MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
AND
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 17, 1993
The joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 9:50 a.m., on Wednesday, February 17, 1993, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Jan Evans
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Robert E. Price
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman (Excused)
Senator Diana Glomb (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Marion Entrekin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Carolyn M. Sparks, Chairman, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada
Bob Pierce, retired Vice President, Valley Bank of Nevada and past President, Western Industrial Nevada
Allan Baffico, Alumnus, Western Nevada Community College
Tiffany Robinson, President, Black Student Organization, University of Nevada, Reno
Chris Holt, Executive Director, Northern Nevada Development Authority
William L. Keepers, Chairman, Desert Research Institute Research Foundation, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Sierra Pacific Power Company
John McDonough, Vice President and General Manager, Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Incorporated
Matthew E. Andersen, Graduate, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Seldon Brannan, Business Major, Truckee Meadows Community College
Carolyn Collins, Faculty Senate Chair, Community College of Southern Nevada
Shelley Berkley, Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada
Ronald Sparks, Vice-Chancellor for Finance, University and Community College System of Nevada
John Gwaltney, Ph.D., President, Truckee Meadows Community College
Ronald Remington, Ph.D., President, Northern Nevada Community College
Anthony D. Calabro, Ph.D., President, Western Nevada Community College
Paul E. Meacham, Ph.D., President, Community College of Southern Nevada
James V. Taranik, Ph.D., President, Desert Research Institute
Joseph Crowley, Ph.D., President, University of Nevada, Reno Robert M. Daugherty, M. D., Dean, School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno
Robert Maxson, Ph.D., President, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Mark H. Dawson, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada
John Richardson, Ph.D., Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
University and Community College System of Nevada
Senator Raggio announced there would be presentations by various individuals prior to the budget hearings for the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). Due to the number of people wishing to testify, he stated a total of 50 minutes would be allowed for the presentations, or 5 minutes for each speaker.
Carolyn M. Sparks, Chairman, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada stated the individuals wishing to speak before the committee for each of the UCCSN units are here not to complain but to make a presentation of facts and figures to support their belief the university and community college system is the best bargain in the State of Nevada for education and economic growth in Nevada.
The first speaker introduced by Senator Raggio was Bob Pierce, retired vice president of the Valley Bank of Nevada and past president of Western Industrial Nevada, who testified from written text (Exhibit C) in support of funding for higher education through the UNS. In closing he wished to state for the record:
If the only answer is to increase taxes, we should do it. It does not make sense to boast about being among the lowest-taxed states if we are also among the lowest where education is concerned.
Senator Raggio introduced Allan Baffico, alumnus of the Western Nevada Community College (WNCC), who wished to testify in support of the community college system.
Mr. Baffico commented his sole purpose in appearing before the committee was to testify regarding the worthiness of the college programs in the prison system. He stated he was released from prison approximately 2 years ago but during incarceration he was able to further his education by taking advantage of the programs offered at the prison. He stated he entered prison educationally disadvantaged with only an eighth grade education but at discharge, he had completed high school and 2 years of community college and has been able to go into business for himself. Today, in addition to being a business owner, he has his own home, a new car, pays his bills and for the first time last year, paid $5,000 in income tax.
Mr. Baffico feels he is a productive member of society which he attributes to the fact he was able to attend school while in prison. He feels this gave him the self-esteem and confidence he
needed to ignore the recidivism rate once he was released from incarceration. He emphasized college worked for him and will continue to work for many others like him, and he feels very strongly funding should not be cut to the UCCSN.
Tiffany Robinson, President, Black Student Organization, University of Nevada, Reno, stated she is a 1990 graduate of Basic High School, Las Vegas, Nevada, and is presently a third year student at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). She also has attended the Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC).
Ms. Robinson wished to testify regarding financial and educational needs of undergraduate students and to express her support of the UCCSN. She continued her testimony by reading from prepared text (Exhibit D).
Senator Raggio introduced Chris Holt, Executive Director, Northern Nevada Development Authority (NNDA), who wished to testify in support of the Western Nevada Community College.
Mr. Holt stated the NNDA received over 400 inquiries in 1992 regarding their 4-county service area which includes Carson, Douglas, Lyon and Storey counties from companies interested in those areas. Out of the 400 inquiries, representatives of 144 companies actually visited the counties and 38 manufacturing firms relocated and 5 expanded into the area. This created approximately 1,200 new primary jobs for the region. Mr. Holt wished to point out that all of these companies asked about labor force and were interested in issues regarding the quality of life, and he feels the community college comes into direct play in this regard. Many of the representatives from the manufacturing firms have toured the campus of the Western Nevada Community College which he feels added strongly to their decision to move into northern Nevada.
Mr. Holt stated he is a graduate of a community college and feels the State of Nevada is fortunate to have a vocational and technical training facility in the area.
William L. Keepers, Chairman, Desert Research Institute (DRI) Research Foundation, and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Sierra Pacific Power Company was introduced by Senator Raggio to testify in behalf of the UCCSN. Senator Raggio remarked to Mr. Keepers that the Senate Committee on Finance committee had an opportunity to tour the new DRI in Las Vegas, Nevada, on
February 12, 1993, and they were impressed with this facility.
Mr. Keepers stated it was his concern deriving from his position in Nevada's industrial community that really prompted him to testify today in support of the DRI and the fine research being conducted there. He added that his comments apply as well to the research programs and opportunities on the university's campuses in Reno and Las Vegas, Nevada. He continued his testimony by reading from written text (Exhibit E).
Senator Raggio introduced John McDonough, Vice President and General Manager, Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Incorporated.
Mr. McDonough stated he was here today to speak about the vital role the UCCSN plays in the mining industry of the State of Nevada. He stressed that the UCCSN programs already established should continue to be funded to allow them to continue, and that the new programs currently being developed be financially supported to the greatest extent possible.
Mr. McDonough then continued his presentation before the committee by reading from written testimony (Exhibit F).
Senator Raggio thanked Mr. McDonough and stated the commitment the mining industry has made to higher education is very much appreciated.
Matthew E. Andersen wished to testify in behalf of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and to ask for financial support for the almost 7,000 graduate students in the UCCSN.
Mr. Andersen said he is a graduate student of the UNLV and a doctoral student in the biology department where he is currently working as a graduate assistant and teaching two undergraduate laboratories. He also works as a research assistant investigating some systematic problems in the desert tortoise.
Mr. Andersen continued his testimony by reading from prepared text (Exhibit G).
Senator Raggio introduced Seldon Brannon, Business Major, Truckee Meadows Community College.
Mr. Brannon testified upon graduation from the TMCC he will transfer to the University of Nevada, Reno to secure a degree in accounting. He feels very strongly that the need for higher education is extremely important in today's society and urged the State of Nevada to work hand in hand with the UCCSN towards the continued funding for higher education to maintain its availability to students now and in the future.
Carolyn Collins, Faculty Senate Chair, Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN), was introduced by Senator Raggio, who commented both the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had the opportunity to visit the Cheyenne and the Charleston campuses during a tour in Las Vegas on February 12 and 13, 1993.
Ms. Collins wished to voice her support for community colleges in Nevada and urged that funding continue and not be cut. Her written testimony (Exhibit H) was read for the record.
Shelley Berkeley, Chairman, Legislative Committee of the Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada introduced V. James Eardley, Ph.D., Vice Chairman, Board of Regents and their two newest members, Mattie Graves and Nancy Price.
Senator Raggio thanked the members of the Board of Regents for their attendance at today's hearing.
As outlined in her written testimony (Exhibit I) Mrs. Berkeley testified in support of the UCCSN and urged that funding not be decreased.
Senator Raggio recognized Ronald Sparks, Vice-Chancellor for Finance, University and Community College System of Nevada, who wished to present an overview of the budget request for the UCCSN.
Mr. Sparks distributed a group of charts and graphs (Exhibit J) to the committees to provide them with a better understanding of what has occurred in the system during the current 2-year period, what is in store for the UCCSN in the next 2-year period, status regarding student fees and an overview of the Governor's recommendation. He then called the committee's attention to page 1 of (Exhibit J), "Annualized FTE Enrollments" and reviewed the information with them. He said he would get into more detailed information regarding enrollments as they progress with the budget discussion today.
Senator Raggio advised Mr. Sparks the committees would want to hear about the full-time equivalency (FTE) for each budget which should be discussed as they review the budgets for each facility. He also said as they discuss each facility, the committees will want detailed information regarding how they each met the budget reduction request. Senator Raggio explained since the regents allowed each of the institutions to tailor their own reductions, the committees will want to know how this will affect each of the facilities and having done that, the committees will want assurance of equity between the institutions.
Concurring, Mr. Sparks stated it would be extremely important for the committees to understand where the budget cuts occurred. He added that he believes it will be more important for the committees to understand what the UCCSN believes they can do with the funds that have been recommended. He will cover both issues.
Mr. Sparks stated as far as the detail regarding the budget reduction, he has a handout that illustrates a budget-by-budget breakdown of all of the 2-year cuts they have incurred for the 2-year period. He will provide this information to the committees at a later date since they already have much information to cover at today's hearing.
Mr. Sparks wished to remind this committee the UCCSN has continued to grow faster than budgeted at the same time the budget had been reduced. In fiscal year 1991-1992 they enrolled almost 800 more FTE students than budgeted, and this year they expect to enroll almost 1,000 more FTE students than budgeted. Mr. Sparks also said the budget reflects numbers before the Governor found it necessary to reduce their appropriation. For each of the next 2-years, they expect to grow by an additional 6 percent per year.
Testimony was resumed by Mr. Sparks when he reviewed the information contained on page 2 of (Exhibit J), "UCCSN General Fund Operating Appropriations." He pointed out that during the last fiscal year the budgets were reduced by $6.6 million and this fiscal year by $21.9 million for a total reduction of $28.5 million in the operating budget over the biennium. The Governor has recommended for General Fund appropriation approximately $194 million for each of the next 2 years which is $ll.4 million less than was appropriated during the last session for the UCCSN for this current biennium but an increase of $4.4 million over the reduced budgets for this fiscal year. He said it is important to note the increased dollars available for next fiscal year over this fiscal year's reduced level. He repeated that for this fiscal year they have been reduced to $l85.7 million and with the Governor's recommendation there will be $4.4 million in new dollars available to the system from the General Fund for next year, keeping in mind that appropriation remains virtually flat for the second year of the biennium.
Mr. Sparks continued:
To give you an idea as to where the campuses cut their budgets, a couple of things I would like to point out to you. First of all contrary to some very unfortunate misunderstandings, there were about 305 positions throughout the system this fiscal year alone whose funding has been removed or the positions have been frozen. So contrary to what you hear that the other state agencies did experience a freeze in positions when higher education did not is not accurate....Out of those 305, 165 of them were in instruction. These were faculty and classified support staff for instruction throughout the system.
Senator Raggio asked if the 165 instructional positions were newly authorized positions and Mr. Sparks answered in the affirmative. He added that they did not lay off anybody. These were basically new positions available for the current year to meet the enrollment previously discussed.
Mr. Sparks said:
If we now were just to take the Governor's recommendation in instruction for each of the next 2 years and determine how many faculty we have requested in our base budget based on current student-faculty ratio and compare that to the number of faculty that are being recommended, we will be short about 472 faculty and classified positions by the end of the biennium based on current student-faculty ratios. If we took all of the money that the Governor is recommending in his part of the budget that he calls demographics and caseload growth or maintenance....if we took all of that money and I will explain to you why we do not think we can do that...we would now be short by the end of the biennium about 400 faculty and classified staff to meet the current student-faculty ratios based on our projected enrollments for each of the next 2 years. I need to remind you that these reductions reflect operating budget reductions only...they are $28.5 million. There was an additional $9.5 million of nonoperating budget reductions that we incurred during this biennium. In short, we lost $28.5 million in the operating budget...we got $l7.1 back.
Mr. Sparks returned the committees' attention to (Exhibit J), "UCCSN Registration Fees Cost Per Credit" and continued his testimony referencing this handout.
