ADMINISTRATORS, SUPPLIERS URGE SIMPLER E-RATE RULES
School administrators and others involved with the e- rate Internet funding program told the FCC at a forum Thurs. that it could greatly reduce misuse of program funding by: (1) Simplifying the rules. (2) Educating applicants. (3) Publicizing instances of wrongdoing. The forum, chaired by FCC Comr. Abernathy and attended by all of the commissioners except Martin, is part of the agency’s effort to reduce fraud, waste and abuse in the multibillion-dollar program through possible rule changes. The e-rate provides discounts to schools and libraries for wiring and other Internet access projects.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Many applicants are disqualified not because of attempted fraud but because the e-rate rules are so difficult to understand, said Greg Weisiger of the Va. Dept. of Education, who also represented the Council of Chief State School Officers E-Rate Alliance. The alliance has made some of the recommendations under study by the FCC for improving e-rate administration. “Simplification is a necessity, particularly of voice services,” said Charles Parker of the State Library of Fla. Weisiger said he spent about half of his time doing e-rate training “in addition to my real job.” He said “to whatever extent possible,” rules must be simplified. A new applicant must spend about 8 hours reading the rules and the “eligible services list is very confusing” and responsible for a lot of disqualifications, he said.
Panelists said education was important because applicants unaware of the rules were at the mercy of the contractors doing the e-rate work. An indication of lack of understanding is the fact that some applicants think of the e-rate as a grant program rather than offering discounts for specific projects, panelists said. “There’s a dramatic need for education about the rules,” said consultant Orin Heend, pres. of Funds for Learning. Geoff Craven of Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit, an educational service agency in Pa., said public schools were accountable to the public so it would be rare for them to knowingly enter into a contract that could be considered illegal, but lack of education could lead to that.
FCC Chmn. Powell said it might make sense for the Commission to have booths, or conduct seminars at top educational conferences, places that would attract administrators. George McDonald of the Universal Service Administrative Co. (USAC), which administers the e-rate, had asked earlier for advice on how to handle the education -- whether distance learning classes or an interactive video would make sense. Powell said attendance at a conference would offer a more “human” element to the education process.
Panelists offered support for some of the specific rule changes under study by the FCC, including the idea of limiting the number of requests a school or library could make within a specified time period for the same services. Parker said allowing applicants to seek funding twice in 5 years made sense because it would accommodate multiyear projects. Greene recommended allowing funding for projects such as internal connections every 3 years.
Several also supported the idea of limiting the amount of funding made available to schools through the program. The top discount now is 90% for schools in the poorest areas and several panelists supported proposals to cut that top rate to 70-80%. “90% is too high” because it offers too much of an incentive to inflate project costs, said Margaret Greene, BellSouth pres.-regulatory & external affairs, who recommended limiting the top amount to 75-80%. When schools can qualify for discounts as high as 90%, they may not have “enough incentive to control project costs, and service providers have too much incentive to inflate costs by selling services at technology levels far beyond” a school’s needs, she said. When applicants have to pay only 10% of project costs, “the sky’s the limit,” Weisiger said. Lowering the top discount might reduce “gold-plated services” because applicants would have to contribute more, he said. Adjusting the discount limits also would spread e-rate funds to more schools, Greene said.
Asked about another idea under consideration, limiting the transfer of e-rate funded equipment from one school to another, Craven said he hadn’t seen school districts transferring much equipment because it could be hard to move the attached cabling.
Parker said he didn’t know many instances of inappropriate behavior in the use of e-rate funds, but the important thing was to make sure the program passed “the sniff test.” Panelists said that was done by having rules to make sure there weren’t misuses of funds, knowingly or not, and oversight to make sure the rules were followed. McDonald said rules were lacking for some issues that had arisen involving misuse. For example, he said, there didn’t appear to be rules barring annual requests for funding for the same projects year after year because the issue wasn’t anticipated. Weisiger and others said there could be legitimate reasons for taking actions that appeared unusual, such as applying for duplicative services or services in consecutive years.