We go one-on-one with Nevada's chief in command.
Republican Governor Joe Lombardo is our guest this week on Nevada Week.
♪♪♪ Support for Nevada Week is provided by Senator William H. Hernstadt.
Welcome to Nevada Week.
I'm Amber Renee Dixon.
In his first legislative session as Nevada's 31st Governor, he signed an historic education budget and set a new record for the most vetoes in a single session.
Governor Joe Lombardo, thank you for joining Nevada Week.
-Absolutely.
My pleasure.
-I want to start with education.
You've said that you want to be known as the education governor.
And so I'm curious.
What grade you would give yourself in this area right now?
(Governor Joe Lombardo) I would say a B.
You know, obviously, you would think I would say an A, but I'm not there yet.
We've got a long way to go as a state.
The reason why I say the "education governor," because I think that education is the core of exactly everything we do in society: our own personal quality of life and economic diversity and the functioning of a state into the future and the ability to sustain itself.
And the core of that is education, the ability for somebody to provide for themselves in the future and have some vision with the problems we deal with in society and occupy those jobs that are necessary for to have a family and move a society forward.
So with that being said, we did a--you mentioned it--we did a significant financial contribution to the education budget via the state to the tune of $11.2 billion in totality.
Now, a lot of times when we talk about education, people always default to Southern Nevada, you know, the Clark County School District, but you know, as the Governor, I'm responsible for the entire state.
So when I say that increase of $2 billion into the totality of the budget for a total of 11.2, that's statewide.
That's just not Clark County.
And then it gets divvied up by the number of students in each jurisdiction, 17 throughout the state.
And the measurement tool on that is the per pupil funding formula.
So when they average that out across the United States, they say you need this amount of money per pupil to provide the resources necessary for a good education.
We were lagging in that particular item here in Nevada.
So that $2 billion increase encompasses wraparound services, you know, support, counseling, and directly related to the pupil increase of $2,500 per pupil per year.
So the state operates off a two-year budget.
-A 25% increase?
-Yes, exactly.
-And you also recently announced a method by which to measure how this money is being used and how well it's being used, if it's resulting in better scores in literacy rates and in math proficiency.
What you have yet to do, though, is determine the consequences if a school district does not meet the expectations you've established.
-Right.
-What do you have in mind in that area?
-You can't eat an elephant all at once.
Small bites at a time.
And part of that is part of the legislative process.
So you know, there's several legs of a stool in the education piece, one being curriculum, one is financing, and the other is accountability, right?
And people always say, Well, you're throwing more money at a bad program.
Money isn't going to solve it.
They're exactly right.
And when they present it that way-- and the curriculum is a very vital part of it and then also the teachers and how they perform and the number of teachers available per student, classroom sizes, and then the accountability on the back end.
If people don't perform, they either got to be replaced or you got to change the program.
And unfortunately, that's not codified in state law.
And so we got a lot accomplished in the first session.
Now we go into the next session to codify that.
What is the result of your failure to perform?
And it's easy for-- I could-- one measurement in there or one discipline or preventive measure is, I'll withhold your funding, right?
But that's to the detriment of all the kids that are trying to get an education.
That may be part of it as we move forward in the interim until we can put some mechanisms for removal of people that I believe aren't performing the way they should be.
-All right.
Nationally, Nevada has ranked very low in terms of how much it spends on education, and you brought up increasing it by 25%, per pupil funding.
A priority of yours this past session also was school choice and increasing access and funding to opportunity scholarships.
You faced a Democratic controlled legislature, which did not allow those measures to go through.
So where do you go from here?
-Great question.
[laughter] -How's the coffee?
-You could see I took a little time in there to formulate my answer to that.
So you mentioned opportunity scholarships.
A lot of people don't understand what that means.
That's just a different form of school choice.
So in previous sessions, I believe under Sandoval, it was brought forward to a voucher system.
So part of school choice is the ability to take a voucher.
Say you live in a depressed neighborhood or zip code and below the poverty level and you're restricted to the school that is provided you in your area you live in, right?
School choice says, My kid's learning is more conducive to this school, because they provide this type of curriculum and it's more conducive to a safer environment or the teachers that are at that school versus this school.
And you have to fund that.
So a lot of times that encompasses private schooling.
And so how do we bring the money that we provide you, the per pupil funding formula, into a voucher, a check, per se, into a private school and say, Here, here's the check for my education as provided by taxpayers' dollars?
Well, there's pushback on both sides of that.
One is I believe school choice is very beneficial.
It's been proven.
The proof is in the pudding, per se, in the data provided across the United States that have these mechanisms in place, and education has benefited exponentially as a result of that.
But unfortunately, the Supreme Court says you can't go forward with the voucher system without a defined mechanism to pay for it.
And that wasn't in place.
So subsequently, the voucher system fell by the wayside.
