Thanks to Linda Lord for reminding me that I haven't posted the E-Rate
Gripes list I assembled and sent to SLD on your behalf. You will find it
below. Edna
Edna M. Comstock, E-Rate Team
Coordinator Learning and Technology Services
Maine State Library
64 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0064
1-800-322-8899 or 207-287-5620
[log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Comstock, Edna
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:37 PM
> To: 'John Noran'
> Subject: RE: state-specific information on funding denials for FY2002
> Wave 11
>
> Hey John, Here, as promised long ago it seems, is my list of problems
> we have with E-Rate that SLD could help us fix.
>
> I threw the question out to my constituents and got some pretty good
> responses I will include them as an attachment assuming that it might be
> helpful. Some of them are pretty funny.
>
>
> Maine's "BIG 10" E-Rate problems
>
> 1. Continued harrassment by SLD's PIA and Data Team over the fact that
> telephone bills say Verizon on them while the NECA ( I assume) database
> lists New England Telephone Company as the provider for SPIN # 143001288.
> (I expect that most of our sites were hooked-up when it was New England
> Telephone) I remember being told that large merger issues such as this
> would be handled by SLD, but they haven't been handled because I get at
> least one call about every week from some poor librarian or tech
> coordinator who is being told that whatever name they have listed is
> wrong. As I noted to the Taskforce list not long ago, any librarian worth
> their salt would be able to make a see reference to solve this problem.
> (i.e. a note in the database saying that Verizon owns the names New
> England Telephone, NYNEX and Bell Atlantic and all are acceptable).
>
> 2. Complexity of the application process is also an issue in a small state
> like Maine. With the exception of the Maine Schools and Libraries Network
> there are no regional or county-wide consortial arrangements to assist
> districts and libraries with the application process. Many of our small
> libraries are run by volunteers who are already underpaid for the enormous
> amount of work they do. When the E-Rate process require 25-50 hours more
> of them to get a $200 discount, they usually choose to do without. (This
> is our pitch for a EZ-POTS process) Turnover in staff also complicates
> the process because there is often no continuity or follow-through.
> Schools are little better off here because they also tend to be small,
> rural and lacking in technical assistance. This is ascenario you know
> well from you work in Colorado.
>
> 3. Another continuity issue relates to our state ATM network. In any
> given year we have sites that are passed through with ease and others that
> are rejected even though they are under the same contract.. Two years
> ago when we did our 470 for a new contract the problems got worse. It
> seems to me that there should be a way to verify a contract once,
> especially if it is a state contract, so that all sites using it avoid the
> "Russian Roulette" game of will this PIA guy or gal interpret it the same
> way as another. If a contract is acceptable for one it should be
> acceptable for all sites involved. Would a state certification on such a
> contract help???
>
> 4. We also have extra work in our state because of the multiple nature of
> some of our school districts. We have Independent districts (mostly large
> towns or cities); School Adminstrative Districts (SADs); and most
> troublesome of all Unions and Community School Districts. Unions are a
> looser grouping of towns that share a superintendent but have their bills
> paid by each town separately. Hence a union has to do multiple 471s to
> cover its erate, because of the rules, rather than one filing which larger
> towns and SADs can do. Many of these same unions cover elementary school
> only. So when the need for a jr or sr high comes along they added a
> Community School District as a jurisdition to cover their upper level
> schools. We have some such groupings which have six different school
> boards.These Union CSD comb districts are as you might expect less likely
> to have district staff available for work on E-Rate applications so they
> are further disadvantaged, more paperwork little or no staff to get the
> job done. A sensible way to handle this problem, in my estimation, would
> be to allow such districts to aggreagte under the superintendent they
> share. Just a thought.
>
> 5. Several people also noted that they were confused, and probably
> disgusted, by the amount of repeat paperwork (i.e. having to reapply for
> telephone service every year when there is no change in their service at
> the site level; being asked by several different people in the process for
> the same information over and over again). Many votes here for a simpler
> way, a more automatic way of handling POTS, long distance and other
> continuing services. Another piece of this one is the lack of
> bureaucratic experince on the part of the folks trying to handle the
> paperwork. One comment was that there were too many acryonyms. Another
> commented that the paperwork was too frequent and too difficult and he
> added that the paperwork associated with E-Rate made him welcome his
> income tax returns.