Mr. Sparks called attention to the registration fees shown for
fiscal year 1993 and reiterated:
It should be noted for the graduate-per-credit amount for FY 1993 we show $75.75. That is an average of the fees currently being charged in the two universities and the point I want to make here is that when the Governor required us to cut our budgets this fiscal year by $22 million, the Board of Regents approved and you gave us the authority to spend a surcharge in all of our fees for this fiscal year...and I want to explain to you those surcharges. Currently this year in graduate fees with the surcharge UNLV is charging $77.50 per graduate credit. UNR is charging $74.00 per credit with the surcharge. The average of the two is the $75.75. In undergraduate fees UNLV is currently charging $55.50 a credit and UNR is currently charging $54.50 and the average of the two is $55.00 (reflected in Exhibit J). The community colleges are all charging $28.00 a credit.
Mr. Sparks now turned to page 4 of (Exhibit J), "UCCSN Universities Non Resident Tuition" and continued his testimony while referring to the chart shown.
Mr. Sparks remarked:
In 1990 nonresident fees were $3,000 per student per year. The fees in 1995 are now $4,750 per student per year which is a 58.3 percent increase in nonresident fees since fiscal year 1990...comparing this to the increase in general fund support since fiscal 1990....The general fund appropriation for the system in 1990 was $146.6 million. Remember in each of the next 2-years the Governor is recommending basically $194 million so the increase in general fund over this same time frame that the fees have gone up at the rates I have indicated has been 32.4 percent.
Senator Raggio commented that according to information compiled by the fiscal analysts, the nonresident undergraduate fee for 1991-1992 was $5,070 while the average charge in the western states was $6,038 which puts the fees charged in Nevada under the average for the western states.
Mr. Sparks once again turned the committees' attention to page 5 of (Exhibit J), "UCCSN State General Fund/Tuition & Fees Percent of Total Operating Budget" and continued with his testimony.
Continuing, Mr. Sparks now referred to the last page of (Exhibit J), "General Fund Appropriations Percent Distribution" and resumed his presentation. He pointed out he hopes this chart did show that the share of the state's General Fund resources appropriated for higher education is dropping from a little over 20 percent by the end of the biennium based on the Governor's recommendation to 17.6 percent.
Mr. Sparks now called the committees' attention to (Exhibit K), "UCCSN 1993-1995 Biennial Budget Request".(Exhibit K. Original is on file in the Research Library.) He referred to an amendment to the budget request submitted by the UCCSN to the Governor on September 1, 1993 and said at the time of submittal of the budget the Board of Regents had not yet completed its review of its tuition and fee policy. They did complete that review in October 1993 and approved a new policy and subsequently did raise fees for each of the next 2 years.
Mr. Sparks explained:
When we built the budget on September 1, because the board had not completed its action, we rolled the student fees back to the legislatively-approved level for this year. In other words, we took the surcharges out because the board had agreed that those would sunset.
Senator Raggio asked why the surcharges were not applied evenly across the system.
In response Mr. Sparks replied each institution was allowed the flexibility to meet the $28 million in operating cuts as best they could based on their own priorities and based on their own needs.
Mr. Sparks again referred to the amendment to their budget request (Exhibit K) and continued his testimony.
Mr. Sparks clarified:
When the board adopted these fees it amended its tuition and fee policy, and I am going to cover three major items they addressed....Recall that their previous policy indicated as one of the measurements we would use which is not the method to set fees but a measurement used to evaluate our fees and to determine what the fees ought to be....One of the measurements was the average fees in the western states, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). Using that policy caused some rather severe problems and allowed a minority of institutions across the west to have a dramatic impact on what those averages would be. We all know what is happening to the fees in California. We know that Oregon has had to raise its fees dramatically. What that policy did was to allow a few institutions to have a dramatic effect on what the averages should be. The board felt that rather than using the averages of these institutions we ought to use the median to be halfway....half of the states would be above us and half of the states would be below us removing the impact of those very few states who have a major impact on that fee level. So we now have adopted the median of the western states as a measurement and a measurement only.
Senator Raggio asked, "In the past haven't you historically looked at the average?"
Mr. Sparks replied, "Yes, that is the major change I have described."
Senator Raggio asked what the difference would be and Mr. Sparks answered:
...the difference last year in the WICHE region in undergraduate fees at the universities...the average was $56.63 a credit. The median was $53.00 a credit. What drove that average up so rapidly was California and Oregon, and the board felt that a few states in this region should not dictate Nevada's fees. Therefore, they changed to the median.
The next thing that they did was place within their policy a 9 percent cap. That is, in no fiscal year can the fees, other than nonresident fees, exceed 9 percent per year. That was to avoid double digit increases in fees.
The last change they made is very important for you to understand because it is included in the Governor's budget. The regents' [Board of Regents] policy now states that an amount equal to 50 percent of the increase in tuition in fees dedicated to the support of the state budget shall be set aside to improving student access. Improving student access is scholarships and grants-in-aid.
Senator Raggio asked if that only pertained to the resident fees.
Mr. Sparks replied:
An amount equal to 50 percent of all fees would be set aside for improving student access. The key is, and I think this is what is troubling you, the regents' policy says of those fees dedicated to the state budget. The regents also built into their amended budget request a request to retain 25 percent of the fee increases for undergraduates and graduates in community colleges...to retain 25 percent of those increases outside of the state budget so that they could be used for students that are not covered by the state budget....100 percent of the increase in nonresidents is included in this budget. When the Governor evaluated this amended request, he placed 100 percent of all of the fee increases within his budget. We are not appealing that action by the Governor. We realize that if you were able to give us back that 25 percent that we wanted to keep outside of the budget, in all likelihood you would have difficulty in replacing it with state general funds. We would like to think you could, but we understand the situation.
Mr. Sparks said that concluded his discussion regarding student fees and the new policy the board has adopted. He stated it is important for the committees to understand that the Governor did include 100 percent of these fee increases in the budget. Also, there is money set aside within each of the institutions' budgets for improving student access.
Mr. Sparks now asked the committees to refer to page 2 of (Exhibit K) and continued his discussion referencing the Base budget. He stressed the UCCSN constructed their budget request on the appropriations approved by the legislature for this fiscal year.
Senator Raggio said the committees understood how they constructed their budget request but said the UCCSN should also understand that all of the Governor's Executive Budget is predicated upon the reduced budget, and the UCCSN is not being treated differently in this regard.
Continuing, Mr. Sparks said the other thing they did when they prepared their budget was to continue to use current student-faculty ratios. They also continued to fund 50 percent of the difference between what they have in their base budget for the support services formulas and what full funding would provide. He said this was consistent with what was approved by the legislature in 1991.
According to Mr. Sparks, continued funding for the 2 percent professional merit pool is another item the UCCSN continued to build into their budget. They only asked in their budget request for 2 percent for all of the professional positions excluding those that the legislature directed be exempt from that merit pool.
Referring to page 3, item 10 of (Exhibit K), Mr. Sparks said the board did not anywhere in any of their budgets, either in their Base budget or in their Priority budget, request a salary increase for any of their faculty and classified staff. They do continue to request that they receive the same salary increase, if any, that is granted to any other state employee including school teachers.
Continuing his testimony, Mr. Sparks advised the committees it will be important for them to note the data contained on page 5 of (Exhibit K) regarding annualized FTE enrollments. He said the major change is in enrollments in community colleges, particularly the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN) who actually enrolled more students last year than they are budgeted for this year. In order to meet their budget, they would have to lose about 8 percent of their students. They project they will grow by 12 percent in 1993.
Still reviewing page 5 of (Exhibit K), Mr. Sparks stated he wished to add a qualification to the projections shown and stated:
These projections were built using our Base budget request. If the recommendation holds that the Governor is making, in other words a flat $194 million a year General Fund appropriation, I do not think there is any question, certainly at least for the second year, that we can't reach these enrollment projections and most especially at southern.
Continuing his testimony, Mr. Sparks now referred the committees to page 9 of (Exhibit K).
Prior to getting into the Governor's Executive Budget, Mr. Sparks said there was one additional piece of information he wished to share with the committee and remarked:
There is a difference in our feeling of what we can do with what the dollars the Governor has recommended compared to what the Governor has said he is recommending for us to do...That difference occurs for several basic reasons. In my view you couldn't have picked a worse time to go into a Base budget procedure at least as far as higher education is concerned. When the Governor told us to cut $38 million out of our budgets, he allowed us the flexibility to cut the budgets in any of the appropriation areas we felt we could. That is, we could share those cuts between minor repair and improvements or Capital Improvement Program (CIP) appropriations and operating budgets. He allowed us to decide how much would be cut in any one fiscal year...and he allowed the institutions, and the board approved that, the flexibility to identify the areas in which they could absorb these cuts with the least pain. What that does, because of the procedure used in your Base budget and because the main component is to use last year's expenditure levels as a base, that throws us all out of synch....Some institutions cut more last year, some more this year, some used their minor repair appropriations to meet most of their cuts...so each of the institutions are not treated equally in this procedure. That causes a serious problem and an equity problem in our institutions....The other problem with the Base budget is that since that budget only identifies last year's expenditure levels and ignores formula, ignores student-faculty ratios, ignores funding for support services but keys on what was spent last year and not necessarily on what you made available to us, then we lose money through that procedure. For example, you appropriated an additional $5 million this fiscal year for our support services formula system-wide. If you used last year's actual expenditures for the base you lose that $5 million, and I do not think that is what you intended, but that is what happens. I am not being critical of the budget office, they followed the procedures, but there is a serious flaw in that and again, with the budget cuts incurred this year it created serious inequities in our campuses....so here is what we did. Before, we could decide how much of the target appropriation that the Governor was recommending to us could be allocated to those institutions. The first thing we said was each of those institutions should have enough money next year to do what they are doing this year. We established that level and that is, by the way, a legislatively-approved budget minus all of the cuts.
Remember, we are in the process of creating a new management information system and we are about two-thirds of the way there. As we reported to you at the last session when you appropriated the $2.4 million for us for this current biennium we indicated there would be about $1 million of ongoing operational costs necessary for that system and we have placed those dollars in the computer services budgets in each of the next 2 years to maintain the hardware and software and operate that new management information system.
Senator Raggio asked how much will be in the access fund and how that will be utilized, by his projections.
Mr. Sparks replied it is about $1.4 million for next year and about $1.7 for the second year. This will be used to provide grants-in-aid and scholarships for students.
Mrs. Williams asked if any of that money will be available for scholarships and grants-in-aid at the graduate level.
Mr. Sparks said he believed it would be available.
Continuing his testimony, Mr. Sparks stated:
The key that we use in constructing our budget for each of the next 2 years is the current spending plans, merits, $1 million for the ongoing costs of the management information system, set aside for student access....after that we found ourselves, for the institutions for the instructional budgets, with about $4 million left to allocate to those institutions.
Here is how we would allocate it....We said that each of the institutions, in at least the first fiscal year, ought to have at least 50 percent of the money necessary to maintain and operate the new facilities that are currently being constructed and will be completed sometime in the next fiscal year. We also determined that the remainder of that money should be allocated to those instructional budgets based upon a proportionate distribution between what the Governor was recommending in their instruction, what was requested in instruction, and what the Governor was recommending in the support services areas and what we requested in those areas. I have a number that I will give you as we go through each of the budgets that will advise you how much money this is, and it is the money left for the institutions to take care of their facilities, growth, inflation, and additional instructional needs. That will differ with the number that you will see in the Governor's Executive Budget. If you understand how we arrived at our totals, you will understand the difference. The other thing I will point out to you as we get to these budgets is the number of faculty and classified staff that are frozen this fiscal year, and the number of faculty and classified staff that will not be funded next fiscal year.
University System - Special Project - Page 118
System Computing Center - Page 120
University Press - Page 122
Intercollegiate Athletics - UNR - Page 130
Statewide Programs - UNR - Page 132
Agricultural Experiment Station - Page 134
Cooperative Extension Services - Page 137
Radiation Safety Board - Northern Nevada - Page 139
Intercollegiate Athletics - UNLV - Page 144
Statewide Programs - UNLV - Page 146
Radiation Safety Board - Southern Nevada - Page 148
Business Center North - Page 162
Business Center South - Page 164
National Direct Student Loans - Page 166
Mr. Sparks stated:
The money in the above listed budgets is enough to take care of their current spending and their merits. In the case of the System Computing Center, however, it is their current spending, merits, and the ongoing cost of the management information system. Then when you get to the institutions, they are the only ones of our budgets that have what we might call a discretionary pot of money available to them...but very simply, that is all that is contained in these noninstructional budgets...the current spending, and next year's merits.
