At the September Quarterly meeting, the Board of Regents will decide on proposed changes to Title 4, Chapter 4 of their Handbook that govern the right for academic and administrative faculty to collectively bargain. NFA has long criticized that this internal system means that management gets to make the rules we bargain under and then decides to approve contracts or not. This is one reason why we have been working to obtain collective bargaining rights in state law (as we tried again this past legislative session with AB 191 to do), so that faculty have a level playing field to negotiate.

 The Regents voted to oppose AB 191 in the legislature, citing that complying with state granted rights and legal requirements (that other public state employees have in statute) would increase legal and other costs on NSHE (a claim NFA has refuted). Regents also justified that faculty do have the right to collectively bargain—under the Regents’ own rules in Title 4, Chapter 4 (T4C4). Even with the legislative set back of AB 191, the Regents have chosen this first Quarterly Board meeting under the new leadership of Chancellor Matt McNair along with Board of Regents Chair Byron Brooks and Vice Chair Stephanie Goodman to amend T4C4.

These changes come at a time when our colleagues at CSN and WNC have been in contract negotiations since November 2024, and when TMCC and NSU will be starting contract negotiations. In short, NSHE is changing the rules and processes by which negotiations occur in the middle of negotiations already taking place.

 NSHE is also choosing to amend individual sections of T4C4 one by one, with, according to their own briefing paper, more proposed changes to come. This means more potential rule changes throughout the year, resetting and delaying contract negotiations further for our institutions. The piecemeal approach makes this problem worse by creating ongoing uncertainty—negotiating parties cannot know what other rule changes might be coming, making it impossible to negotiate in good faith or plan strategically.

 The most troubling sections NSHE has proposed to update first are Sections 9 and 10 related to how contract items are funded—which constrains how and what faculty can negotiate for in the contract. Previously, Section 9 recognized that external funding (the state portion of our overall budgets) is part of the overall financial picture that negotiating parties on both sides should keep in mind. In the past, that means that faculty recognized those limitations and negotiated items that could be achieved through prioritizing other internal funds (student fees, etc.) that are under the control of the institution. If anything  might require more funding, NSHE could then account for and factor contracts into their budget request to the legislature.  The change in Section 9 assumes that all contract items that have costs have to be approved and funded by the State Legislature. Section 10 changes indicate that Regents cannot ratify contracts that do not have approved Legislative funding. Any item not funded by a legislative appropriation will be void and unenforceable (even if an institution might have the funds to internally provide it).

 In NFA’s interpretation, we highlight the following problems with the changes in Section 9:

• Section 9 fundamentally misapplies NRS 218D.430, which governs fiscal notes for legislative bills—not NSHE policies or collective bargaining agreements.
• The language of this NRS sets a threshold of $2000 to seek legislative appropriation. This means institutions would have to seek legislative approval for routine contractual items. Suddenly previous items in contracts (first aid kits paid for by administration, professional development funds, compensation for extra work calculations, etc.) would all need legislative oversight.
• This limits the ability of institutions to negotiate meaningfully on anything with the uncertainty of what could be (might be) funded by the legislature.
• This change also contradicts the 2025 Legislature's directive for NSHE to address its own revenue sources. The Legislature specifically conditioned AB 568 funding (to bridge budget deficits from the previous biennium’s COLA) on NSHE increasing non-state revenues. The proposed changes do the opposite by forcing NSHE to seek legislative appropriations rather than consider how student fees or other revenues are currently allocated or to consider the need to raise fees as needed to address budget needs.
• This forces contract negotiations to follow legislative session timetables instead of academic or contract cycles if they are dependent on legislative funding. If these changes pass, this means some contracts being negotiated now might not get ratified until after the 2027 legislative session.

NFA has consistently supported the right of faculty to collectively bargain; faculty retention and morale is higher when faculty have a say in their own working conditions as achieved through collective bargaining processes. NFA has also supported shared governance processes and seeking ways to have collegial negotiations with institution administration, based on known budget outlooks and conditions. The proposed changes to T4C4 would disrupt current and signal that Nevada is moving away from established labor rights, making our institutions less attractive to excellent faculty. At a time when Nevada's higher education needs to compete nationally for top talent, these changes send exactly the wrong message about our commitment to faculty stability and shared governance.