Has my request been answered? I've been complaining for months and months about the unkillable "two-signature/two-date" (2s/2d) rule. It now appears that the "Jason rule" may finally be dead.
The SLD has long held that in order for a contract to be valid for the E-Rate program, there must be two signatures and two dates on the contract. In a couple of recent appeal decisions (Richmond County and Gayville-Volin), the FCC has clearly stated that even though the contracts in those cases did not have two dates, they were valid contracts. But the SLD seemed to take the position that the FCC didn't say that all contracts with one date are valid.
Along comes the Adams County Order. Blah, blah, blah, waive this, waive that. But what's this in footnote 29? "To the extent state contract law does not require two signatures and two dates for a valid contract, Commission precedent does not impose such a requirement. We note that in detailing document retention requirements, the Commission required both beneficiaries and service providers to retain executed contracts that are 'signed and dated by both parties.' ... We clarify that this language was not intended to establish a new rule regarding the validity of a contractual agreement."
I can't see how 2s/2d can survive this one. But isn't that what people say at the end of the Jason movies?
No comments:
Post a Comment