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]
>
>
>