Friday, Jan. 17, 2003 | 11:16 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- Gov. Kenny Guinn reiterated Thursday that his upcoming budget will not include raises for state workers or university professors but that it will include a 2 percent increase promised to teachers two years ago.
Guinn's budget also will include $46 million to cover the increased cost of health insurance for teachers and others in the school districts and $43 million for higher premiums for state workers and university employees.
These insurance premium costs are covered in the "roll-ups" or just the cost of doing business, he said.
It has been the policy of the state to pay 100 percent of the premiums for state workers and university employees. The state employees must cover the cost of dependents, however.
State workers and university personnel received a 4 percent raise on July 1, 2001, and on July 1, 2002. The 2001 Legislature allocated $34 million to pay schoolteachers a bonus that amounted to about 3 percent that year and 2 percent the following year.
Teachers were also to get an additional 2 percent raise in July if tax revenues exceeded expectations, but revenues did not exceed the threshold, so Guinn is including the 2 percent in his 2003-2005 budget.
Scott MacKenzie, executive director of the state of Nevada Employees Association, said "it's unfortunate" but not surprising that state workers are not going to get raises this year.
"We know the financial position of the state," MacKenzie said. "We don't fault the governor."
He said he hopes Guinn will support a study to revamp the state health insurance system to include all public employees to provide for greater buying power. The state's policy had to be bailed out twice by the Legislature because of its poor financial condition.
And in the coming years, state workers can expect to pay higher health coverage costs for their dependents, officials said.
"Because there are no raises, insurance becomes more important," MacKenzie said. "The (insurance) costs are going to increase and that will decrease the take-home pay of our employees.
"It's now our top priority," said MacKenzie, whose organization includes about 4,000 state workers.
MacKenzie's organization sought another 4 percent cost-of-living raise in the upcoming budget. The state Board of Education included money for a 5 percent pay increase for teachers this year on top of the 2 percent. And it suggested a 3 percent raise next year. That money apparently has been chopped out of its budget request, however.
While the University and Community College System of Nevada did not include any money for pay raises, regents said they felt a 4 percent raise this year and 3 percent next year should be granted.
James Richardson, who represents the Nevada Faculty Alliance of university teachers, said he's "not surprised" there's no money for pay increases. "The state is in dire straits. If there is money for a small cost of living the second year that would be terrific," he said.
Richardson said the priority for the alliance is funding to hire new faculty. The system needs the money to meet the enrollment growth, he said.
"Our biggest problem is finding people to teach. We're interested in the (funding) formula to add faculty," he said.
Ken Lange, director of the Nevada State Education Association, which represents schoolteachers, could not be reached for comment.
In talking about a possible study to consolidate all the health insurance plans for public employees, Guinn said that recommendation should come from people like MacKenzie "because it's not for a governor to sit here and look like he's trying to take over."
"But I believe you are safer in large numbers. You can buy more. You can demand more," he said, referring to a bigger group of health insurance members.
He said the Culinary Union in Las Vegas receives a cheaper rate per day than state employees when they go to the hospital "because they've got a huge population and it's in one location."
"We (state employees) have a huge population but it's spread out all over the state. We don't have an HMO in rural areas so we have to do a fee-for-service," which is more expensive.
archive