And as a result, opportunity scholarships were brought forward.
And that is directed toward mostly kids of color below the poverty level.
And it gives them the ability to obtain a scholarship from a private scholarship organization to do the same thing as vouchers did.
But it was a lot smaller scale.
It right now currently only affects 1,400 students.
There's over 400,000 students in the state of Nevada.
So it's a very small population, but it's a start.
And it was defined in the legislature to be at a basic level of funding and then, hopefully, you can obtain increases per legislative session.
In my State of the State, I said I wanted to increase it from its current state, $25 million, to $50 million and then put a mechanism in place in the Constitution or in law that said it will increase, you know, percentage-wise every two years as the budget cycle goes.
Well, that failed.
-Mm-hmm.
-It didn't get a hearing.
As far as my AB400, my education bill, it was removed from AB400 and never received a hearing.
So there was a possibility of a lot of kids losing scholarships as a result of that decision, because it defaults back to its original funding amount.
And so we had to come up with a mechanism to fund those kids so they wouldn't lose those scholarships until we come up with a more permanent solution.
This is a long-winded answer, but it's a complicated issue.
And so we identified some federal ARPA funds, infrastructure funds or COVID relief funds, to fill the gap so people, kids, wouldn't lose the scholarships.
It went to Interim Finance Committee, and they voted it down.
And I don't know how they could justify voting it down, other than people-- the rhetoric was, It's public dollars for private schools.
-Right.
-And that is not the case.
-Do you consider it public funding?
Because how this works, opportunity scholarships, for people who do not know, companies can pay money into the fund, right?
-Right.
-And then they get tax credits, and then parents of a certain income level can use that money for private schools.
Democrats say it's public funding.
-You said it easier than I did.
[laughter] -I've been practicing.
So you do not think that's public funding?
-No, I don't think it's public funding, because it's still providing an education.
You're going to provide the public funds in the traditional public education environment or into a private environment.
You're still using it for education, and it's not like you're using it to go buy groceries or go buy toys or whatever it may be.
It's still in the education piece.
And it provides opportunity, expanded opportunity school choice.
-How do you justify public funding for a private school, especially a religious school?
-Well, you know, that's the quandary, right, religious school?
But the majority of these funds being used aren't being utilized in religious school.
Is just an expansion of education.
-All right.
Well, in addition to making the single largest investment in K through 12 education in state history, you also signed a bill creating a matching fund for teacher raises.
Now, the Clark County School District argues that's one-time money.
-It is.
-It's for this fiscal year-- -Their argument is sound.
- --and next.
How are they supposed to fund permanent raises with money that runs out in two years?
-Right.
And that's the concern.
And a lot of people don't understand that they-- the consensus of the majority believe that this, I believe it's-- is it SB or AB231?
-There's $250 million distributed statewide, not just Clark County.
Zoning is based on percentages, you know, per capita.
So the majority of that money would be received by Clark County School District because of the number of teachers and the number of students.
But the issue is it's a two-year incentive.
So we gave, you know, a significant increase in the education budget to 11.2 billion, right, distributed to Clark County.
So inclusive of that was teachers' raises.
And those teachers' raises are going through the collective bargaining agreement.
But the teachers and the teachers union want to draw down on 231, that part of that $250 million, whatever that portion for them may be, as an additional increase.
An argument by the school district is, That's fine and dandy--and I did sign the bill knowing that it was one-time money--but inclusive, the language that the school district wants to include is "sunsets."
So if you put it directly toward their PERS payment, that's in perpetuity.
If you define it as a sunset one-time payment, and then it goes away at the fruition of the money.
That's the argument.
The teachers want to put it into PERS, the school district wants to put it into sunset and then figure out how to fund it.
-Where do you think it should go?
-I think they should come to an agreement.
And the argument on the Democratic side I've seen and observed was, We'll find the money.
Don't worry about it, we'll find the money.
And that's not a way to run the government.
It's my responsibility to ensure that we don't have a fiscal cliff in two years and protect the ability to fund that.
So we have a stabilization account within the school district.
There's exploration on that, to use that in the future if needed, or, you know, I don't want to govern this way, with your fingers crossed and hoping that the tax base will increase, the revenues will increase, in order to fund that.
-Sounds like you're leaning toward the sunset clause.
-Yes.
-Okay.
How involved have you been in those negotiations, because you were asked to.
-Obviously, it would be inappropriate for me to inject myself into actual negotiations.
Now, where I am involved is conversations as to what I believe the state of the state's budget will be into the future and how we can utilize those funds moving forward and providing clarification there and what I believe should be done.
So I've met with both sides, had the conversations.
Unfortunately, they couldn't come to an agreement.
And so now it's going to arbitration.
-I met a parent over the weekend who thinks you can and should still get involved in these negotiations.
-Well, I still am.
I'm still in conversation.
-Okay.