Regarding the radiation boards...one thing I would like to add, but it is in the narrative you have to pay careful attention to...the boards in the north and south are funded by workers' compensation funds, and we have a self-funded program....If we run out of money because we have to pay too many claims, you will need to allow us the ability to come before interim finance for a General Fund emergency appropriations.
The student loan fund is a normal $30,000 annual federal program.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated a question had been raised by one of her constituents as to why additional business centers are needed within the community college system since there already is a business center in the north and south. She asked for a written explanation to enable her to respond to her constituent.
Mr. Sparks said the UCCSN does not have business centers in the community college system but each institution may have an internal accounts payable accounting section. The business centers in the north and the south handle accounts payable, purchasing, payroll and the process centers for the north and south. He will provide a written explanation to Ms. Giunchigliani.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Sparks to delineate the differences
in his written explanation.
Continuing her questioning, Ms. Giunchigliani asked for a list of the individuals on the board of the University Press. In addition to the names of the board members, she wanted information regarding their terms of office, how they are appointed, their qualifications, and how the membership rotation list works.
Mrs. Williams asked, "Just for clarification, are the budgets you are talking about the Base budgets prior to the budget cuts?"
Mr. Sparks clarified the budgets described are after the budget cuts.
Truckee Meadows Community College - Page 156
Mr. Sparks commented:
Funding for 21 faculty and staff positions were [sic] lost this year. The total funding that the Governor is recommending for TMCC allows TMCC to maintain its current spending plan, to meet its merits, to provide its student access money....after taking care of this, for the second year all that is left to address all other needs is about $272,000. The overall student-faculty ratios by the end of the biennium will be approximately 23.6 to 1.
Mr. Sparks introduced John Gwaltney, Ph.D., President, Truckee Meadows Community College.
Senator Raggio clarified first the committees would like to hear the amount of his budget reduction and how it was implemented.
Dr. Gwaltney replied:
In the second year of the biennium the budget reduction was $1.4 million which was represented in the form of the 21 positions Mr. Sparks previously mentioned. It might assist you in your deliberations to have some feel for what that 21 positions represented....
Senator Raggio asked what other reductions there were besides the 21 positions.
Dr. Gwaltney said there were a number of other costs in other parts of the institution but most of those were operating dollars and cutbacks in maintenance such as omitting a custodial position. Probably the most significant cutback occurred in the first year of the biennium when the institution gave up a roofing project which was valued at about $450,000. This roofing project remains to be done.
Continuing with his testimony regarding the positions that were cut, Dr. Gwaltney said:
About 17 of the positions were full-time teaching positions that represented about 2,000 seats available to students. Along with that the retirement of his foundation officer and affirmative action officer has greatly impeded efforts in the foundation area. Some of you are aware of the fact that our foundation in the last 4 to 5 years had raised about $6 million, and we are operating without an executive director of the foundation.
Senator Raggio asked if the 17 positions were new positions and Dr. Gwaltney said part of them were new positions. He further stated:
You approved the 18 to 1 developmental ratio the last session but for the most part that was not implemented because we refunded the funds before we ever got the chance to implement the 18 to 1 development ratio.
Senator Raggio asked if the institution increased their student fees and added the surcharge, and Dr. Gwaltney replied in the affirmative.
Senator Raggio then asked if they took any other action to raise their revenues to which Dr. Gwaltney responded other than private donations, they did not.
Ms. Giunchigliani referred to the Enhancements and Student Access categories of the budget and asked for someone to define what the categories actually mean. She said she is aware the terms "scholarships" and "grants-in-aid" are often used but they are considered an enhancement which causes her to believe there may be a different use for the student access program. She added the committees should be advised if the student access program is different from campus to campus.
Dr. Gwaltney said the student access program is not different from campus to campus but it is his understanding that 25 percent of the dollars are deleted for outside the operating budget and 75 percent stay in the operating budget and half of those dollars are put into the student access area. In the case of TMCC that would amount to slightly over $100,000 in a years time.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how access is defined or how the students actually get the money in order to allow them to get into a program.
Dr. Gwaltney said one of the two positions they expect to replace of the 21 positions that were lost would be a financial aids counselor. The other would be the affirmative action person for TMCC. They would expect to develop procedures by which funding for approximately half would be available by loan and the other half would be made available in the form of grants or work-study, probably more in the area of work-study.
Ms. Giunchigliani then asked if the $100,000 for the student access program is so students can enroll and actually enter into a program, or would this money also be used for other overhead costs.
Dr. Gwaltney said it is the intent of the board that 100 percent of the fees would be used for the students, and none of the fees will be used for positions or other overhead costs.
Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out that during the last session there was a concern of a tier-level before the money actually got to the students, and for this reason asked that a definition of "access" be provided to the committees.
In response, Dr. Gwaltney reiterated that all of this money is designed to go straight to the students in some form or the other. He said of interest to the committees, the TMCC has had the availability of an emergency student loan in their campus fund for sometime and contrary to popular belief, the students do repay the emergency loans given them.
Ms. Giunchigliani said there are no performance indicators in any of the budgets. It would be of interest to the committees to know what the inputs and outputs are as far as what is a basic program they ought to be offering in this time of budget constraints versus what are new programs that are requested. She asked that this information be provided so that the subcommittee can review this in detail.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were any salary increases in the administrative area during the last fiscal year, and Dr. Gwaltney said there were no salary increases for their positions at all unless it involved a change in responsibilities or changed rolls. He added because of the fact they froze some positions, they had moved some individuals into acting positions that left their former positions blank. Since some of these individuals took on additional responsibility in their acting position, they split the difference between their previous salary at a lower level at the institution to half of what the higher position would normally be. They added the two together and divided by two.
Mr. Sparks wished to add that one of the major pieces of the current year budget reduction was to postpone in all of the institutions, with the exception of UNLV, the professional-merit increase for a 6-month period. At UNLV they decided not to provide for merits for the entire year. Therefore, for this fiscal year the professional-merit increases were delayed for a 6-month period and at UNLV there will be no professional-merit increases at all. Last fiscal year all of the institutions did receive the funding to allow for professional-merit increases (for Dean and below) or a 4 percent cost-of-living raise.
Dr. Gwaltney resumed his testimony by reading excerpts taken from a speech given by Bud Russell, the Chief Executive Officer of International Game Technology, in reference to economic development. Mr. Russell said IGT is one of the 10 fastest growing companies in the United States. Six years ago they manufactured 6,000 gaming pieces of equipment and almost all of them stayed in the State of Nevada. This year they will manufacture 52,000 pieces of equipment and 48 percent will leave the State of Nevada. Two-years from now they project they will manufacture 75,000 pieces of equipment of which 70 percent will leave the State of Nevada. Dr. Gwaltney said, "If that is not a bit frightening to you, I do not know what would be." Mr. Russell also pointed out that the gaming return from a gaming machine on a riverboat located 40 miles outside of Chicago is 3 times the average return from a machine located somewhere in Nevada.
Dr Gwaltney commented:
I would like to talk to you about what can we do with the $272,000 that was left over for our institutions that Mr. Sparks made reference to....We plan on hiring an affirmative action officer that we have been without for better than a year. We will also employ during that period of time an individual who will help us with financial aid since we are finding more and more students who need financial aid....As the Governor's budget is put together and recommended to you, we are projected to grow about 5 percent. We are projected to grow 5 percent on the 2-year history where we grew 10 percent and reduced our budget by l0.89 percent. That is projected to happen again. We will roll every surplus dollar we can find into part-time accounts. The part-time budget is the only possible way...and we will have to stretch it by every means...to create enough sections to reach a 5 percent growth the first year. The second year with $276,000 it is likely we will not make it, so when we come back to you the next time and tell you that our enrollment has leveled off...that enrollment leveled off because there are not sections available for those students to be enrolled in. The part-time account, and one of the things I take the greatest pride in, is the fact that you reduced the ratio and improved the full-time number of teachers in the last session....We project by the second year of the biennium that 70 percent of the classes taught at TMCC will be taught by part-time instructors. That, my friends, is crisis. We will look at the quality control in a very dramatic fashion....I would suggest to you that as the university dips into that pool of part-time teachers who are willing to teach for the amount that we pay, we may find that pool drying up before we get into the second year.
I would close with refreshing your memory on what we gave up in that process...17 full-time faculty, 21 professional positions. That represented about 20 percent of our professional staff. The 18 to 1 developmental ratio was not implemented. I pointed out to you that we were without counselors, we were short 1.5 counselors. The minority affairs office and affirmative action was not working well at that particular time. We were without two building and grounds personnel most of that time. Our foundation office is now operating with one classified employee and a half-time position out of the faculty. How would I close my remarks to you today? I have said in no uncertain terms that we face a crisis...a crisis of access to higher education. I would plead with you to honor the Base budget concepts put forth. This certainly is not elegance in any way, shape or form.
Northern Nevada Community College - Page 153
Mr. Sparks stated in this fiscal year the NNCC was forced to freeze a total of nine positions from this budget of which seven were in the instructional area. He stated in reviewing the Governor's recommendation, by fiscal year 1995 in instruction alone the NNCC will be short of meeting the student-faculty ratio by 14 positions by the end of the biennium. Their overall student-faculty ratio will be 18.4 to 1.
Senator Raggio asked if he was indicating that the primary way in which this institution reached the budget reduction request was by not filling nine positions.
Mr. Sparks clarified that in this fiscal year seven of the nine positions were in the instructional area.
Continuing, Mr. Sparks commented:
In this budget you will see that $25,667 was set aside in the first year for student access. Also in this budget, it is our view that after this campus gets through maintaining its current spending plan and paying for its merits for the next fiscal year, their remaining money left to address all other issues is $59,000 the first year and about $62,000 the second year.
Mr. Sparks introduced Ronald Remington, Ph.D., President, Northern Nevada Community College.
Dr. Remington had large photographs he showed the committees while discussing his budget. He said the service area of the NNCC covers approximately 45,000 square miles which represents slightly more than 40 percent of the surface area of the state. Elko, Nevada, serves as the hub for this service area. He stated in many of these small rural communities they do not have sufficient numbers of people holding master's degrees in specific disciplines to handle their university parallel courses.
Senator Raggio asked where the majority of the seven instructional positions that could not be filled would have been placed.
Dr. Remington replied one was for nursing, another would have been in a combined math-chemistry position, the others in Ely and Winnemucca which would have been very costly for them due to the distance from Elko, Nevada.
Senator Raggio asked, "Are you saying you were not able to conduct the parallel course programs?"
Dr. Remington replied, "I think it was effectively capped because we do make use of the part-time people that we have access to. I think we could greatly expand our enrollments if we had full-time faculty available."
Senator Raggio asked what physical facilities the NNCC use in Winnemucca, Nevada.
Dr. Remington said they have a remodeled child-care facility in Winnemucca, Nevada, together with a couple of trailer houses. Also, in the evening time they are able to make use of the high school in that community.
Dr. Remington returned to showing the committees the illustrations and photographs of the service area and facilities of the NNCC,
and said he hopes this will reflect in some way the amount of community support they enjoy in the geographic area they serve.
Senator Raggio asked if the NNCC receives support from the mining industry and Dr. Remington replied in the affirmative. He stated of the $2 million reflected in the budget, about $500,000 came from the various mining industries.
Once again, Dr. Remington referred the committees to the photographs of the Ely, Nevada, facility. He pointed out that community support in Ely has been very much present. They have applied for federal dollars to begin a vocational skills center and have received $850,000 from the [United States] Economic Development Authority for this center. They also have $900,000 in pledges from the Ely, Nevada, community and they hope within a couple of years they will be able to build a modest facility of about 10,000 square feet. They are also making use of some [United States] Bureau of Land Management land which will be adjacent to the new high school in that community. They will be able to purchase this property for $2.50 per acre.
