ࡱ> CEB{ G0bjbj:: .DXfXfG(<tLSSSSBBB$ `<BBBBB<SSQB"SSBSp^;sd"g0!!!|BBBBBBB<<BBBBBBB!BBBBBBBBB i: What does a Yes on Question 1 Do? In the immediate future, nothing more than changing the language of the Constitution. The biggest changes are to remove the Board of Regents as the controlling body of higher education and make the Legislature responsible for the governance, control and management of the State University. In addition, it will add to the Constitution that the Legislature is responsible for The reasonable protection of individual academic freedom for persons who are enrolled in or who are employees or contractors of the State University. It would also revise policies related to distribution of federal funding from the Land Grant Act. Arguments for Passage include that a yes vote would modernize the university and make university education more aligned with industry needs in Nevada. However, there is nothing in the changes to Constitutional language that proposes specific changes or outcomes that would address this. So what COULD happen after the passage of Ballot Question 1? Perhaps nothing. The Legislature could decide to maintain the current Nevada Statutes that provide for an elected body of Regents. The Legislature could retain the current NSHE structure, and recognize current NSHE Code (which includes to faculty contracts and tenure) and Board of Regents Handbook policy as the governing policies of higher education institutions. However, passage of Question 1 would eliminate the Board of Regents as a named body in the Constitution; a Board of Regents would only exist in statute. The governing body of higher education would fully be subject to changes through legislative processes. This means that a future governor or legislature could modify the Board of Regents or change the administrative authority of NSHE altogether. Any changes to administrative authority could bring the legal status of the NSHE Code or BOR Handbook policies into question. Changes to NSHE Code and policies trigger changes with institutional bylaws and policies as well. Changes to the composition of the Board of Regents have been proposed previously, with voters supporting the current elected structure (Question 9 in 2006). The State Senate voted to change the Board to include appointed members in 2019, but the Assembly did not pass this bill. Although NSHE is already subject to statute (especially in relation to state funding and state employee laws), passage of Question 1 would remove autonomy from NSHE for some decisions. For example HYPERLINK "https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/indy-explains-question-1-a-measure-that-would-strike-the-board-of-regents-from-the-constitution" , NSHE was able to distribute CARES Act funding to students almost immediately, whereas other state offices had to wait until the summer special legislative session for approval to distribute CARES funding. Why would the Legislature need to protect academic freedom? Academic freedom is already protected under the First Amendment, and is already defined in institutional policies (NSHE Board of Regents Handbook  HYPERLINK "https://nshe.nevada.edu/wp-content/uploads/file/BoardOfRegents/Handbook/title2/T2-CH02%20Academic%20Freedom%20and%20Responsibility.pdf" Title 2, Chapter 2). The AAUP asserts academic freedom, especially related to the quality of scholarship and teaching, should be made following the standards of the academic profession and applied by the community of scholars with expertise and training to establish such standards. Academic freedom is usually understood as a narrower concept than other First Amendment protections of any individual on an NSHE campus, thus the expansion of academic freedom to all persons who are enrolled in or who are employees or contractors of the State University is not consistent with how academic freedom has traditionally been understood and applied. What do faculty think about legislative oversight of academic freedom? The ballot question suggests that the Legislature would enact statutes that would provide greater protection to individualized academic freedom, however, there currently does not seem to be any indication that academic freedom needs additional protections. Of the 25 submissions of public comment on the draft ballot language to Question 1 in May 2020, 15 specifically mentioned that the legislature was more likely to endanger academic freedom or that the legislature is not qualified to define or be responsible for academic freedom (13 submissions came from identifiable UNR or other NSHE faculty including statements from UNR and UNLV NFA; 24 