-I'm still in conversation, constant conversation, and you can still mediate and come to an answer or a conclusion while you're waiting for arbitration.
And I know they're going through arbitrators now and deciding whether they can accommodate the schedule, and that's where they're at, at this stage.
What people need to realize, though, no matter what comes out of arbitration, that gap from July when the contracts expire to them, they will be made whole for that time.
-They will be paid back for that time.
-Yeah.
-Now, let's say these teachers want to strike.
It is illegal under state law.
Do you think they should be allowed to strike in Nevada?
-No.
And that's-- what people should realize, that was an agreement across the board several years ago to include collective bargaining and arbitration.
That was so striking in lieu of that.
So instead of striking, let's inject collective bargaining into the equation and arbitration to prevent against government funded functions with strike because, you know, a lot of times when you look at government and how government runs, you can't put the entire society into an emergency situation based off your individual wages.
And that was the reason behind preventing strikes.
-Yeah.
Not just teachers, it's all public employees in the state.
-It's everything.
-Speaking of striking, the culinary union is threatening to strike.
They've already been involved in some acts of civil disobedience, getting arrested on the Las Vegas Strip.
They're trying to reach a deal with MGM, Caesars, and Wynn Resorts.
You know the potential implications of this if, let's say, they do strike when Formula 1 is here in a few weeks.
Have you been asked to get involved in those negotiations?
-No, not at all.
-Do you want to?
-The only thing I've been engaged in, that is just trying to get a good clarification on what exactly is occurring, what are the issues associated with the discussions, and whether I can provide some advice.
-How concerned are you?
-I'm concerned.
You described it, Amber.
It's, here we are with the F1, first time.
You know, we want that to be successful.
We don't want it to be an embarrassment.
And you know, and let's be honest, the culinary union provides a significant amount of service in the casino industry and with their members.
And then you have Super Bowl around the corner.
So you may not remember, as young as you are, but I remember when culinary striked several years ago, and it basically was, we went into multiple years of the strike.
I believe the Frontier may have been six years.
And it's a big drain on the resources of public safety, it's a big drain on the resources of the casinos themselves, and it's a big drain on the tourist industry and the visual that we want to provide as part of our economic engine.
And, you know, that's another one where the fingers are crossed and hopefully they can, they can figure it out.
-I'd like to move to healthcare now.
The public option, which would be a state run health insurance program, that was signed into law by your predecessor, former Governor Steve Sisolak.
It's set to launch in 2026.
At your State of the State, you called the public option "political theater," yet earlier this month, you said you're going to go forward with implementing it.
Why the change?
-Because it was signed into law.
All right?
-You don't have a choice?
-Unless the legislature themselves would repeal the law, I can't do it.
I have no choice.
And I'm glad you asked that question, because that clarification needs to be public: because it was signed into law.
So now what I have ability of is what it looks like, the details of the public option.
So part of the process is you have to submit a waiver to the federal government.
And the waiver is nothing more than an application of what you intend to do with the "concept" for the money that is provided as part of the concept.
And so I changed the parameters that were in the original law to how we submitted-- are going to submit for the waiver.
And it's just a different reimbursement model.
My concern is for the providers, the doctors, and in their hand being forced to participate in that in order to receive Medicaid dollars.
And right now our reimbursement on Medicaid is probably the lowest in the-- close to the lowest in the nation.
And we are in dire need of providers, doctors, and I believe in its original form, it would force doctors to leave our environment, our communities.
And that's, that's not good for anybody.
And it's portrayed as a $500 million incentive to the customers, or people that are in need of insurance, but they're avoiding the rest of the conversation.
And that is the concern for doctors in staying within Nevada and providing the service to the patients here in the state of Nevada.
And I think it's detrimental in its original form.
So the new form is a reinsurance model so we can help as far as the premiums or the, that are provided to the physicians upon service.
-Also helping protect the insurance companies.
-Right.
-Because as I understand it, reinsurance is like insurance for insurance.
-Yes.
-Okay.
-You're exactly right.
See, once again, you explain it better.
[laughter] -Speaking of political theater, some may have described the special session-- -Were we speaking of a political theater?
-I brought it up.
The special session that was called to approve $380 million in public funding for the construction of a baseball stadium for the Oakland Athletics, why did you support giving that money to the owner of an underperforming baseball team who is already a billionaire?
-Well, I don't think the performance of the baseball team is a matter of the discussion, okay?
I mean, look at the Raiders.
The Raiders weren't performing that well when we invited them into our community, right?
And this is a different funding model than, per se, the Raiders did.
That was based off room tax.
This is, this is based off bonding.
And if you look at-- and I consider that an incentive, because this, the individual who owns the A's, is putting a billion-plus of their own money.
So you know, you hear that you're giving charity to a billionaire and, you know, they can fund it on their own.
