's make a deal.
You can raise revenue to last year's level before the downturn. You do this anyway you want to. You can tax Walmart the full amount if you want to.
In exchange, the government spending can not grow more than the rate of inflation plus rate of population growth. Your baseline will be last years spending level before the downturn.
Any revenue that comes in above the spending cap will be put into rainy day fund. If the rainy day fund grows to three times the size of the spending cap, then refunds will sent back to the taxpayers.
I would go for that.
As a faculty member, it is sad to lose so many great employees to lay-offs. I would have been happy to give up my 4% COLA raise if it would have helped to save some jobs.
It also breaks my heart to hear some of my students tell me that they lost their part-time campus jobs. We should all be worried about protecting our student's part-time jobs because the students are the reason that we are all here.
I agree 100% with increasing the teaching load to 3 courses/semester because anyone that is seriously doing research can obtain research funding to "buy out" of some of the teaching load. It is a great way to financially help out our university.
NevadaAppleSlices, that is only the case if you are in a field that is fueled by grants (the sciences). Faculty members in humanities do not get "buy outs."
A better solution is to increase tuition. It is the case that UNLV has one of the lowest tuition rates than the vast majority of other institutions in the West.