of 25 submitted comments were opposed to the Question 1 draft language). Some of these comments noted the likelihood that partisan interest would drive academic freedom protection statutes; there are more readily available examples of state legislatures curtailing academic freedom than upholding protections (e.g., in Arizona, lawmakers  HYPERLINK "https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/arizona-judge-declares-ban-ethnic-studies-unconstitutional-n833126" banned courses in ethnic studies and Mexican-American Studies). Other state legislatures have attacked academic tenure systems, which is also recognized by the AAUP to be part of academic freedom. First Amendment expert, Dr. Patrick File (UNR faculty), also noted academic freedom under the legislature is highly likely to lead to protracted politicized wrangling over the concept and its boundaries, and is also likely to cost taxpayer dollars through litigation when parties inevitably feel censored, sidelined, or excluded by the legislature's definition. There is also question on how much legislative oversight would be receptive to shared governance processes currently practiced between institutions, the current NSHE office/Chancellor, and Board of Regents. Unlike the vetting Board policy receives from institutional and faculty leadership, statute changes under regular legislative processes would not include such steps. Many faculty in the public comment questioned whether a biennially convened legislature is as suitable for making higher education policy than a Board of Regents focused solely on higher education year round. And what about the provision governing the administration of certain funding? This is in reference to the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which provides for federal funding to the named land grant institution (UNR). Although changes to this provision to remove obsolete language does not have much effect, there is concern that this change would be interpreted to direct federal funding away from current land grant programs (e.g. Cooperative Extension; Agricultural Experiment Station) to other NSHE institutions. In 2017, the Legislature passed a bill to name UNLV a land grant institution along with UNR to reallocate that funding (this bill was vetoed by then Governor Sandoval). Who supports Yes on 1? The campaign for Yes on 1 (that includes the former legislator Elliot Anderson who first proposed AJR5) indicates the main reason is that there is a need to hold Regents and Chancellors accountable and have more transparency with decisions made by the Board of Regents. Evidence cited for this accountability refer to mostly incidents occurring 10 or more years ago. Yes on 1 also assumes that budgets and employees in the NSHE System Office are all related to Chancellor and other administrator salaries and do not show that the majority of the budget and employees are part of  HYPERLINK "https://www.scs.nevada.edu/" System Computing Services, which also provides services (internet, video conferencing, etc.) for the entire state. Similarly, they point to failures of our current system (students who cant graduate, cant transfer credits, arent being trained for industries Nevada needs, etc.), although there is evidence to the contrary for all these claims from our institutions. For reference: Actual Changes to Constitution are as follows: RESOLVED, That Section 4 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:[Sec:] Sec. 4. 1. The Legislature shall provide for the establishment of a State University which shall embrace departments for Agriculture, Mechanic Arts, and Mining [to be controlled by a Board of Regents whose duties shall be prescribed by Law.] , and other departments deemed appropriate for the State University. 2. The Legislature shall provide by law for: (a) The governance, control and management of the State University. (b) The reasonable protection of individual academic freedom for persons who are enrolled in or who are employees or contractors of the State University and other public institutions of higher education in this State in order to facilitate the policies of Section 1 of this Article to encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, literary, scientific, mining, mechanical, agricultural, ethical and other educational improvements. And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 8 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows: [Sec:] Sec. 8. The [Board of Regents shall, from the interest accruing from the first funds which come under their control, immediately organize and maintain the said Mining department in such