more widely with more Bureaucrats in charge of things they may not understand very well. RECOMMENDATION: a. We concur and support the separation of the contracting authority apart from Bureau Education. 11. Sec. 4, S. 1398, Sec. 504 98-511 We note that on Line 23 of p. 6 of the proposed amendments, the authors have included a reference to the "new school start" problem in the middle of a paragraph relating to Bureau contracting functions. We do not understand this connection. Secondly, and more critically, the proposed language (inadvertently?) authorizes the Bureau to review new school start applications (from before Oct. 1) "under the rules and guidelines in effect on the date the application was filed." We are seriously concerned that this language may be considered to authorize the Bureau to review such applications under "rules and guidelines" rather than under the federal regulations 25 C.F.R. 271 ff instead. The Bureau has promulgated any number of rules and guidelines in the past. We do not believe the Congress should "bless" those directives to have the authority of federal regulations. We believe that this language needs to be changed, so the Bureau does not perceive that their guidelines (not published in the Federal Register) are given statutory support to be as regulations. Additionally, no provision is made for the one year period Page 14 Oct. 1, 84 to Oct. 1, 85. RECOMMENDATIONS: a. b. That the language be re-drafted to say that any new That the Congress clarify what procedures are in effect 12. Sec. 4(b) Facilities, S. 1398; Sec. 1126(d) 95-561; Sec. 504 (d) 98-511 plan. We support the inclusion of a requirement for a five-year We recognize that the authors were attempting to change as little as necessary to the amendments P.L. 98-511 to "give back" facilities management to the office of the Area Director. However, as proposed, the paragraph is unclear as to who has the authority to obligate and who will do the obligating. As re-drafted, it appears that agency education superintendents will "authorize for expenditure" facilities money that the Agency Superintendent will expend. However, this kind of detailed coordination could allow for a number of problems when there is no agreement between these positions, or when "authorizations" for expenditure are late or Page 15 non-existent. We do not believe that the intent of this language will produce anything but confusion and a disintegration of facilities services. RECOMMENDATION: a. That if the Congress does not want to provide Education with Facilities funding, the proposed language should strongly urge coordination and cooperation between the offices, with the Area Director as final arbitrator disputes, but leave the authority to expend to those mandated to actually provide the services. in 95-561 13. Sec. 5(3), S. 1398; Sec. 505(a) 98-522; Sec. 1128 (a) We are discouraged to see that the Congress has decided in a "technical amendment" to reverse their decision to fund summer schools or a 12-month program for students. This is especially discouraging because as part of the Administration's cost-cutting, the Bureau is now limiting (or eliminating) summer school programs for disadvantaged Indian children under Chapter 1 (ECIA). The Bureau is in effect asking schools to "scalp" their regular school year program if a summer school program is needed. We know of no public school district that is required to lower basic services to meet the special needs of students who need help through summer programs. RECOMMENDATION: a. That the formula allow for the distribution of funds for Page 16 b. summer school programs; or That if this is not possible, the Bureau be required to 95-561 14. Sec. 5(a) (3) S. 1398; Sec. 505(c) 98-511; Sec. 1128 The contract schools serving Navajo children did not originally support the proposal that a separate fund be established for merit and quality step increases outside of the formula, as it would be subject to mainipulation by the Office of Indian Educatin Programs and be used to encourage some to "play ball" with Washington, and be refused to those who question the Office's policies. At best, since the Bureau has been so adamant against contract schools, we did not believe we would receive much if any of funds authorized therein. At the same time, we support the new language which order that supplemental appropriations be shared to all schools under the formula. We are unsure that this has been consistently done by the Bureau in the past. Late appropriations may make such funds unavailable for obligation to Bureau-operated schools. Page 17 Nevertheless, the Bureau should be required to distribute such procedures, contracts with PL 93-638 contractors can be amended by Sept. 30 for use as carry-over funds under P. L. 93-638 authority. RECOMMENDATION: a. That the language proposed remain as written, with added report language that even if pay supplements are authorized by the Congress late in the year, the OIEP will make the distributions and contract school contracts will be amended to allow them the use of this money. 15. Sec. 6(a) (4) S. 1398; Sec. 506(a)(2)(A) 98-511; Sec. 1129 95-561 Forward Funding We are We find the intent of Congress to provide for some alternative to "double funding" BIA education meritorius. unsure whether or not the provisions recommended will do much to help the situation. a. The proposed revision is very confusing. Frankly, we are not sure of what the language is saying. Notes that were distributed with the bill are really saying that there will be "advanced notice" of funding levels. This is good. But in fact, it is no more than what OIEP is doing now. And all a notice can do is provide an estimate (which may be a help, but cannot be used as a Page 18 |