Washington Update
Volume 9, Issue 1
Jan. -
Feb. 2007
Dear NAFEPA Members:
Happy New Year! I believe this year has the potential to
become one of the best years we have ever known in the history
of NAFEPA. Your Board of Directors, executive committee, and the
various other committees are focused on providing all members
with first class professional development opportunities as we
present you with information that will be helpful to you in
continuing to implement the No Child Left Behind Act.
Last year the membership committee recommended that we
recognize individuals who have served as leaders and supporters
of NAFEPA. In honor of their contributions we began a tradition
of naming Honorary and Emeritus members of our association. This
year our new Honorary member is Dr. Jacqueline Jackson. Jackie
is currently serving as the director of the Student Achievement
and School Accountability Programs for the U. S. Department of
Education, but she will be retiring soon. She has been a strong
supporter of NAFEPA and our efforts to serve our nation's
children. Our new Emeritus members are Mary S. Scott from
Arkansas and Leo Brown from Alabama. Mary served as President of
NAFEPA from 1992-1994. Leo served on the Board of Directors for
many years and was instrumental in establishing the Alabama
affiliate. You will find additional information on the three
individuals on our web page, and they will be recognized at the
March conference. Congratulations to these fine folks and to our
association for recognizing their contributions.
As part of our annual conference agenda, we schedule a time
for our members to visit the offices of their senators and
representatives. This time is set aside for us to share with
them and their staffs the successes and challenges we have in
implementing NCLB. In an effort to make sure we provide you with
the most up to date information concerning visits to Capitol
Hill, we asked Sheara Krvaric, an attorney with the Brustein and
Manasevit Law Firm to prepare a brief guide for our members. I
know you will find this article to be very informative. Sheara
will be joined by several of our members on Tuesday morning of
the conference to provide additional resources for the Hill
Visits.
I hope to see many of you at our annual conference March
11-14, 2007, at the Crystal City Hyatt. Rick Carder and the
conference committee have worked very hard to bring us some of
the top leaders in education. The schedule is on page 2 of this
newsletter. For additional information go to our website
www.nafepa.org. See you in
DC!
Bobby Burns
President, NAFEPA
at the Crystal City Hyatt
REGISTER TODAY — www.nafepa.org
| Agenda: |
|
| |
Sunday, March 11, 2007 |
| 11:00 AM – 9:00 PM |
Registration |
| 9:00 AM – 12:00 PM |
Pre-Conference-SES—Susan Wright and Patricia Saas,
Clark County, Nevada |
| 1:00 PM – 4:00 PM
|
Pre-Conference—Fiscal Issues, Leigh Manasevit Esq.,
Brustein & Manasevit |
| 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM
|
Reception for New Members |
| |
Monday, March 12, 2007 |
| 7:30 AM – 8:30 AM |
Optional—Vendor Sponsored Breakouts |
|
8:30 AM – 10:00 AM |
Pedro Noguera, Steinhardt School of Education, New
York University |
|
10:30 AM – 11:30 AM |
Brian NcNulty, Center for Performance Assessment |
|
11:30 AM – 1:00 PM |
Lunch/Annual Business Meeting |
|
1:00 PM – 2:00 PM |
Breakout Sessions —Successful Schools; Preschool for
All |
|
2:15 PM - 4:30 PM |
Breakout Sessions—U.S. Department of Education
(repeated) |
|
5:00 PM – 7:00 PM |
President’s Reception Honoring President Bobby Burns |
| |
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 |
| 7:15 AM – 8:15 AM |
Optional—Vendor Sponsored Breakouts |
|
8:30 AM – 9:00 AM |
What is a Hill Visit? Sheara Krvaric, Esq. ,
Brustein & Manasevit |
|
9:00 AM – 10:15 AM |
Alex Nock, Commission on No Child Left Behind |
|
10:45 AM – 12:00 PM |
David Shreve, National Conference of State
Legislatures |
|
1:00 PM – 5:00 PM |
Congressional Visits—Buses available for
transportation to Capitol Hill |
|
1:45 PM – 4:15 PM |
Optional Vendor Sponsored Breakouts |
|
5:30 PM – 6:30 PM |
Social Hour |
|
6:30 PM – 9:00 PM |
Awards Dinner |
| |
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 |
| 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM |
U. S. Department of Education Presentation
Leigh Manasevit Esq. , Brustein & Manasevit |
What is Lobbying?