Yeah, but maybe they can fund it on their own, but not in totality because of other business investments or obligations or ability.
And you have to look at their spreadsheet as compared to anything else you do in the business piece.
But the incentive that is provided, "taxpayer monies," the bonding provided by the County has a long-term return on investment to 40 to 1.
That's the calculation, 40 to 1.
And that's what we've been averaging through the GOED model of incentive-based development, business development.
And this is similarly situated.
I believe that on return on money in the long-term, will be close to the ballpark of 40 to 1 in the long-term.
-How many years are we talking?
-The argument-- 30 years.
-Okay.
-So the argument is, you know, in the short-term, we're providing a billionaire money.
But I'm looking more in the long-term and, additionally, all the development that will occur as a result of the stadium.
You know, the MGM has committed a significant amount of revenue towards that neighborhood with increased businesses and hopefully to increase tourism in totality for the benefit of all of us.
-To those who say-- -The other piece I want to say on this is a lot of people don't realize, in 30 years, the County will own that stadium.
This isn't something that the owner can say, I'm gonna sell it now that I have it.
The stadium, as an investment model for us, that's not the case.
-But the owner could say, We want upgrades.
We want a nicer stadium or else we're leaving.
-Well, yeah.
I mean, that's part of the continual maintenance.
All right?
So the defined plans, or the architectural plans, is all part of discussion upon issuance of the bonds.
-All right.
To those who say that that money, that 380 million should go to education or affordable housing, mental health, what do you say?
-I say it's got a bigger reach and a more expansive reach than those particular items standing on their own.
-Okay-- -They can provide to all those items.
-As I mentioned in the intro, you vetoed 75 bills this past session to set a new record for most vetoes in a single session in the state.
Previous record, 48 vetoes set by former Governor Jim Gibbons in 2009.
When you heard you set that record, what did you think?
-I was embarrassed.
-Really?
-You know, not for myself.
I was embarrassed for the state of Nevada.
And here's what I mean by that: Vetoes aren't good government, in my opinion.
So a lot of people say, Hey-- they've come to me and say, Oh, well, you're in the history books now as the most vetoes in a single session and probably is going to be, in totality, at the end of my tenure as the Governor.
Right?
And I think it's bad government.
I think it was a test, nothing more than a test because I had an R next to my name, and I was a Republican governor with a majority Democratic legislature.
They didn't care what the legislation or the bills or the BDRs they brought forward to my desk.
No matter how deplorable they were, they just wanted to test me.
And the reason why I say that, traditionally, leadership does a pretty good job of triaging those bills that don't make sense, or they're not for the good of the majority versus minority, you know, all the nuances of developing laws.
I don't believe they did what they could have done to prevent 75 bills from being vetoed.
And so, unfortunately, they come forward to my desk and I don't believe it's a benefit to the state of Nevada, no matter what the details are of the bill, and, subsequently, I vetoed them.
-So you think they did it on purpose, perhaps to overwhelm you?
-I wouldn't say on purpose.
I would say out of-- not out of spite.
I would say, Let's see what we can get by.
-Of those vetoes, which was the most difficult to veto?
-Probably the physician-assisted suicide bill.
My father died from pancreatic cancer, and I seen him suffer.
But I also seen that there's been an original fruition of those bills in other states.
Scientists have come a long way in the ability to give a quality of life of an individual that's at end of life.
You know, in the hospice environment and the ability to determine how and when that can be done under a regulated environment versus the wild, wild west, I would say it, I think the physician-assisted suicide bill would be ripe for, for malpractice.
That's the word I will use.
-We are running out of time.
So finish this sentence for me: The most meaningful legislation you signed this past session was... -330.
So that was the school safety bill.
That's probably the one I'm most proud of.
Part of the issue we're dealing with the teacher pipeline or the teacher vacancy is the school environment that they're put in.
And what I mean by that is an unsafe environment.
So there was a restorative justice bill that was done in previous sessions.
-We have about 30 seconds.
-That was well-intended to provide counseling and mediation and a program for kids that were disrupting the school environment, either by violence or selling drugs or bringing guns into the environment or violence upon teachers and fellow students.
And it causes-- it spread district-wide where teachers didn't feel safe, and they didn't-- no longer wanted to be teachers.
-And this bill makes it easier to expel and suspend students involved in acts of violence?
-Yes.
And provide that level of safety necessary in the school environment to ensure we've tried to fill, help fill the school environment, plus by protection to fellow students.
-Governor Joe Lombardo, thank you so much for joining Nevada Week.
-Absolutely.
-And thank you for watching.
For any of the resources discussed, go to vegaspbs.org/nevadaweek.
♪♪♪
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7sa7SZ6arn1%2BrtqWxzmiYZpufo8OmvtKaq6KnnmLEqsDHZp6orpWnu7C%2BjKOmnmWcpLqjrdGdpmaqnZ69rIWO