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] > > >