Federal Responsibilities and
Lobbying:
A Guide for NAFEPA Members
By Sheara Krvaric. Esq., Brustein and Manasevit Law Firm
With the NAFEPA Annual Conference in Washington,
D.C. just around the corner it is important to review the rules
regarding lobbying by NAFEPA members whose salaries are paid
with federal funds. Many NAFEPA members visit Congressional
Representatives, Senators and U.S. Department of Education (ED)
employees while in D.C. for the annual conference. Such visits
may include activities that constitute "lobbying" under federal
law. As recipients of federal funds, local education agencies (LEAs)
and their employees are subject to certain restrictions on their
lobbying activities. It is crucial that NAFEPA members
understand these limitations before scheduling visits to Capitol
Hill or ED. This article addresses the types of activities that
constitute lobbying and restrictions on the use of federal funds
for such activities.
Lobbying Activities and Restrictions
There is no uniform federal definition of lobbying.
Different statutes, regulations, and rules define lobbying in
different ways. In general, there are three federal rules that
address the use of grant funds for "lobbying."
The Byrd Amendment
The Byrd Amendment prohibits recipients of federal funds,
including LEAs, from using such funds to influence or attempt to
influence the federal government's decision regarding a federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. The U.S.
Department of Education (ED) enacted regulations implementing
the Byrd Amendment, which are published in 34 CFR Part 82, part
of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR):
http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edgar.html.
LEAs that receive federal funds must certify they will not use
such funds to pay anyone who attempts to influence the
government's decision regarding a contract, grant, loan or
cooperative agreement.
OMB Circular A-87
OMB Circular A-87 prohibits grantees and subgrantees,
including LEAs, from using federal funds to "improperly"
influence ED to consider or act regarding a grant, subgrant, or
regulatory matter. Improper influence means an attempt to
influence ED on any basis other than the merits of the matter.
Federal Appropriations Law
Federal appropriations bills often prohibit federal agencies
from spending appropriated funds on "publicity or propaganda."
The Comptroller General of the United States has held that
"lobbying" the U. S . Congress constitutes "publicity or
propaganda." The Comptroller General also has held this
restriction applies to grantees and subgrantees that spend
federally appropriated funds.
For purposes of federal appropriations law,
there are two types of activities that constitute "lobbying."
The first is activities designed to promote a grantee and its
activities (known as self-aggrandizement). The second is efforts
to influence the public to contact members of Congress about
pending legislation (known as grassroots campaigns).
LEA Employees and Lobbying
LEA employees whose salaries are paid in full or in part
with federal funds have a variety of responsibilities under OMB
Circular A-87, Federal Cost Principles for State, Local and
Tribal Governments. One of an employee's most important
responsibilities is to track the time the employee spends on
grant activities versus other activities and to report on such
time and effort. Time and effort reports (such as semi-annual
certifications and personnel activity reports) must account for
an employee's total activities, including overtime.
The purpose of time and effort reporting is to
help LEAs distribute (or allocate) an employee's salary to the
programs the employee worked on. For example, if an employee
works 90% of her time on Title I, Part A administrative
activities and 10% of her time on local activities, the LEA may
charge 90% of the employee's salary to Title I, Part A
administrative funds and 10% to local funds.
Ultimately, all costs charged to a federal grant
must be allowable. Thus, LEAs may not use federal funds to pay
for salary costs to the extent they are related to lobbying.
Employees paid with federal funds must track the time they spend
on lobbying activities, and the LEA must allocate the salary
(and other compensation) costs accordingly. For example, if an
employee spends 10% of her time on lobbying activities, the LEA
must charge 10% of the employee's salary to non-federal funds.
The employee must maintain time and effort records in accordance
with OMB Circular A-87.
If the employee's lobbying activities are not a
significant part of her job (for example, one thirty minute
visit to a representative once a year), the activities should be
considered to be de minimis and would not need to be reported.
Further, if the employee's lobbying activities do not take place
during normal work hours, are not part of the scope of the
employee's job function, are not done at the LEA's request, and
are not designed to directly benefit the LEA, it is reasonable
to argue the employee is working on her own free time (or
volunteering), and thus the lobbying activities are not covered
by the employee's salary.