Dr. Remington showed photographs of the Winnemucca facility and said they are also receiving tremendous support from the community for their cause.
Senator Raggio asked how many FTEs there are in Winnemucca and Dr. Remington said the head count is about 400 and they have about 120 to 130 FTE students.
Dr. Remington continued with his photographic presentation. He said they have worked a cooperative arrangement with the UNR and offer through them upper-division and graduate-level programs in Elko and Ely, Nevada. They hope eventually to be able to provide inter-active television throughout their vast service area and to work in a cooperative fashion with the UNR and UNLV to form a networking throughout the state.
According to Dr. Remington, about 65 percent of their students are women and they have a child-care facility and a potential donor for expanding that particular facility.
Dr. Remington said the NNCC has an associate degree nursing program, and the last photograph he showed the committee was of a graduating class of nurses. He commented this program provided a good number of nurses throughout their service area. They recently completed a cooperative arrangement with the CCSN and graduated a class in Ely, Nevada, to which they were able to return about five nurses for placement.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the standing is of the articulation program between the community colleges and the university system in Nevada. She also asked if there are still classes and courses that are not accepted from one system to the other.
According to Dr. Remington, there have been remarkable strides made in that area, and they expect very shortly to have articulation agreements with the universities in specific areas.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked that a report be made to the committees regarding the status of the articulation agreements. She added that she has a concern about why the community colleges continue to be treated as second-class citizens for the same or better course work when there is movement being made towards being one university system. Ms. Giunchigliani commented that this issue had been a concern of the late Senator Nicholas J. Horn for many years.
In line with Ms. Giunchigliani comments, Mrs. Williams said over the years it had been her experience that one of the major problems in transferring courses has been that courses offered at the community colleges had the same titles and numbers but the content and textbooks were different than those courses at the university. She hopes this area has been worked on to resolve this difference so that courses can be transferrable. If resolved, then somebody going into a major would have that part of the core curriculum they were supposed to get at the community college as opposed to just a title that is supposed to represent that course.
Mr. Heller asked that Dr. Remington share additional information about the foundation such as how much money they have raised and how long they have been in existence.
According to Dr. Remington, the foundation has been in existence since 1988 and since last spring, they have raised $900,000 for Ely, Nevada, and about $3 million in the greater Elko, Nevada, area. They are launching a campaign in Winnemucca, Nevada, and have raised close to $40,000 already.
Mr. Heller inquired when these particular dollars are raised, do they use this as principal and spend the interest or do they find it necessary to spend everything raised.
Dr. Remington replied they hope to eventually establish an endowment but they have not reached that point yet.
Another question Mr. Heller wished to raise concerned the performance indicators. He asked specifically if the UCCSN had been asked by the budget office to bring together some of the performance indicators.
Mr. Sparks replied:
Yes, we were and we did provide some of them to the budget office, but some of them were incomplete so the budget office chose not to include them. Some of them were not meaningful. They also have academic, facility and strategic master plans that also contain goals and objectives and indicators as such.
Mr. Heller asked Mr. Sparks if he would be willing to provide some of the performance indicators to the subcommittee for higher education since he feels some of them would pertain to higher education in areas such as graduation rates, job placement, the number of students, and the number of freshmen that do become sophomores. He feels that this information would be very important to have so that the subcommittee can better understand exactly what kind of results they are getting from the system.
Mr. Sparks said they have those plans and they would provide them to the subcommittee.
Western Nevada Community College - Page 159
Mr. Sparks commented that the WNCC had a total of 20 positions reduced in this fiscal year and of the 20 reductions, 14 came out of their instructional function, or the faculty, and classified staff. With the Governor's recommendation, by the end of the biennium they will be short of funds for about 16 faculty and classified staff with an overall student-faculty ratio of l8.4 to 1. This budget also contains the student access funding. After meeting their current spending and providing for merit salary increases, this campus will have approximately $91,000 left for the next fiscal year with which to address all other needs. In the second year, they will have approximately $99,000 to address all additional needs.
Mr. Sparks introduced Anthony D. Calabro, Ph.D., President, Western Nevada Community College who distributed to the committees Exhibit L, a folder containing charts and graphs and informational material from which he gave his presentation regarding WNCC. (Exhibit L. Original is on file in the Research Library.)
Dr. Calabro said that in the last 10 years the WNCC has increased its enrollment by nearly 85 percent. In fact, approximately half of the students enrolled in higher education in Nevada are enrolled in the state's community colleges. There are over 37,000 community college students enrolled in Nevada and 5,000 of those students are enrolled in the WNCC. Dr. Calabro referred the committees to the chart reflecting enrollments, contained within Exhibit L, where he said this information is shown.
Continuing, Dr. Calabro said at the very time they had been struggling to keep up with the growth in enrollments at the WNCC, budget reduction plans were required and implemented, and all of the community colleges responded by not filling previously approved positions in instruction and support services, deferring maintenance, and not replacing equipment. For the 1991-1992 year the WNCC cut approximately $642,000 out of their budget. For 1992-1993 that amount was about $894,000 out of a $9.2 million budget.
Once again, Dr. Calabro referred to the chart contained in Exhibit L, "Budget Cut Impacts", and continued his testimony.
Ms. Giunchigliani said it appears there has been a disproportionate impact on the community colleges with respect to the budget cuts.
Mr. Sparks said the same percentage of cuts were applied to all of the budgets across the board. Also, the community colleges looked at the improved appropriations made at the last session at which time they received the highest increases of all of the budgets for the UCCSN. Therefore, when they were cut at least they had additional money available to them with which to make their reductions.
In response to this, Ms. Giunchigliani feels the community colleges took two steps forward and about three back. She also inquired:
On the issue of computers...we are considering consolidation of the computer systems, and I know the university system is one that is not contained within that. Have you had any dialogue regarding the potential of consolidating certain aspects of the university's computer systems with the state?
Mr. Sparks answered in the negative but said there has been an interim study on the consolidation of payrolls. He added that one of the recommendations was to take the classified payroll that is currently done on the university system's campuses through their computers and consolidate this process with the state's payroll process. The recommendation suggested leaving the professional payroll in the system where it presently is.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the committees may need to explore this
further, at least do an analysis regarding consolidation of the computer systems.
Senator Jacobsen commented he gets upset when he hears that maintenance is being neglected. It is his hope the honor camps are considered to perform maintenance, perhaps on days when there are not students around the campuses.
Dr. Calabro thanked Senator Jacobsen for the suggestion but said they have explored all of the options available to them including use of the honor camps for maintenance work around the campuses.
Mr. Heller wished to know what percentage of students are turned away, and if these students are those from the outlying areas of the state.
Dr. Calabro said out of a head count of 5,000 students, there are approximately 500 that were not able to return. He was unable to provide information concerning whether or not these students are mostly from the outlying areas.
Mr. Heller requested that this information be provided, and Dr. Calabro agreed to do so.
Senator Callister asked Dr. Calabro how he would begin to estimate those students who were denied access, and Dr. Calabro said they would look at the number of sections they close and in the past, when funding was available, how many sections they opened again. Also, they have looked into their student information system after registration to note how many students drop or add courses at which time they can determine how many were not able to get into the system and where they are from.
Senator Callister asked, and Senator Raggio concurred, that the representative from each of the institutions whose budgets have yet to be heard today provide the committees with a numerical calculation of the students that were denied access and how they calculated that number.
Because the students were denied access, Mrs. Williams wondered if that accounts for the leveling off of the increase in enrollments.
Dr. Calabro replied, "Very definitely."
Referring once again to performance indicators, Mrs. Williams believed the number of students who did not graduate because they received high paying jobs should also be a performance indicator.
Mr. Sparks said if that kind of information can be developed, they will consider adding this as a performance indicator.
Senator Jacobsen asked what the four most popular subjects are at the WNCC stating he wants to determine if these subjects could cater to state government in any manner.
Dr. Calabro replied, "Nursing, computing, and coming up real fast law enforcement and then our transfer courses."
Community College of Southern Nevada - Page 150
Mr. Sparks said this institution grew by 21 percent in the last fiscal year and by about 19 percent during enrollment last fall. By the end of the biennium, with the Governor's recommendation, the overall student-faculty ratio in this budget will be 30.9 to 1. Approximately 189 faculty and classified and staff positions, developed as a result of the current student-faculty ratios, could not be filled. The student access money is in this budget. The money available to the CCSN for the first year of the biennium to meet all needs, with the exception of funding for current spending and next year's merits, is $936,000 and for the second year of the biennium that amount will be down to $856,000.
Senator Raggio asked how many positions were not filled at CCSN due to the budget reductions.
According to Mr. Sparks, the total number of positions not filled in this fiscal year was 23 of which 13 positions were in instruction.
Paul E. Meacham, Ph.D., President, Community College of Southern Nevada, began his testimony by reading from prepared text, Exhibit M. At the conclusion of this portion of his testimony, he continued his discussion by referring to large charts placed in view of the committees and gave some revenue and enrollment statistics reflected on these charts.
Mrs. Williams asked, "Dr. Meacham, when you talk about 7,400 FTEs what head count are you talking about?"
Dr. Meacham replied the CCSN has a total of 23,000 accredited and nonaccredited students but most of the students are part-time students.
Mrs. Williams commented with that many students (23,000) using any institution there is a physical impact on the faculty.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Dr. Meacham to provide the committees with the percentage of minorities and women that have been hired for the faculty at CCSN and the number of those that are tenured. Dr. Meacham said he would provide this information.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired:
When we were dealing with the class size last session and we were trying to deal with the ratios...and I guess this is a question for each of the campuses as well...we were trying to make gains for the remedial portion. I understand that was rolled back because of the base cuts as well as your standard class size. What might be helpful is to look at when a student enrolls...what your class size is at enrollment versus how many are actually in that course at the end of that semester.
Ms. Tiffany heard both Dr. Meacham and Mr. Sparks make reference to the Base budget that they would like to be returned to and asked if they are referring to the 1991 Base budget.
Mr. Sparks responded they were referring to the UCCSN Base budget request for fiscal year 1994 and 1995 but said if they could at least restore their budgets to the level they had appropriated for this fiscal year, it will cost approximately $14 million.
Ms. Tiffany asked Mr. Sparks to provide the committees with the appropriation amount needed for just the community colleges.
Mr. Perkins remarked:
I have had the pleasure of attending both the university in Las Vegas and your community college in Henderson. It has been my experience the demographics in the two institutions are somewhat different with generally the lower-income person availing himself of community college because of cost reasons. In your estimation, how will the increase in tuition affect those people? This goes along with a question Senator Callister asked earlier....this is one of those things you cannot quantify in terms of people we cannot serve...those people who will not be able to afford the tuition and will be turned away for that reason. I do not think we will be able to count those types of people.
Dr. Meacham agreed this would be difficult and said:
There has been a historical difference with the kinds of people who have been able to attend community college, demographically. When you talk about the income levels, we are finding that is really beginning to blur and there are a number of reasons why that is blurring....One is the fact they are running out of space at the university. When they had to cut the classes down this time, they did not look at the income levels...the people who got there late just did not get in. We are finding that space availability is becoming a factor. We like to think we are attracting more than just one kind of student. We have become the school of first choice for many reasons, economics being only one of them. Anytime you raise tuition, it does affect a student's ability to attend college. We do have a greater portion of those people...if it was not for the community colleges, they would be unable to go anywhere else.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is census data available that would reflect those students served by CCSN that start on the public rolls, attend college, then become publicly employed and leave the rolls.
Dr. Meacham said they are just beginning to collect some of this data, but this information is not complete enough at this point to share with the committees.
Referring to the salary increases effective October 1,1992, Senator Raggio asked if the 4 percent increase was across-the-board and included the merit pool.
Mr. Sparks answered there was only one pay raise granted by the legislature for the last fiscal year effective October 1, 1992 for 4 percent for all employees. In addition to the 4 percent increase, there was an additional 2 percent merit pool increase available to them.
