The Nevada Faculty Alliance’s board has endorsed State Question 1 on the November ballot. The question would remove the Board of Regents from the state constitution and comes after years of what NFA representatives said is frustration with the governance structure of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE).

NFA members were split about the measure. Those in favor said the NSHE Board of Regents’ inability to reform itself and low qualifications for serving as a regent are part of why the measure is necessary. 

“This decision was made with the recognition that any formal position may cause political blowback but that not taking a position also has political implications,” NFA board members said. “In our discussion, we determined that although Question 1 is flawed, it is the only available path for change.”

Former University of Nevada, Reno faculty senate chair Amy Pason said she was opposed to Question 1. 

“There is no doubt that legislators and media have called attention to the dysfunction of NSHE, including Regents generating negative headlines for creating hostile work environments, discriminatory statements made during meetings, and the inability to hire (or retain) a Chancellor,” she wrote in a statement opposing the ballot measure. “In terms of justifying why amending the Constitution is best, I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument. Proponents don’t explain how education of students or working conditions of faculty will improve.”

Former NSHE Chancellor Dale Erquiaga, after leaving his position before his contract expired, said he was in favor of the ballot question.

“I was long opposed to the ballot question to remove the regents from the constitution, and I now support it,”  he told the Nevada Independent. “I think it’s time for Nevada to rethink how it governs higher education and what it expects of higher education, whether that’s the community colleges for workforce development, or the research universities. So I’m frankly hopeful that the 2025 session kind of breaks the old model and rethinks what we expect of this system — or systems.”

If passed, Question 1 would not immediately eliminate the Board of Regents, which would remain as NSHE’s governing body—however, it would allow future legislatures to enact changes to the board’s structure and duties.

NFA’s endorsement followed a member survey that showed a split on the issue. Of 148 respondents, 41% supported Question 1, 43% opposed it and 16% were undecided. NFA board members said they felt compelled to take a stance after requests for guidance from members.

The NFA cited several concerns with the current Board of Regents structure, including: a lack of minimum qualifications for regents beyond district residency; recent incidents of regents making offensive racist, transphobic or antisemitic statements; a failure to hold system administration and institutional presidents accountable; and a risk of ideological infiltration through low-information, down-ballot races.

“Few faculty or outside observers believe the Board of Regents as currently structured is working,” an NFA statement said. The organization acknowledged uncertainty surrounding potential legislative changes if Question 1 passes. NFA leaders said they believe their endorsement will help ensure faculty voices are heard in future reform efforts.

More on Question 1 

• NFA State Board Statement to Members on Question 1
• Information about Question 1 on the November Ballot
• Fact Checking “Yes On Question 1” Claims
• OPINION: Vote NO on Question 1
• OPINION: NFA should endorse Question 1

Correction: The NFA board voted to support Q1, not it’s members, as originally reported.