idaho legislature

Idaho Committee Approves IEN Funding

By Sharon Fisher, 3-25-10

Despite concern about how funding was being spent to develop network infrastructure for the Idaho Education Network—to the extent that a quarterly status report is now required, delineating how and where funds were being spent—in the end, money talked: Idaho’s Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee voted today to give $3 million in spending authority to the Department of Administration, based on a two-year grant from the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson education foundation.

Both Representatives Shirley Ringo (D-Moscow), who made the motion, and Fred Wood (R-Burley) conceded that the source of the funding was part of their decision. “If this were general fund money, we might be having a different discussion,” she said. For the state to turn down such private sources of funding, or even to put conditions on it, would not be appropriate, he said.

The IEN, a $50 million project intended to provide high-speed Internet connectivity to all Idaho schools, as well as provide it to the local community, has been controversial for more than a year, ever since allegations first surfaced that Qwest had been awarded the contract before the mapping process had been completed. However, criticism ramped up sharply this legislative session, first with Syringa Networks—which had originally been awarded a share of the contract with Qwest, as well as with its partner Education Networks of America Inc., but which claimed it was being shut out of the process, and even from its existing customers—filing a lawsuit, and with legislators hearing from numerous constituents the contention that duplicate infrastructure was being built.

The situation is particularly dicey with respect to the Albertson Foundation because, between November, 2001, and December, 2004, the foundation invested approximately $23 million to develop the Idaho Student Information Management Systems [ISIMS]—after an original estimate of $35 million for development ballooned to $147 million—until the foundation finally abandoned the project, according to a post-mortem report produced by the Office of Performance Evaluation (OPE).

The purpose of ISIMS was to be a secure, centralized data system where public school information was stored, accessed and analyzed, made up of a standard package of application for student-related administrative functions such as scheduling, grade reporting, attendance, recordkeeping, student achievement, and teacher resources, and a database for storing the information.

(Ironically, as with IEN, one of the sticking points for ISIMS was the “last mile” of technology to connect the schools to the network, and one of the items in the “best practices” checklist developed by OPE after the ISIMS debacle was “Have existing resources (infrastructure, time, staff, funding) been identified and incorporated into the project development plan?")

Consequently, members of JFAC have expressed concern that the foundation will get burned again and no longer contribute to similar projects in the future. For that reason, a section of intent language was appended to the appropriations bill, though it is not clear what happens if the Department of Administration—which has come under criticism earlier in the session for being unresponsive to JFAC requests—does not comply with it.

Intent language—which was passed by a motion, rather than by the typical unanimous consent request, signalling that Ringo believed some people might vote against it—called for the IEN Program Resources Advisory Council (IPRAC) to set up a contract monitoring procedure, and for the submission of quarterly reports to JFAC, as well as to the House and Senate committees beginning July 1. These reports, which can also include testimony from recipients, are to include budgeted and actual expenditures; any changes to the IEN business plan; a list of public schools, institutions, and agencies that have been connected; a description of the connection technology used; the bandwidth provided; the carrier providing the connection; and IEN training opportunities provided to the public schools.

“We want a more transparent process with regards to who gets the ‘last mile,’” said Representative Wendy Jaquet (D-Ketchum), who serves on IPRAC. “We want the local companies who are employing people to provide that connectivity to our schools. We want them to be involved, and we want to see that they’ve been involved.”

“I think we all probably agree that the IEN is a great project,” said Representative Jim Patrick (R-Twin Falls). “Our problem has been not current funding so much as future liabilities and the local providers.”

In the end, only Senator Nicole LeFavour (D-Boise) and Representative Janice McGeachin (R-Idaho Falls) voted against the motion to grant the spending authority, and only LeFavour voted against the intent language. “There are still lingering concerns that some things that have been put in motion, perhaps improperly, will continue in motion and we won’t have the opportunity to ensure that everything goes forward in the most aboveboard and proper way,” LeFavour said.

“[The Albertsons Foundation] have dealt with the state before,” Wood responded. “They’re going in with their eyes wide open. They understand what they’re getting into.”

Full disclosure: Sharon Fisher is a candidate for the Idaho Legislature, District 21.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.