Senator Raggio said the committees would like to be furnished a list of any salary increases that were in excess of the 2 percent merit and 4 percent cost-of-living pay raises granted in October, 1992. Senator Raggio clarified that this request is for all of the institutions, not just the CCSN.
Senator Callister referred to page 5 of Exhibit K which reflects budgeted growth for CCSN of 4.9 percent for 1991-1992 versus an actual of 20.8 percent for the same period. He asked Dr. Meacham to what he attributes this extraordinary growth to.
According to Dr. Meacham, this is a function of a number of factors. He said there are an incredible number of people who are continuing to move into the Las Vegas area and these people require services available at the CCSN. He believes this is a function of the economy. When the economy starts to go sour, individuals will seek ways to better themselves through retraining or additional schooling.
Desert Research Institute - Page 168
Mr. Sparks commented:
This budget is a noninstructional budget and the expenditures this budget will allow the DRI to make in the next fiscal year are current year spending plus merits. There is no additional funding available to this institution.
James V. Taranik, Ph.D., President, Desert Research Institute (DRI), provided a (verbal) summary of the importance of research to the UCCSN of which DRI is an important part. He said the DRI shares research opportunities with UNR and UNLV.
Dr. Taranik said there is somewhat of a misunderstanding about research as being something that is done but has little connection to instruction. In fact the research and graduate programs at the universities and the faculty at DRI that teach in those programs are a very important part of the instructional process. The DRI conducts research in an educational sense in many cases to improve the quality of undergraduate instruction.
Dr. Taranik said the DRI also supports sound state decisions. The three institutions, UNR, UNLV, and DRI, are actively involved in doing research that supports the characterization of the environment at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. He believes the people of Nevada need to understand the anatomy of that facility in a very quantitative, unbiased and fair way as is done in the university system.
Continuing, Dr. Taranik said the DRI is accelerating and supports high quality economic development, is important to programs of research as it relates to industries who may wish to locate in Nevada and as it supports home-grown industries that may need research and development support from the university system.
Dr. Taranik referred the committees to flip charts reflecting a historical compilation of the total amount of research that DRI has brought into the State of Nevada from outside of the state, from funding agencies in the federal government, local government in other states, and private industries.
In conclusion of his presentation, Dr. Taranik said the DRI
faculty teaches many courses at UNR and UNLV and the real beneficiaries of the teaching programs are the students who participate in them. The DRI would like to see that program grow.
Mr. Marvel asked Dr. Taranik if the DRI will be able to continue to maintain the cloud-seeding program.
Dr. Taranik said not contained in the budget language are some words relating to the cloud-seeding program and that was an oversight. They have received some acknowledgement of that oversight, but he hopes the committees may be able to correct this so that the DRI will be allowed to approach the Interim Finance Committee for additional funding as they have in the past.
Senator Coffin commented that he enjoyed touring the southern Nevada DRI facility recently and when he goes into an institution, particularly a research institution, he likes to see the library. He noted that for a technical institution, they have a pathetically small library and asked what the DRI has allocated for the library.
Dr. Taranik responded the positions for the library were approved last session, but the DRI did not receive funding for a librarian. In fact, the budget for the DRI reflects a $148,000 appropriation and part of that is for salaries for the librarians. This is money they would have to make up from their research acquisition. This is the research stimulation monies that they use to acquire research to help build the research base.
According to Dr. Taranik, they do have a plan for expansion of the library in southern Nevada in the future. He said the public, faculty and graduate students use this library extensively. They were successful in getting some money for essentially operating the libraries but his vice president for finance and administration told him that is what they gave up when they went into the budget cuts at least in the first year.
Senator Jacobsen remarked that he also was impressed with the southern facility upon seeing it for the first time, and asked Dr. Taranik if he could suggest how the state could make a nuclear- waste depository at the Yucca Mountain site work for the benefit of the state without sacrificing the health and safety of Nevadans.
Dr. Taranik replied:
I personally feel we need as Nevadans to study the facility that is proposed...that is to say look at the geologic environment. I can tell you there are many skeptics about the nature of that environment, how long things will be stored there, whether it is a reasonable thing to do geologically....If something is going to be placed there, we feel we ought to study the environment objectively and fairly and while we do it we can build a tremendous research capability that will be a national, not just a state, asset in terms of the capabilities of UNR, UNLV, and DRI. There is a small amount of money that has been appropriated for that purpose now, and I am collaborating with the other presidents and we will be meeting later on this week to see how we can increase that amount of money for basic environmental research at the mountain.
University of Nevada, Reno - Page 124
Mr. Sparks said the total number of positions affected this fiscal year by the budget reductions for UNR is 51 positions of which 29.7 were in instruction. By the end of the biennium if all of the discretionary money available to UNR were placed in instruction, the shortfall in funded faculty positions would be approximately 84. The overall student-faculty ratio would be 21.9 to 1. After funding for current spending, next year's merits, and student access, the UNR will have available $1,100,000 the first year and $1,167,000 the second year to address all of its needs.
Senator Raggio requested clarification of the total number of positions that were affected and the number of those positions that were instructional.
Joseph Crowley, Ph.D., Prsident, University of Nevada, Reno
presented the committees with Exhibit N, "Impact of the First Biennial Expenditure Reduction Plan", which he referred to for his presentation. In response to Senator Raggio's question, he pointed out that page 5 of the handout reflects there were 28 academic faculty positions and 4 administrative faculty positions that were frozen or unfilled. Of the 28 academic positions, 15 were new positions and 13 existing positions.
Senator Raggio asked the total dollar impact to the university on the budget reduction in operating and other categories.
Dr. Crowley replied the total impact for 1991-1992 was approximately $5 million and for 1992-1993 approximately $10 million for a total impact of $15 million.
Continuing his presentation, Dr. Crowley referred the committee to page 1 of Exhibit N that shows the first cut to the UNR budget amounted to $12.75 million and where these cuts took place.
Dr. Crowley said when it came to UNR's second cut explained on page 2, they developed a series of guidelines for proceeding with the second round reductions and arrived at the three basic assumptions outlined.
Continuing, Dr. Crowley reviewed the information contained in page 3 of Exhibit N which shows the cuts made the first and second times in the various appropriation areas in the separate budgets for UNR. He pointed out that the budget reduction for 1992-1993 in the category Instruction amounted to 6.5 percent which was their largest percentage cut because that was where the growth and formula money was. He said in the second round, as a result of a decision to protect the areas in the first round that were hit the hardest, that area got the smallest cut or 2.2 percent.
Page 4 of Exhibit N reflects a breakdown of the Instruction budget for UNR where the largest cuts were made. Dr. Crowley said the reductions shown were further broken out by vice presidential area for four vice presidents and illustrates the percentages and amounts each of them were reduced.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many student graduate assistants are teaching in relationship to faculty, and Dr. Crowley replied 7.5 percent of the total number of courses taught at the university are taught by graduate assistants.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that the Lawlor Events Center is being recommended for funding while the Thomas and Mack Center in Las Vegas is not. She asked Dr. Crowley the reason for this.
Mr. Sparks said as a part of the biennial budget cuts for UNLV for this fiscal year, they reduced the entire amount in their Special Projects budget, an appropriation of $224,000 for Thomas and Mack Center, and returned this amount to the state. The UNR appropriation was $95,000 but they reduced only about $4,000 of that appropriation as a part of their cuts leaving approximately $91,000 for use in each of the next 2 years.
Ms. Giunchigliani said even though there were hiring freezes for the UNR faculty, she asked if there was any hiring planned at UNR for the position of dean and above.
Dr. Crowley said they did not freeze all of their openings. They sacrificed positions but where they had what they considered to be critical vacancies in a certain area such as the College of Education, they filled those positions.
Rather than take additional time, Ms. Giunchigliani asked Dr. Crowley to provide the committees with information concerning the positions that were exempted from the freeze, the rationale as to why, and what positions were hired or filled.
Dr. Crowley said he would furnish this information but qualified that the UNR had a procedure in place whereby every vacant position before it could be filled had to go through a process of review and determination in the academic vice president's office as to how critical the need was to fill the position.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated:
I can understand the dilemma but when we hear over and over that we are turning students away or that sections were not offered or that students were not able to complete their undergraduate courses in order to graduate...I would like to see some rationale as to why instruction positions are not necessarily filled rather than administrative positions.
A couple of us were looking at some performance indicators and these might be some suggestions....The number of sections that were offered that were no longer offered this time around so we can get an idea and that may tie into the access information that Senator Callister was talking about....The number of courses taught by faculty as opposed to graduate assistant. Salary differential between the two...if there were some savings there we may not have noted. Amount of classroom instruction versus the amount of publishing that is being required....Those are some ideas for some performance indicators that might give us a better picture of what the university is doing....
Senator Raggio asked Dr. Crowley if he would be able to furnish some of the information requested by Ms. Giunchigliani. Dr. Crowley said they would be able to furnish a portion of it, but some of what was requested will be difficult to comply with. He will discuss this with Ms. Giunchigliani at a later date.
Dr. Crowley wished to state for the record:
At UNR as well as throughout the UCCSN, we must face problems of where we have inordinate enrollment growth on the one hand that has been the highest in the nation, and we do not see any sign of decline. The demography suggests that into the 21st century that enrollment is still going to be there. We see student fee increases which I believe in comparison are moderate...and we do use the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) median both for nonresident tuition and for undergraduate and graduate student fees which we believe is a fair approach...but the fact is they are going up and the students notice it...and Nevada is a low student-aid state....Our institutions are characterized by a student population that on the whole has to work more outside the classroom and receives less financial assistance from family...but that is not jeopardized...that low student-aid and low fee and tuition position...by what has happened to us this biennium and what is projected to happen to us for the coming biennium. And what has happened to us in terms of budget share...that precipitous decline from 20.2 percent of the state budget to 17.6 percent which is projected for the second year of the biennium...is very difficult for us to fathom in light of the fact that we have these tremendous enrollment problems to contend with.
Since 1985 in my view this legislature along with the executive branch have done a remarkable job of funding higher education in this state, introducing some ways of funding that were innovative. I think we have built a very solid foundation for higher education during this period of time. Two years ago you were generous again, you gave us dollars for growth. We want to thank you for that even though we had to give it back later, we understood it was hard times and we had to do our share. We gave back 22 percent of funds even though at that time we were 20.2 percent of the budget so we did more than our share. We did not complain about that. We began to experience problems almost immediately, losing key faculty. The students were quickly able to observe that their share of the cost of education had gone up as the state's share had declined. The Governor's budget continues that pattern and so now we have more students, record numbers of high school graduates coming our way...we have been in this period of decline in terms of the numbers of high school graduates and beginning next fall we are going to start going up again. We have more nontraditional students coming our way, more minority students will be enrolling as a result of aggressive recruitment....Everywhere that we look in this system and on my campus there is growth. In the face of that we see this decline in the budget share and I think it is a drastic decline.
Senator Raggio responded:
In discussions with other legislators across the country, particularly in the area of funding for higher education, it has been my experience that every state is experiencing this same situation and that is almost without exception....We appreciate the comment that the legislature in previous sessions has made a strong commitment to higher education. If that is true I do not think, even if we have to continue to bite the bullet, and I hope not for long, that we are going to be finding ourselves losing ground at least by comparison with other states in comparison with funding for higher education. We would be concerned with losing ground and losing faculty...we want to be able to attract faculty. I think everyone has carried the theme today of disappointment that we had to go through a budget reduction. In many states they even had to take salary cuts which we were able to avoid. I guess I am inviting some comment whether or not we are going to be losing ground on a comparative note. We would like to have done more. We would like to do more now. The committee shares that desire and understands the fiscal situation with limited funds. A suggestion was made about raising taxes. I think I am speaking for everybody here because I do not believe that is a practical solution at this time.