Ultimately, it is up to each NAFEPA member to
determine if his or her activities could constitute unallowable
lobbying and to what extent he or she is required to report on
his or her activities. Further, many state and local governments
restrict the use of state or local funds on "lobbying"
activities. There may also be state or local laws that prohibit
employees from "lobbying" at all, even on their free time. Thus,
NAFEPA members who are LEA employees must check their state or
local rules to determine whether they may engage in lobbying
activities
By Sheara Krvaric. Esq., Brustein and
Manasevit Law Firm
Comments on Lobbying
From
Elizabeth Pinkerton:
Having been a federal
education program administrator in a local school district, I am
very pleased that NAFEPA is addressing the topic of lobbying. My
colleagues and I were often unsure of what we could and should
do in regard to communication with our members of Congress.
President Bobby Burns has taken the lead in determining the role
(or non-role) of NAFEPA in regard to lobbying to prevent
potential problems for members.
This question was recently
asked by a NAFEPA member: Why is NAFEPA getting into the
lobbying discussion and research? Has there been a problem?
NAFEPA has not had problems
with lobbying. The reason your Board of Directors is providing
this information for you is to make sure that NAFEPA members do
not have problems related to this issue. Your organization wants
to help all members follow the rules and make sure that they
know the difference between what is legally considered lobbying
and members communicating with their elected representatives.
We encourage NAFEPA members to
know their Congressional representatives and to find ways to
stay in touch with them. Administrators of federal education
programs need to be aware of everything that is happening with
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA), today’s No Child Left Behind. (NCLB). It is equally
important for your elected representatives to know what is
happening in your school district in regard to the
implementation of the law. They need to know about the successes
you have had and those you continue to have with student
achievement and carrying out the requirements of NCLB. They also
need to know the problems you have experienced with various
aspects of the law and how you are attempting to resolve them.
As you read the rest of this
response to the lobbying article, know that everything I say
here is only my opinion—and not necessarily that of NAFEPA. Send
us your opinions as we hope to follow this topic on our web
page, and we will post your opinions there. Send them to me at
this email address:
elizabeth.pinkerton@frontiernet.net.
I think that Sheara is right
on target with her article on pages 3 and 4 of this newsletter.
Your Board members received a lengthy article (11 pages) from
Kristen Tosh Cowan of Brustein & Manasevit last fall, and it
took a while for us to digest it all. But Sheara has hit the
important pieces very precisely, and I am pleased that the
nearly 1,900 plus NAFEPA members have the opportunity to learn
more about this part of their jobs. Read the article carefully,
and mark the specific statements that apply to you and your
position in your district and state. Discuss these issues with
your immediate supervisor and/or your superintendent. In your
spare time, you may want to thoroughly examine the meanings of
these terms: influence or attempt to influence; self
aggrandizement; grassroots campaigns; publicity or propaganda.
Talk to your fiscal folks
about OMB Circular A-87. If you are not clear about this
document, you may want to spend some time reviewing what is in
it. Every time you meet with an auditor, this document will come
up. Your superintendent may want you to present some of this
information to your Board of Education. I think that is a good
idea to make sure that everyone is on the same page in regard to
your role with federal education programs. If you are attending
the March NAFEPA conference, that could be a good focus for a
presentation to your Board.
Welcome to Our New NAFEPA Members - 135!!
