Attracting and retaining the ‘creative class’

To the editor:

I read with interest the debate surrounding the proposal to grant domestic partner benefits to various couples in the university and college system of Nevada ("Benefits plan stirs resistance," Tuesday Review-Journal). My own experience with this issue goes back many years when the presidents of the system first recommended such a policy to the Board of Regents — and it was rejected. Because such benefits were not provided, UNLV lost several fine faculty and student affairs professionals we were otherwise about to hire.

It seems to me that the issue here is not about the sanctity of marriage. It is really about a fair and level playing field and what makes pragmatic sense if we are going to be competitive with the best universities and colleges in the country for prized faculty and staff.

The marketplace for superb academics is rapidly becoming one in which salaries and all benefits provided are examined by prospective employees and weighed in the balance. Domestic partner benefits are simply one arrow in the quiver of enlightened personnel management and I urge regents to give the Public Employee Benefits Board a positive signal by supporting such a policy rather than passing it forward to that board or to the Legislature without taking a position.

If we are to create a city that really has the power to attract and retain the "creative class" Richard Florida describes so eloquently, we need to become a community that supports diversity in every way. Domestic partner benefits — which cost taxpayers little — would be one step in the right direction.

Carol C. Harter

HENDERSON

THE WRITER, A FORMER PRESIDENT OF UNLV, IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOL’S BLACK MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE.

Adverse impact?

To the editor:

In response to your Tuesday article concerning the desire of the eight Nevada university and community college system presidents to extend health benefits to domestic partners where a spouse-like relationship exists:

The presidents’ letter makes a case for the change, stating: "Benefits are necessary to hire quality faculty and staff … (and a) lack of reciprocal benefits is a growing obstacle to recruitment and retention efforts."

Yet the article says that studies from other states where such benefits are available show that fewer than 1 percent of employees took advantage of them. UNLV President David Ashley stated that only two or three of about 350 faculty and staff members used the benefit at his previous employer.

If only a few use the benefit where it’s available, how can its absence have an adverse impact on hiring and retaining quality faculty and staff?

I would suggest a homework assignment for the university and community college presidents. They need to gather some facts. How many current employees would take advantage of such a benefit if offered and what would that cost if the benefit change was approved? How many positions (faculty and staff) are vacant or have been vacant because of difficulty in finding quality candidates? And what are the underlying reasons they are experiencing difficulty in attracting qualified candidates and retaining respected employees?

I’m sure the legions of management analysts and critical thinkers currently on the schools’ payrolls can devise some more metrics that would support an impartial study of this issue.

Michael A. Dimmick

LAS VEGAS

Teacher pay

To the editor:

In his Sunday column ("Any need best solved by government") Vin Suprynowicz had an interesting comment about today’s statists who are now cleverly hiding behind the word "progressive." He accurately pointed out they will never tell you how much would be "too much" to take from you. This is understandable because their political philosophy is basically "all of it."

An interesting example of what Mr. Suprynowicz is talking is teacher pay. I’ve read lots of letters complaining, but no overall numbers that would give you an idea of what they are actually making. So, here, from the state of Nevada, is information that should be helpful to you in deciding whether or not you are the greedy employers you are constantly being told you are.

The average teacher compensation in Clark County for the school year just ended was $46,309, an increase of 4.9 percent over last year. That number does not include the 9.875 percent ($4,573) taxpayers contribute for teacher pensions. By comparison, the average private-sector wage in Clark County last year was $39,208, up 3 percent over 2005.

The average teacher compensation, not counting the pension contribution, was 18 percent higher than the private-sector wage and rose 63 percent faster last year.

Those are the numbers. You can decide for yourselves if your think teacher compensation is fair or not.

Knight Allen

LAS VEGAS