Dr. Crowley wished to offer two observations on Senator Raggio's point and said:
It is accurate that across the country for somewhat similar reasons, higher educational systems are being called upon to reduce their budgets. One clear difference is that in most states the type of enrollment growth that we have in this state is simply not happening. If you look at the national figures for enrollment growth in higher education that growth is pretty small--1 percent a year or something like that. In many states it is moving in the other direction because of the loss of significant numbers of parents with school-age children. Those children and their families are moving elsewhere, many of them coming to Nevada....What sets us apart at least in the vast majority of those states is the rate of enrollment growth. Secondly, and it would be a good research question I think, my impression based on data I have seen and based on discussions with colleagues across the country is that where these reductions are occurring elsewhere they are a part of an overall reduction pattern....We do not see this steep decline in budget share in other states that you see in this state. That is the nature of our dilemma. It is that high enrollment growth and the decline in budget share. I think on the latter issue it would require some research.
Senator Raggio noted that in looking at a list of salaries for 14 major colleges for professors, associate professors and assistant professors Nevada ranks either fourth or fifth. He believes this proves the point he was making that the legislature is at least maintaining their position insofar as that aspect is concerned.
Concurring, Dr. Crowley pointed out that for this reason the UCCSN has not made salary a priority for this biennium.
Ms. Giunchigliani remarked:
In looking at the nonresident undergraduate and graduate at the community college they are above the level for the western (WICHE) while at the university level they are $1,000 to $1,700 below the western (WICHE) average. What is the rationale for the board to not penalize our Nevada students who live here to try to keep their rates down and raise the nonresident status?
Dr. Crowley said he believes the board of regents will take the same position as Ms. Giunchigliani implied and that it will show up in the way the tuition has been raised for the coming biennium.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Dr. Crowley to provide for the committees the definition of "nonresident" and the rationale for this.
Senator O'Donnell remarked:
Since we are talking about the nonresident status and how it is determined. I have a wife who is getting her special education certificate. She along with several teachers in the school district fall under a category of individuals who want to better themselves so they go to the university. My wife was born in Henderson, Nevada, and has resided there all of her life. She went to the university to take seven credits. She was charged $2,025 nonresident status, and we went around and around on this only to be told there is nothing that could be done. Nonresident charges would have to be applied. My wife dropped the seven credits and went to six credits and the bill turned out to be $400. Can you explain that?
Dr. Crowley said he could address this question in a general way and commented this kind of question often arises. He was unable to explain what the basis was with respect to Mrs. O'Donnell but said decisions such as this can get terribly complicated. There is an initial judgment made at the admission office based on the system-wide regulations that are published in a catalog. If the student disagrees with the determination believing that he or she should be regarded as a resident, then there is a residency appeals process.
Senator O'Donnell said, "Do you know how big that goes over when the senator's wife goes through the appeals process? Not very good."
According to Dr. Crowley, that process over the years has been a source of agony for many people including himself because when the decisions that were made that were negative were provided to the student, the student would often call him causing him to make an ultimate decision. They have worked very hard on refining that process to try to build in an element of common sense and fairness so that if it makes sense on the face of it that the student is a resident, then that decision would be rendered. He pointed out that the president always has an exception authority based on circumstances that he can employ in making a proper decision.
Senator Jacobsen asked, "Are there any properties that we now hold that we do not need that we can unload?"
Dr. Crowley said the university system owns various parcels of land across the state and from time to time in the past have had discussions regarding selling property. He was unable to recall a single time they have done that when it did not become terribly controversial. He gave as an example a 4-H camp owned by the university. He said any thought of selling that piece of property to which generations of Nevadans have an emotional tie has been fraught with danger.
Mr. Arberry asked Dr. Crowley to discuss his foundation and how it is funded.
Complying, Dr. Crowley explained:
Our foundation started in 1981 and operates like all of them in the sense that the board of regents comprises the officers of the corporation which we were told by counsel is a requirement as a matter of constitutional interpretation that the regents must be in control as they are in that sense. In the operating sense, the principal executive officer, or president of the foundation, is the vice president through development at the university and is a paid university employee. The foundation has quarters in Morrill Hall and much of the staff time spent on foundation matters is spent by staff paid by the university. I think we have a situation that differentiates us in a significant degree from the other institutions and their foundations because we are an institution that has been around for a longer time. People were in the habit of giving directly to the university and still do that. A significant share of the money that comes to us from private sources is given to the university which means that our development staff or foundation staff is opening an envelope with a check from somebody who is giving money to the foundation and the next envelope is giving some money to the university. Eventually the foundation money comes to the university but in fact that person cannot differentiate when he or she is wearing a foundation hat versus when he or she is wearing a university development hat. That is different from the other institutions but the staff as well as the space and equipment for the foundation is provided in significant part, but not wholly, by the university. We have had no issues to contend with over that. There has been no question of university control over the foundation. It has been a very good and workable situation for all of the nearly 12 years that the foundation has been in existence. We are in the middle of a capital campaign that will run until the end of 1995 with respect to which our objective is to raise $l05 million, and we have thus far raised something over $60 million which I hasten to add is not for the kind of operating dollars that the state provides. If indeed there was ever a thought to subtract from our budget what we make from the private contributions, then tomorrow the private contributions would stop because those are for... endowed chairs, library books, additional equipment.
Senator Raggio asked if the foundation renders an accounting. Dr. Crowley said every year it has an independent audit and each year a financial statement of their activities is furnished to the board of regents.
Mrs. Williams asked if, with the exception of the historical factor referred to by Dr. Crowley, the foundations in all the campuses function in the same manner and the institutions provide the staff for the foundations in all the campuses.
Mr. Sparks said basically yes but specifically the answer would probably be no. He suggested the president of UNLV be given an opportunity to describe his relationship with the foundations.
Mrs. Williams then qualified she is only trying to determine if each of the institutions provides a state position to take care of the foundations, and Mr. Sparks answered in the affirmative.
Dr. Crowley wished to offer a few more observations:
If you were to look at where we stood as a university with regard to General Fund support in fiscal year 1992 for the instructional area, we were at $51.5 million. In fiscal year 1995 with the Governor's proposed budget we will be at $51.8 million so we will have made about
$400,000 during that period of time with a l7 percent growth projected in FTE. For the system, the same figures would be $l51,900,000 for fiscal year 1992 and $152,600,000 for fiscal year 1995 with an 18 percent growth projected in FTE. What you see there is a static General Fund picture of almost the same dollars for fiscal year 1995 as for fiscal year 1992 that has to accommodate all of that growth, inflation and merit/salary increases.
Some matters that may be of interest to the committees regarding the performance indicators issue....The regents have assigned for all of our institutions the high priority of the development of an approach to assessment. We are in the early stages of this but at our institution we have undertaken many initiatives in this area which has given us some very interesting information about performance and the makeup of our student body. We subscribe to a national data survey which gives us data on our entire freshman class each year so we know not just how old they are and where they come from, but we know their family financial situation and a variety of other information that will help in a management sense. We also survey our alumni, last year's graduating class, to determine what they thought of their educational experience here...89 percent of them said it was either satisfactory or very satisfactory, they told us areas where we are strong....we also survey every student who withdraws from the institution and learned some valuable information from that. We have published this information and can make it available to you.
With regard to attrition....Around the system and on our campus attrition has once again become a high priority issue to examine. We have examined and launched some programs that have had the result of substantially increasing our rate of retention between the first and second years. For example from 1988 to 1990...in 1988 we had a 37 percent loss between first and second years and in 1990 that was down to 30 percent. That trend is increasing which must mean we are doing something right.
Regarding Contracts and Grants, when you look at the total picture of Contracts and Grants, not simply the research grants, but those for services and programs in training...we have last year $53 million and this year we expect it to be over $60 million and expect by the turn- of-the-century it will be over $100 million. I think you ought to see that as an affect in industry...a very substantial corporation that is operating in Nevada and spending most of its money in Nevada and hiring people and making jobs available in Nevada and paying taxes here. We can provide more information on that as well as an economic impact study that we have recently completed for our institution, that when you calculate the impacts of what we spend, jobs we create and all of the rest...would tell you that the institution that I represent is about a half billion economic impact kind of institution in the state. If you take that system-wide, you are probably looking at a billion dollar system in terms of economic impact which means much to the state.
One way we think of looking at dealing with that tremendous growth problem that we have, and I am not talking about salaries, is to consider during this session the possibility of looking at...if revenues are greater than projected...a trigger mechanism for programs or for operating dollars and placing people in the classroom.
School of Medical Sciences - Page 127
Mr. Sparks said the budget available for the School of Medical Sciences for the next fiscal year will allow them to do what they are doing now and pay their merit salary increases for next year.
Robert M. Daugherty, M.D., Dean, School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno, said the major mission of the medical school is to provide an opportunity for Nevadans to get a medical education.
Since 1971 when the first students entered the school, over 800 students have graduated of which over 90 percent are Nevadans.
This year they had the largest in-state applicant pool in the history of the pool for the 52 first year positions. They are tenth in the nation of 126 medical schools in the percent of their graduates entering family practice. They currently have 196 faculty that teach their students and residents who provide services in both Reno and Las Vegas. Included in that group of faculty is the kidney transplant program at the university medical center located in Las Vegas which has a better survival rate than the national average of kidney transplant programs. This year they opened a bone marrow transplant program in Reno for cancer program which is a joint effort between the Veterans Administration Hospital, Washoe Medical Center and the school. Their chairman of surgery was recently voted one of the top 25 chest-cancer surgeons in the country by other surgeons in the country, the only Nevada physician on the list. Recently at an international conference on the nervous system, there were 50 invited investigators in Australia at this conference. There were six investigators from the United States and four of the six were from the University of Nevada School of Medicine.
Dr. Daugherty said the school continues to excel, and he believes the quality of the faculty can be judged on their research productivity. In service, they continue to care for 10,000 Medicaid patients in a program set up by the legislature about 10 years ago which saves the state money and is an important part of their medical education program. However, this program is slated to be phased out.
According to Dr. Daugherty, the Area Health Education Center (AHEC)
funded by the legislature last session was initially a federal program, was started in Elko, Nevada, and is now fully state funded. Its purpose is to recruit students into health professions from rural and underserved areas and to provide continuing education for the health professionals in these areas. AHEC also is responsible for bringing the medical technical program of UNR to the community college in Elko, Nevada. They have also provided through a grant from the National Library of Medicine a computer in every rural hospital, and Nevada is the first and only state in the nation to have all of its rural hospitals tied to a computer network.
Dr. Daugherty said the Nevada Health Services Corp, managed by AHEC, was another program set up in 1989 by the legislature to pay off the educational loans of physicians and nurses who agreed to practice in rural Nevada for a 2-year period. They currently have 22 physicians and nurses who will serve in rural Nevada upon completion of school. However, the budget cuts they have taken will reduce the Nevada Health Services Corp by 50 percent and the school of medicine will not be able to add any new positions in the coming biennium.
Also because of budget cuts Dr. Daugherty said the school will be unable to start their newly accredited psychiatry residency program which was to start in conjunction with the state's mental hospital. There are vacant positions in their leadership positions in Las Vegas which they will not be able to fill.
Dr. Daugherty closed by saying, "We understand the problems you have and I am not asking you for anything. I hope you are proud of the accomplishments of your school and we hope we are making Nevada healthier."
Senator Raggio asked, "Did you mention the special grant that you received from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation?"
Dr. Daugherty said the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation had created an initiative to facilitate medical schools to produce more family physicians. The feeling is the school needs to double the number of people in those specialties in this country in order to improve access to health care and control costs. There were 84 schools that applied for this grant and 18 were funded and the Nevada School of Medicine was one of them. They are now looking at a planning year in which they will submit another $2.5 million grant application to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation hopefully to be one of the 18 to be funded.
Senator Raggio said they are to be congratulated for their selection and thanked their colleague, Mrs. Jan Evans, who worked on this particular grant. He also asked Dr. Daugherty to advise the committees what residencies are now offered in Nevada to medical school graduates.
In response, Dr. Daugherty said the residencies that are offered now are an internal medicine residency in Reno and an internal medicine residency in Las Vegas, an obstetrics residency in Las Vegas, a surgery residency which is statewide with its major base in Las Vegas but includes the Veterans Administration Hospital in Reno, and two family practice programs in Reno and Las Vegas.
Mr. Arberry asked if the school was doing anything on AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) research.
Dr. Daugherty said they have substantial work going in this area and are fortunate to be one of two medical schools in the country that have two program grants for research in AIDS in collaboration with other schools. One of the faculty members from the medical school who works on this program is one of 10 people in the country who reviews all AIDS research.
