Before signing, do you normally read the small print of software licenses, rental agreements, and other contracts? At best, most people, if they are being honest, will admit to scanning it. Perhaps, they reason, it is standard "boilerplate" language that has been fully vetted by others.

We strongly encourage E-rate participants to be more diligent. Certifications are a critical element of most E-rate forms and review processes and should be read carefully before signing - or worse yet, before slipping them into a pile for someone else to sign.

As most participants know, problems of E-rate waste, fraud, and abuse have received considerable attention lately. Applicants and service providers alike should recognize that the FCC considers certifications as being a major tool in assuring compliance with program rules. The key sentence on most E-rate forms reads, in bold:

"Persons willfully making false statements on this form can be punished by fine or forfeiture, under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 502, 503(b), or fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001."

"False statements" refer not only to information entered into a form's data fields, but to the certifications attested to by the signer.

Incorporated in the FCC's new E-rate rules are a series of new or revised certifications that are to be incorporated in the new versions of several E-rate forms. Some of the more interesting and/or important new certifications are:

What this dichotomy did not show, however, was the gradations that the SLD was applying to Selective Reviews. Often, due the subjectivity of the "necessary resources" tests, the SLD may have become convinced that an applicant rated far less than an "A+," but that its score was above a failing grade.

One result of such a finding is that the applicant was funded for that year, but might be marked for a follow up review in a subsequent year. An applicant, not knowing of the potential problem, was often shocked and dismayed to have passed a Selective Review one year only to be hit with another the next.

Recently, certain applicants have begun receiving "Resource Deficiency Advisory" ("RDA") letters warning them of SLD concerns that should be addressed. In part, the letters read:

"As a result of our Item 25 review, we have noted deficiencies in some areas of resources necessary to use the requested services effectively. Now that you have been informed of these deficiencies, we would expect to see increased resources devoted to these areas during future reviews. Continued scarcity of these resources could jeopardize your funding in future years."

The letters then go on to list, specific to each applicant, the one or two areas - computers, training, software, maintenance, and/or electrical connections - in which the SLD considered the applicants to be deficient.

We view these letters as a practical and welcome response to a complicated program requirement and review problem. Applicants receiving RDAs should breathe a sigh of relief that they have funded this year, but should make every effort to address and document the deficient resource areas noted in future funding years.