>
> 6. Many folk report great diffuculty in getting their Bear (472) paperwork
> completed. Mostly because they cannot locate the office that can do the
> E-Rate certification for them. Sometimes it's because the company has gone
> out of business or been bought up by another without giving them a
> reference to the new firm's E-Rate office. Other's have reported that the
> vendor involved doesn't answer the phone or doesn't know who handles their
> E-Rate. In fact when many of these folks call their local rep they say
> they have never heard of E-Rate. Unfortunately that is probably the
> truth.
>
>
> 7. Acting on the Internal Connections problem was seen as another means of
> helping schools and libraries here in Maine. By that I mean the fact that
> so few are able to get that money, and yet those who have received it have
> done so for for many years in a row. I think people here would not mind a
> rule change that added a clause that makesd recipients of Internal
> Connections wait at loeast one year beofre applying again for Internal
> Connections monies.
>
> 8. Another paperwork issue relates to filing 486s, 472s etc. It seems
> there should be a way for SLD to send the 486 pre-populated since much of
> the information comes directly from the funding committment letter. If
> people had to write their name, address and other such known items a few
> less times, they would likely be willing to do paperwork that is often set
> aside because it is too "stupid" (i.e. I have to wirte my name 15 more
> times; I have to put thisn number in again 6 more times). And worst of
> all is the dreaded call we get from folks asking what to do on these forms
> with the Entity and other #s when you insist that we put a ten digit
> number and give us a six digit number with no instruction about how to
> make it ten digits. If the system can only handle ten digits you should
> give us a ten digit number by putting them in or at least give clearer
> instructions so people don't panic.
>
> 9. The Urban/Rural issue. I think it would help many of our folks
> understand this issue if it could be better explained.... that it is not
> whether your community is urban rather than rural, but the fact that your
> community is near an urban center that determines the designation of urban
> and rural. I find that it is very difficult for people to understand that
> a tiny community such as Wales (only a few hunderd people in a "rural"
> setting here in Maine) is considered URBAN when most of our cities are
> considered RURAL. A lot of people have wasted a lot of energy resisting
> this designation. Energy that could be spent elsewhere much more
> productively.
>
> 10. Although not openly voiced by those who sent me their gripes, I have
> had many others note a negativeness they sense in their dealings with SLD.
> Specifically they refer to feeling that SLD sees them as crooks rather
> than educators and library professionals trying to make schools and
> libraries technologically savy. Perhaps (excuse the stereotype here) it
> is because big cities and states regularly operate this way??? as do big
> corporations apaprently. Whaterever the cause it has a chilling effect on
> people's willingness to work with the E-Rate program.
> My best example of this is the recent change in requirement on phone
> bills. George noted when we asked about it that sites were being asked
> to provide more detailed bills because SLD felt that sites were padding
> their bills. His rationale for this assumption was the fact that many
> sites were not using all the money they requested. While that might be
> true for a few sites it is not true for most sites that we know about; in
> point of fact, most sites aren't spending all their money because there is
> TOO MUCH RED TAPE and they give up before the process is complete; or they
> don't understand that what is supposed to be a "discount" program is
> actually a "reimbursement" program and fail to request their
> reimbursement; or they have had to forgo their project altogether because
> the funding took so long to be awarded. Most of us have to estimate when
> we budget, we don't know what rates are going to be 12, 14 or 16 months in
> advance??? Consequently I find it difficult to true up unexpended funds as
> a sign of padding? It's the sign of a healthy budgeting process in my
> book. SLD's logis is faulty when it asks little libraries getting $150 to
> add yet another layer of "fraud, waste and abuse" to its plate.
>
> I think this is suffience for now John. As I said at the beginning I'll
> attach the actual messages from folks to this message as well. Cheers,
> Edna
>
> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate
> gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your
> E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>> <<RE: Edna needs
> your E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna
> needs your E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>> <<Re:
> Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>>
> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate
> gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>> <<RE: Edna needs your
> E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs
> your E-Rate gripes>> <<Re: Edna needs your E-Rate gripes>>
>
> Edna M. Comstock, E-Rate Team
> Coordinator Learning and Technology Services
> Maine State Library
> 64 State House Station
> Augusta, ME 04333-0064
> 1-800-322-8899 or 207-287-5620
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
|