ALABAMA:
Kathy Reaves, Gail Robertson, Rachel Surles; ARKANSAS:
Bobby New, Judy New; CALIFORNIA: Jim Armstrong, Karen
Barrett, Carol Beck, Bonnie Bell, Mimi Bonds, David Curry, Jim
Dilday, Christine Fullerton, Stacy
Giannetto, Kathleen Grubbs, Jeff Hamlin, Cindy Heaton, Nancy
Herota, Donna Hyatt, Len Judd, Trish Kawahara, Joe Koski,
Christina Luna, Kristen Nelson, Cindy O’Leary, Rose Scott,
Wilhelmena Sims, Jim Sullivan, Ellen Welt; COLORADO:
Morgan Cox, Valencia Lopez; FLORIDA: Mary Bennett, Sheryl
Clark, Elmer Dillingham, Judy Laurent, Donna Ray, Dan Rhoten;
GEORGIA: Sharon D. Brown; ILLINOIS: Felicia Bohannon;
KENTUCKY: Kathleen Bryant; LOUISIANA: Debbie
McKay; MASSACHUSETTS: Margaret Adams, Karen Kenny,
Stephen Nembirkow, Denise Pagan-Vega, Mindie Richter, Carol
Weiner; MICHIGAN: Carolyn Dale, Marie Holem, Renee
Masters, Cathie Stanaway, Kathleen Storchan, Ronald Wiens;
MINNESOTA: Gregory Esala, Mary Hanson, Denise Harlos, James
Hecimovich, Rita Kay Hoff, Larry Jallen, Pamela Kirsch, Jon
Larson, Linda Lubansky, Karen Maschler, Ora Lynn Moore, Dale
Negen, Rob Pederson, Cheryl Rauenhorst, Darren Sheldon, Del
Stein, Nate Swenson, MISSISSIPPI: Larry Cockrell,
Charlotte Daves, Mary Kate Garvin, Delana Sellers, John Shows;
NORTH CAROLINA: Kelly Hales, Jenny Johnson, Linda
Mendenhall, NEW MEXICO: Bettina Eklund, Mary Beth Foley;
NEVADA: Sue Chamber, Sara Robinson, Martin Root, Steven
Saisa; NEW YORK: Kevin McAliley; OHIO: Tya
Grengbondai; PENNSYLVANIA: Donald Burkins, Sue Conrady,
Lou DeAngelo, Francis Fregly, Helen Gross, Janice Joyce, Tracey
Karlie, Tamiya Larkin, Phil Latella, Dwight Lauffman, Thomas
Meyers, Teresa Naumann, Angelo Pezzuolo, Roberta Schrall,
William Walker, William Wilson, SOUTH CAROLINA: Andress
Carter-Sims, Denise Collier, Charles DeLaughter,, Elizabeth
Eason, Nancy Eddins, Dorothy Gallman, Linda Gillespie, Debra
Green-Wilson, Debbie Hunter, Ann Huntley, Clarence Jackson,
Janice Kechings, Christine Le Blanc, Evelyn Moore, Michelle
Moorehead, Carolyn Richey, Debbie Rogers, Evelyn Smith, Julie
Stensland, Mike Turner, Jean West, Rachel Williams; TEXAS:
Pete Riojas, Teresa Thompson; UTAH: Sally McFarland, Rich
Moore; VIRGINIA: Becky Baskerville, Christie Clarke,
Christie Fleming, Marie Grant, Stephanie Johnson, Gale Lee,
Christopher McLaughlin, Kari Weston.
WE WELCOME
A NEW AFFILIATE FOR NAFEPA….. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS!
WELCOME TO OUR NEW REPRESENTATIVE ON THE NAFEPA BOARD OF
DIRECTORS FOR ILLINOIS:
JB CULBERTSON
CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR NAFEPA PARTNER, LEIGH MANASEVIT,
FOR HIS RECENT SUPREME COURT PRESENTATION
On January 10,
2007 Leigh Manasevit appeared before the United States Supreme
Court on behalf of the New Mexico Public Education Department in
Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. U. S. Department of
Education. The case involved a challenge brought by two New
Mexico school districts to the manner in which the U. S.
Department of Education interpreted the Impact Aid statute
provisions on state equalization formulas. New Mexico and the U.
S. Department of Education were on the same side, defending the
Secretary's interpretation. A representative of the US Solicitor
General represented the Department of Education. A transcript of
the oral argument is available at :
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05-1508.pdf.
HOW TO ENTER THE MEMBERS
ONLY PAGE at www.nafepa.org
The password is esea1965nclb
Keep the password confidential. It is for NAFEPA members only!
Check your address on this newsletter. If you are overdue, we
hope to hear from you!
WE HOPE TO SEE YOU IN
WASHINGTON DC. …. REGISTER NOW!
NAFEPA
Membership/Subscription Form
Download form now!
(.pdf file*)
NAFEPA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS—STATE REPRESENTATIVES
CHECK YOUR MEMBERSHIP DUE
DATE ON THE LABEL OF THIS NEWSLETTER!
If you are OVERDUE—— this is your last newsletter.
We do not want to lose you as a NAFEPA member, so we hope to
hear from you soon.
This newsletter was prepared by: Elizabeth Pinkerton
If you are in an unaffiliated state, contact me
elizabeth.pinkerton@frontiernet.net
if you need
additional information.
Click
here for printable version in .pdf format.
Click here
for Newsletters Archives.
Click here
for NAFEPA Membership/Subscription Form.