manner as to make it most effective and useful, Provided, that all the] proceeds of the public lands donated by Act of Congress approved July [second AD.Eighteen hundred and sixty Two,] 2, 1862, ch. 130, 12 Stat. 503, and thereafter amended by Act of Congress, for a college for the benefit of Agriculture [[,] the Mechanics] and Mechanic Arts, [and] including Military tactics , shall be invested by the [said Board of Regents] State of Nevada in the manner required by law in a separate fund to be appropriated exclusively for the benefit of the first named departments to the State University as set forth in Section [Four above;] 4 of this Article. And the Legislature shall provide that if through neglect or any other contingency, any portion of the fund so set apart [, shall be] is lost or misappropriated, the State of Nevada shall replace said amount so lost or misappropriated in said fund so that the principal of said fund shall remain forever undiminished . [[.]] And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 7 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution be repealed. !"  D F ] ` 5 P Q ^ 5 i j k ݺ݂uulclclclclZllh*hTCJh*hqVCJh*h5CJh~hT5B*phh;5B*\aJph# h*hTCJ\]aJh*h;5CJ\]aJh*hqVCJ\]aJh*h;CJ\]aJ)h*h;56B*CJ\]aJph:Sh*h;CJh~hT!65B*phh~h;5B*ph#" j k %&b[& ' w gdjgd~gdNgdgdqgdTgdT d7$8$H$gdT!6gd;gd; pPm|TU$%&45PQYZab}Ǹܥseh*hNCJ\]aJh*hCJ\]aJh~h75B*phh5^5B*phh~hq5B*ph hTh~evjh"0JCJUh*h~ev0JCJh"jh"Uh*h*CJh~evh*h~evCJh*hqVCJh*h5CJh*h5^CJ'^0YZ[\(45򡔊xooxxfxfxxh*hjCJh*hqVCJh*h~CJh*hNCJh5^5B*phh~hN5B*phhN\]aJh*hNCJ\]aJh*hCJjh"0JCJUh*h0JCJh"jh"Uh*h5^CJ\]aJh*hCJ\]aJ#q% & ' v w w!!w"""""""w#\$w$øzzzvlbbzzYh*hTLCJhW5B*phhTL5B*phhWh*hWCJhj5B*phh_X5B*\aJph# h*h*5CJ\aJh*CJaJh`[DCJaJh*h~CJaJh*h`[DCJaJh*h*CJh*hjCJh*h~CJjh"0JCJUh*h~0JCJ"w """&&&'**/-0G0gdT!6 d7$8$H$gdT!6gd~evgdWgdWgdj w$%0%1%Z%[%a%t%u%%%u&&&&&&''''p'q'u'v'whwVGVhT!6hT!67B*aJph$&"hT!6hT!657B*\aJph$&hT!6hT!6B*CJaJph"hT!6hT!6B*aJph"h~hT!65B*phh~h~ev5B*phh^h*5OJPJQJaJ h*5 hjh*h*hjCJjh"0JCJUh*hTL0JCJh*h*0JCJh"jh"U h*CJh*hTLCJv'w'|'''((T(U(g(h(i(()******&+'+S+T+X+Y+Z+_+f+g++Z,[,\,,,,,,,,-F-G-X-Y-Z-g-m-ϓωϢϢzϢhT!6hT!67B*aJph"hT!6B*aJph"hT!6hT!6B*CJaJph""hT!6hT!657B*\aJph$&hT!67B*aJph$&hT!6hT!67B*aJph$&hT!6hT!6B*aJph"%hT!6hT!656B*\]aJph:ShT!6hT!65B*\aJph$&0m-n-q-r-s---------W.].s.......//%/&/'/*/s////////0,0-0F0G0¯ϯ¯ϯϯš‹‚hT!6h"CJhT!6hT!6B*CJaJph"(hT!6hT!6567B*\]aJph:S%hT!6hT!656B*\]aJph:ShT!6hT!6B*aJph"hT!6hT!65B*\aJph$&hT!6hT!67B*aJph$&"hT!6hT!657B*\aJph$&(,1h/ =!"#$% x666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666p62&6FVfv2(&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@66666PJ_HmH nH sH tH F`F NormaldCJ_HaJmH sH tH ^^ ; Heading 2$$(@&!B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJph.tZ@Z ; Heading 3$$(@&B*OJPJQJ^JaJphMxDA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List V/V ;Heading 2 Char!B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJph.tR/R ;Heading 3 CharB*OJPJQJ^JaJphMx6U`6 q0 Hyperlink >*B*phcPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V fx͛gO~ɳ_gsW>bmoyeo?{m>2^|?Vw޾~u}W .>bb1gAߝ"<=oM8{(x'I!t o蹬0',O.&6BG[9YL2XsJC>EL3}11!N\PpG*xL=D!铁SM }B^>o'6=N}n# }L0BR>JT m\G*t):gsOzNS)| md[ J3GXbc?c(Q?!M#tAamJw&“[;ۛFj8v/{w^zVt5wb+i_uenq_hcxTVG(^=W/ }|n6ڽPSSپKJQ9,%U?026 ^2C$3ױ 2.ao5NCGrYOsH-Kb*GcXްqyN@^5KbC>A2sYٕhxX\ZaԊ)V3VT(tTϳky^L`1EvL;$rsIȘ&Yuиh:t(|PZ cq\ݲ6Pf+eq3mUd(k#84ڑzh φJe%RL % ihVA`5@V>4rt7x4Ceё/As5kK>t8ЉxĪ`D$*ь,lQKi&;ESC8YfncXW5C@ MsXu6ґDs3U]ӯb 65y<Ġivϥ{Yrs[']^u,jj k͞c3IX_][#:?-W- Jiۇ<hË UҤ~|6D=')dØ PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!.ytheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ'% theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] G(D w$v'm-G0 !w G0 T 40ZtG(XXXXL# @0(  B S  ?$$$$I(ZahqI(33~5NWT!6`[D'VITLTqV5^mq~ev"_X7H;qc)1^*jG(I(@G(@UnknownG.[x Times New Roman5Symbol3. .[x ArialC.,*{$ Calibri Light7..{$ CalibriACambria Math"qh jG jGE"IE"I!203(3(K@P  $PT!62!xx  Amy M PasonBrianne R Murphy Oh+'0x  4 @ LX`hp Amy M PasonNormalBrianne R Murphy2Microsoft Office Word@F#@2s@2sE" ՜.+,D՜.+,D hp  University Of Nevada, RenoI3(  Title8 8@ _PID_HLINKSAvp https://www.scs.nevada.edu/x,ghttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/arizona-judge-declares-ban-ethnic-studies-unconstitutional-n833126>qhttps://nshe.nevada.edu/wp-content/uploads/file/BoardOfRegents/Handbook/title2/T2-CH02 Academic Freedom and Responsibility.pdfhttps://thenevadaindependent.com/article/indy-explains-question-1-a-measure-that-would-strike-the-board-of-regents-from-the-constitution  !"$%&'()*+,-./013456789;<=>?@ADRoot Entry F;sF1Table#!WordDocument.DSummaryInformation(2DocumentSummaryInformation8:CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q