Mr. Spitler asked how much money in state dollars goes towards scholarships for medical students and Dr. Daugherty said there are no state dollars used for medical scholarships. He said all medical students are eligible to receive federal loans for up to $25,000 throughout their four years of medical school. They require each student to take the maximum in federal loans and through endowments they also try to supplement that. The students who have loans and graduate with debts usually graduate with an average debt of $45,000.
Mr. Spitler remarked:
How much does it cost a medical student...that the student pays? I know that we (the state) funded about $70,000 a year per student amount. How much does the student have to pay?
Dr. Daugherty replied, "You are not paying $70,000 per student. Please do not divide the number of students into the budget that we have."
Mr. Spitler corrected this and said he was looking at dollar amounts, then Dr. Daugherty replied the average cost to educate a medical student is somewhere around $27,000 per year. The students pay $6,000 tuition and have the loans and scholarships mentioned.
Ms. Tiffany asked how the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the health maintenance or pre-paid medicine program will work for medical patients, and how this would impact the hospital in Las Vegas.
Dr. Daugherty said it is his understanding that the RFP is not finalized at this point but the plan is to go out for a bid for managed care to have all of the Medicaid patients under one or two systems statewide. He believes there has not been a decision yet made regarding the rural areas. The program the medical school has at the present time is a special program with a waiver from the federal government in order for them to provide care only in an outpatient setting. The RFP will include the hospitals and it becomes even more complicated because of the provider tax that penalizes the rural hospitals and the university's medical school. At this point they have been told their program will be phased in under the community health center in Las Vegas which means that the medical school program would come under the management of the community board which they do not find acceptable in order to maintain quality. As a consequence, Dr. Daugherty does not see how the medical school will be able to continue their program.
Ms. Tiffany asked if the school could bid with a hospital so that they would be the prime contractor and a representative from the medical school could be a subcontractor?
Dr. Daugherty said there is the possibility the medical school could be a subcontractor with one of the managed care firms, but if a bid was made they would have to accept the risk. He would have to then go before the legislative committee to ask them to accept the risk as well, which he does not believe likely.
Ms. Tiffany asked how the risk is now handled, and Dr. Daugherty said at the present time they are paid an amount each month for everybody enrolled in the (Medicaid) program, and if these people are kept out of the hospital or emergency room it saves everybody money.
Ms. Tiffany then asked if the school wants to be in a managed care situation, to which Dr. Daugherty replied:
"No...what we would prefer is that they take our 10,000 patients, remove them from the pool and let us take care of those 10,000 patients...not throw them into the general pool to be bid on. That would make more sense to us to let it be kept together. What they have constructed over the last 10 years is a program which has medical education closely intertwined with the care of the indigent...if you take one part of that away, the other part will fall.
Mrs. Williams said she was making the assumption that the school is performing primary care on the 10,000 patients they are caring for and asked if her assumption is correct.
Dr. Daugherty responded they perform primary care but they are also responsible for any other care that they get. For example, if a patient seeks their services and needs to see a specialist, they pay for the specialist.
Mrs. Williams then asked, "But you are not actually doing acute care or specialized care?"
Dr. Daugherty said that would depend. If the patient would require heart surgery then their heart surgeon would perform the surgery.
Mrs. Williams asked if there would be any way to calculate the savings to the state in terms of Medicaid as a result of their 10,000 patients or their preventive medicine component and Dr. Daugherty said the last time this was looked into, over a year ago, it was determined there was a savings of about $2 million which came from keeping people out of emergency rooms and hospitals since they have physicians on call 24 hours each day, every day of the week, to perform care on patients.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the cancer registry would provide any services to the medical school and if so, would they be willing to accept that responsibility.
Dr. Daugherty replied, "Yes and no. As some of you may know this was something that the late Senator Nicholas J. Horn wanted to do. We went forward with the proposal, but there was disagreement concerning this by the health department. They argued not to have it done. However, the medical school would be prepared to assume that responsibility."
University of Nevada - Las Vegas - Page 141
Mr. Sparks said for this fiscal year the UNLV was forced to freeze approximately 103 positions throughout this institution. Of those 103 positions 80 were in a combination of faculty and support staff in the instruction area. With the Governor's recommendation if he were able to place all discretionary funds into instruction, by the end of the biennium the overall student-faculty ratio for UNLV will be 20.7 to 1. The school still would be short of funding of approximately 70 faculty and classified staff in instruction using current student-faculty ratios. They have calculated that after current year spending and the merit raises for next year, the UNLV will have remaining approximately $1.4 million the first year and $1.5 million the second year to fund all remaining needs.
Prior to testimony by Robert Maxson, Ph.D., President, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, Senator Raggio expressed thanks on behalf of the Senate Committee on Finance members who were able to tour the UNLV campus on February 12, 1993.
Dr. Maxson said UNLV has had some national accolades. He was proud to state UNLV has been recognized by U. S. News and World Report for 4 years in a row in their rising star American higher education category. Also, a few months ago UNLV was listed in a prestigious guide published in the northeast as one of the 101 best values in higher education in America. They also have the only national computing center for energy and the environment which is shared with their sister institutions and all branches of state government.
"We have had a tough time the last year or so," declared Dr. Maxson who continued to say:
Enrollment at UNLV has grown over the last 9 years from 10,000 to almost 20,000 students. The state had problems and our share of the problem or what we were asked to return by the Governor was $12 million and that $12 million was difficult to return because we were growing at such an accelerated rate. We are one of the fastest growing universities in the nation...one publication had us listed in the top of that category. We were always trying to catch up with growth when the budget cuts came.
I want to reiterate what all of my colleagues have said. We did not complain...we did our fair share. A couple of the ways we did this....What I thought was an unprecedented and heroic decision by our faculty who voted to give up their raise this past year. It was not much, it was the 2 percent merit, but it saved us almost $1 million which we returned to the state. In a vote by the faculty senate, the faculty as a professional staff agreed not to accept the raise and to swap that money for more classes.
We met with about 15 of our student leaders and asked them if they would be willing to support us if we went to the board for a tuition increase to help this shortfall. The students voted in a unanimous vote to recommend the surcharge. That is why you see a slight difference between the UNR and UNLV tuition this past year because this was the amount the students voted to support. I did not accept the recommendation right away. I told them to talk to students they represent and we would meet later....Again, it was a unanimous vote to recommend the tuition increase which produced about $1.6 million of our $12 million.
Then we had $2 million in repair money...we turned in that money. We added a half a million of equipment money....The only real new money we had was the new positions you had given us last time. We then turned back 80 instructional positions plus another 20 or 25 noninstructional positions. We turned back those positions which meant we could offer fewer classes and programs this year.
We found ourselves going from one of the fastest growing universities in the nation to a university that experienced no growth in this year. Without the faculty positions, we are obviously faced with some of the same circumstances in the next year.
Senator Raggio asked if UNLV actually experienced a decline in FTE and Dr. Maxson replied the FTE stayed fairly constant but the head- count went down about 1 percent.
Continuing, Dr. Maxson remarked:
We did not lay off anyone but we gave back all of the positions you gave us because of our growth from the last time. Then we froze some present positions and used the salary savings to turn back.
We had one turnover, the dean of the library retired. We held that position open for almost a year and used it to generate some salary savings but we did fill that position in January 1993 because your whole accreditation is in jeopardy when you do not fill a position like the head of the library.
To summarize, Dr. Maxson commented:
What we have done at UNLV and all of our institutions in the State of Nevada...we built up a demand to go to school there....Years ago and I talked to the same committees in this same room about our effort to keep the best and brightest in the state. We became attractive to the institutions in the State of Nevada.
What has now happened in our unsteadiness is we have stopped the brain-train and we have become the school of choice for so many youngsters outside the state. Without restoring the positions we find ourselves unable to take the students who want to come to our campuses. Our need at UNLV is the same as needed everywhere. We need to restore our Base bBudget and we need to get our positions back. It was a faculty decision not to include raises in the budget. They have requested that state workers get raises and our faculty would like to be included. I do worry about a faculty that has to go 3 years in a row without any type of cost-of-living raise regardless of the circumstances across the country.
Finally, I would like to impress on the whole group of the need to dislodge the roadblock on our architecture building. You appropriated the funds last time for this building....It has been tied up but quite frankly we do not care who the architects are or who builds the building. All I know is I have 400 students that are in danger of graduating from a nonaccredited architectural school that will affect their ability to get licensed. We need that building. We are breaking ground on the other buildings that you gave us to fill our needs but we need the architectural building. I would just implore you to help us in anyway you can to help us with this problem.
Senator Raggio asked if there was a legal impediment or some other problem keeping them from building the architectural building.
Dr. Maxson answered it is his understanding the ethics committee made a ruling and that ruling has been challenged. They are waiting for the results of the challenge.
Mrs. Williams said she shares Dr.Maxson's concerns regarding the architectural students and feels there is an obligation for them to graduate with proper accreditation. She said somehow the committees will have to find a way to help with the problem. She then asked:
Regarding the FTEs and growth in enrollment, how many sections of classes were canceled and what kind of an impact do you think that had on the growth factor?"
Dr. Maxson said he could not provide the exact figures but said they were able to teach some of their classes using part-time instructors. However, UNLV has never been funded enough in part-time salary money to pay for part-time instructors. Instead, they would use salary savings to pay for these instructors. He will try to obtain the information and provide it at a later date.
Mrs. Williams remarked:
I think all of the higher education institutions including UNLV, UNR, and all of the community colleges....I am not sure what an accurate picture we are getting in terms of growth because I think the growth number has been skewed by the fact they have had to cut sections.
Dr. Maxson said that question has been asked and they have been charged with getting information to at least estimate how many students were denied access.
Mrs. Williams said she has one last concern regarding UNLV and UNR
and asked, "What is going to happen when graduating seniors cannot get their required courses? I think that is a real problem."
Dr. Maxson agreed and commented that you must take a student that
normally would finish in 4 years and extend that student to 5 years or 6 years.
Ms. Giunchigliani added:
Along those lines that is one issue I have heard from constituents...they are ready to graduate and sections were canceled. The question was raised whether faculty could have been charged with teaching more or offering more courses rather than the two or three that they are charged in a semester. For those students who have requirements changed midterm...I guess we do not grandfather students in once they are set up in a program?
Dr. Maxson said he was not familiar with the process and suggested Ms. Giunchigliani check with the student's advisor for the information.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why there are no interns working in the legislature this session from the Las Vegas area to which Dr. Maxson replied:
I read more about this in the newspaper than I previously knew about it. However, we have about 700 full-time faculty and another 300 part-time faculty or about 1,000 faculty members on the campus who all have needs and requests. All of these programs are funded by way of fund raising. Uniformly and without exception we ask that type of request to come up through the department and college to know if it is a priority of that particular department and college. I got the request that came directly to me from a faculty member, referred it to the department chairman with the question is this a funding request and if so, we would probably raise the money for it. I never got a request from a department chairman or dean....
Ms. Giunchigliani then said:
I am concerned that as we are recruiting students to come in we are compounding the problem...especially when we are appealing to students from out-of-state to come into Nevada to compete with those from Nevada and we cannot even take care of those that are here to make sure they are enrolled in a program. It is an issue policy-wise. I think the fundamental issue we have to deal with as we look at the budget is what is the real number of students that we have a commitment to accommodate...and be able to fund our budgets based on that?. We also have to understand...what is the foundation budget, what do we have to offer to those kids?
Dr. Maxson commented he, the regents and other colleagues met with all of the editorial boards in Las Vegas recently. He told them:
This is one president who will never argue to take any money away from the public schools. I will never argue against money from elementary or secondary. Close to 90 percent of our students come from the public schools in Nevada, and we are just as good as those schools are. I am very concerned that our share goes from 20 percent down to l7.6 percent, but I will not be dragged into an argument of debating against elementary or secondary education because I have never been in a place yet where those programs were overfunded. To whom do we have an obligation? We have an obligation first to the students in the State of Nevada. We went all over this state and we tried to make a promise to parents...my position was I did not want a single youngster to leave the State of Nevada because they felt they had to in order to get a good education. I recruit the top youngsters personally, and if they want to leave Las Vegas to continue their education, I tell them they need to look at our institution in Reno. We have worked very hard to keep the best and brightest in the state, and now we are having difficulty servicing them. The basic theme that I think you have heard is give us back those positions that you gave us 2 years ago so that we can meet the student demand. I agree with you 100 percent. I would never want to cut off out-of-state students...but our bread and butter, our first obligation, is to the sons and daughters of the taxpayers of the State of Nevada.
Senator O'Donnell noted Dr.Maxson has been very successful in raising money in the Las Vegas area for UNLV, and he wished to commend him for his efforts in this regard. He also said it perplexes him that building of the architectural school is bound up in litigation or an appeal. He asked Dr. Maxson if he could furnish the committees with a solution for them so they might be able to intervene to see his goal of getting the architectural school on-line and accredited.
Dr. Maxson said they have $2 million they have raised for the building and they are trying to add to this. They have tried to help themselves. He stated he does not have the answer but hopes the legal and political minds in the committees will have an answer to allow this school to be built. He has pleaded to the Governor in writing and through several conversations to do whatever he can to assist in this regard.
Senator Callister said in looking at the total growth of UNLV and how it has stabilized then projected again, it seems apparent that the difficulties at UNLV and in all of the institutions are growth- driven problems. He understands it would be difficult to generate the count, but asked for documentary evidence in this regard. He would also like to know how the number will be arrived at. He invited all of the institutions to provide this information as well.
Senator Callister pointed out in hearing all of the budgets today he was pleased to note there was not a major request from any of the institutions for salaries or significant new spending or enhancements for the institutions to adequately maintain the status quo to meet the demand for the 10 percent growth, 20 percent in the southern part of the state. He also said there is a fabulous difference in doing more with less than teaching more with less, and is a distinction worthy of the committees attention.
Finally, Senator Callister wished to comment:
I am appreciative of the comments made that have focused on economic growth and diversification. I share and have for sometime in my involvement in politics that the state is on a fast-track of economic crisis if we do not wean ourselves off a single industry reliance....I fear what will happen if 15,000 slot machines are placed across the river from Laughlin, Nevada. I fear the 100,000 slot machines that will be across the eastern mountains when California almost certainly follows suit. In the mad search for revenue, I think it is rather predictable that other states will accommodate that. As this occurs, I believe the requirement for economic diversification becomes even more crucial because almost certainly our existing revenue base will suffer. It has, it happened on my watch 2 years ago and it is going to continue on somebody else in the future. I am not interested in any revenue enhancement as the chairman would suggest that would focus on most of the concerns that come before us, but I would be willing to make the exception for education budgets only because I think it is directly related to the economic welfare of this state.
Mr. Arberry asked Dr. Maxson to provide some information about the UNLV foundation.
Dr. Maxson answered:
The foundation is made up of the 50 men and women who volunteer their services. They have been remarkably successful in their fund-raising. The last 5 years they have managed to raise $1 million every 25 days at UNLV and most of the money has come from these 50 men and women. I have never heard a question asked about the foundation until they chartered a different direction in athletics. Until then all I heard was accolades....
Someone asked a question earlier about how people are paid. We did not have enough staff members to fund the foundation with staff members. Some are paid this mix between people who are paid out of private dollars and others that are paid out of the public fund. They serve more than one purpose. They are general fund raisers for the university. Much of the money that comes to the UNLV does not come through the foundation. I will ask the board tomorrow to approve a $2 million gift that has come to UNLV. So they serve as development people in both categories. The regents are officers of the foundation. The foundation board answers to and is accountable to the Board of Regents. There have been questions recently about the confidentiality of the foundation. The foundation has not maintained an air of confidentiality. In fact it has maintained an air of being quite proud of what it has done. The only place they have requested confidentiality is with donors. These people do not wish to read about a donation or hear about it in the nightly news.
Mr. Arberry said it is good that the universities have a foundation that do all of the important work they do, but it is important for the general public to know the foundations are not secret organizations.
Senator Raggio said this is not the time to delve into the foundations.
Understanding Senator Raggio 's request, Mr.Price said there is one piece of information that might be erroneous, and he wished to mention it to the committees. Mr. Price explained:
As you know I ended up sitting and filling in for the last two [foundation] meetings. I understood clearly that all of the employees are paid by the university but they are working on a system to adopt some type of a payback...
Dr. Maxson said he was of the opinion that some of the foundation members were paid from the private sector but if not he stands corrected. He also commented that is important to mention but it is not material to the discussion.
Mark H. Dawson, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada, reminded the committees the UCCSN is the fastest growing system of higher education in the nation and has been throughout most of the '70s and '80s. They will continue this trend if Nevada continues to diversify its economy by bringing in industries that need trained work force that will require colleges and universities to train those workers.
Mr. Dawson said the costs to their students has continued to increase and the Board of Regents have taxed the students by increasing tuition over each of the last 4 years. The percent of the General Fund support has decreased from 79.2 percent to 76 percent over the 4-year period 1991 to 1995 while the cost of the percent coming from the students has increased from 15.3 percent to 19.8 percent over the same 4-year period of time.
According to Mr. Dawson, the universities and colleges have had no equipment replacement money for over 4 years but if they are to teach state-of-the-art skills to students and workers they must do so with state-of-the-art equipment.
It will become more and more difficult to keep highly trained and quality faculty if raises are not given to them, and Mr. Dawson said the faculty has not had a cost-of-living raise in over 3 years. Also, with the funding as proposed they are faced with the dilemma of choosing between quality and quantity, and it will take students longer to get through their colleges and universities.
Senator Raggio asked, "Are you suggesting you will have to cap the enrollment?"
Mr. Dawson replied:
I do not think we will place a formal cap on enrollment but there will be a de facto cap by the number of classes taught and how often they are taught. A graduating senior may be a graduating senior for more than 1 year if they are not able to get the classes necessary at the time needed.
Continuing, Mr. Dawson said he anticipates the revenues will increase as the session progresses and if so he hopes the committees will find the way of providing the UCCSN with additional funds. If not he hopes there will be a mechanism that will provide these funds in the second year of the biennium. The budget proposed by the Governor does not provide a way of funding growth in higher education, and Mr. Dawson asked that the committees do find the way to fund that growth.
Mrs. Williams asked if there is a de facto capping of enrollment, what impact will that have on revenues that come into the UCCSN?
Mr. Dawson said it will have an impact because if students cannot get classes, they will not register and they will not generate the revenue that they had projected.
On behalf of the Board of Regents, Mrs. Sparks wished to state the board has made an effort this last year to create as many non-costly activities as they can. They are working on minority affairs, women's issues, using community people in several areas as well as volunteers and existing space. They are making every attempt to avoid duplication throughout the system by using video education or whatever they can to cut costs. Also, Mrs. Sparks said each institution is doing its best to meet its community's economic impact. They are the state's best hope for avoiding the single-industry issue and hope their efforts will help speed this process along. Every institution from the north to the south has worked diligently to stretch every nickel that comes in.
As requested by Senator Raggio concerning the estate and special tax issues, Mr. Sparks stated:
We have been authorized $2.5 million per year from the estate tax and out of that amount, $37,000 each year goes into the community college budgets to help operate their libraries and $100,000 each year goes into the two university budgets for their libraries. Another $1.3 million is set aside from the estate tax in the Special Projects budget for the ongoing cost of the Upscore Program that was started with federal funds but is now funded entirely with estate tax monies. Additionally, about $225,000 per year is set aside from the estate tax for the Student Incentive Grant Program which is a federal grant program requiring a match from the state. Finally, from this tax there is about $600,000 per year set aside for the system for equipment acquisition.
As I mentioned earlier to Ms. Giunchigliani, in that budget there is General Fund money of about $91,500 per year for the Lawlor Event Center and another $100,000 each year to continue the funding from the state's General Fund of $50,000 for each university to teach teachers to write.
Mr. Sparks introduced John Richardson, Ph.D., Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University and Community College System of Nevada.
Dr. Richardson said that through a modest grant from the American Association of University Professors they were able to bring four faculty members from southern Nevada to observe the hearings today. He introduced Professor Barbara Nelsen, Senate Chairman, and Professor Candace Kant, former Senate Chairman, both from CCSN. From the UNLV Dr. Richardson also introduced Professor Robert L. Skaggs, Senate Chairman, and Professor John L. Swetnam, Assistant Senate Chairman.
Dr. Richardson showed the committees a document, Bulletin No. 87-30, that was prepared by a interim legislative committee in 1987 in which a set of formulas were recommended. He commented that these are the formulas that were referred to today as being honored in the breach because of the budget and the financial problems the state faces.
Dr. Richardson stated:
When a group of us met with the Governor recently our highest priority was to seek an affirmation of these formulas. They are actually your formulas....you adopted this report and you in the person of the two money committees started the funding that is in here in the l987 session. For reasons I am not clear on, these formulas were not included in the Governor's budget in 1987 but the money committees saw fit to start funding them and they did start funding them and moving toward funding at what we hope will eventually be average or normal level around the country. If you have not seen this document, I would urge you to get a copy of it. The fact that this budget ignores these formulas is regrettable....If you are able to find additional money later in this session because you think there will be more monies...what we, the faculty want, is to fund the formulas. Particularly the major staffing formulas. We need more people in front of classrooms to do the job. We are not asking you to devise any kind of trigger that we can later try to get a salary increase out of. That is not the issue.
If we were back on track you would be funding us at somewhere around 19.5 percent or 20 percent range of the state's General Fund. If you were funding us in the next biennium at the 19.7 percent level we are currently being funded this year, that would be an additional $31 million to help deal with the problems...but we are going to be dropping to 17.6 percent and the reason is we are not following the formulas.
The last point I want to make has to do with capital improvements. We would urge you to do something that started a few sessions ago and that is to try to find some money to do more advanced planning for facilities we desperately need in the system. I know we have got some plans you are not able to build this year unless you do some creative things....We would urge you to support the Governor's recommendation for $750,000 some of which includes a study of library needs around the system. We urge you to do more than that...if you built every building we could fill them with students tomorrow. But you know how long it takes to get those buildings built so that we can put the students in them....If you give us advance planning money for more of these facilities and we get a 2-year jump in the process....I would urge you to try to find some money to do this.
Senator Raggio said the committees appreciate the comments made regarding the funding formulas and believe it timely this was brought up. He believes there is misunderstanding about the funding formulas not only outside of the university system but inside of the university system because he is constantly hearing complaints about this or that institution where the average salaries in one is higher than the other. However, Senator Raggio said anybody who understands it would know that is not the fault of the formula.
Senator Raggio pointed out:
What has happened is, and this is something the regents ought to concern themselves about, when you allow each institution to handle its budget reductions in a different way and when you allow them that freedom there is what appears to be an inequity. That does not result from the funding of this legislature...that results from the way the funds were utilized. I hope nobody in the system, regents or presidents, are suggesting we change the funding formula because it took many years to get that funding formula in place and it really raises my ire personally since I served on that committee...along with other legislators and along with the presidents of the facilities. It really is a disservice, especially those within the university system, to continually point out what they think are inequities between the various facilities. That is not the result of the legislative action. The legislature has tried to fund the formulas and the report was that they would be funded as long as there was money available. I am glad you brought up the issue, and it needs to be remembered that the legislature has accommodated the formulas. What has happened is that somewhere along the line whatever the institutions had decided to do internally with funding caused the inequities to occur.
Mrs. Sparks said from the point of view of the Board of Regents there is absolutely no interest whatsoever in doing away with the funding. The cry of the board is to fund the formula and she added that once the funding formula is fully funded it will become equitable across the system.
Senator Raggio responded:
If one institution gives up x-number of positions to meet a budget reduction and another one gives up a different number of positions to meet a budget reduction...we did not cause that and the next time we come to a budget we do not want that institution to say we need more money to make their positions even.
Mrs. Sparks said once all positions are funded they will have the same number and hoped what was described is not happening.
Senator Raggio adjourned the hearing at 5:24 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marion Entrekin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
February 17, 1993
Page 1