1. DOM UCPath Training
August 22, 2019
Part 1

2. Agenda – Payroll reconciliation
WHAT: Which reporting tools will we utilize to reconcile?
WHERE: Where can we find these tools & how do we obtain access?
WHO: Who are the faculty/staff we are responsible for reconciling?
HOW: How to analyze the data provided by these reports?
WHEN: Frequency of reconciliation.

3. Difference in tools – dope vs. qdb vs. ods
Campus payroll report found within Cognos/CDW under Systemwide Reports
Has more data than QDB Employee Sum – including GAEL & insurance
SOM QDB
SOM/EFM’s payroll tool found in Excel Add-ins
ODS
Found within Cognos/CDW under Supplemental Reports
The “No Funding Info” report should be run regularly, prior to bi-weekly pay period end to see if funding profiles are blank to avoid hitting default FAU

4. Access to DOPE
If you don’t see UCPath Reports, let Cathy know

5. Running reports Paid vs. earned
Benefits displayed
Reflects direct retros processed in the actual month they were approved, no matter the earned date
No benefits displayed
UCPath does not link benefits to earned dates
Reflects direct retros processed in the month they were earned

6. How to create Responsibility list
Tools: 1) FPM Chart of Accounts Batch & 2) SOM QDB
Steps: Determine Responsibility
Extract your Chart of Accounts Batch Template from FPM for your PI’s Portfolio
In QDB, Run Payroll and General Ledger Reports to Identify Personnel requiring payroll reconciliation
Payroll reports: Individuals with UC Path Appointments
Detail Closed Reports: Individuals without UC Path Appointments, funded via stipends in Go.Grad

7. What to do once you have your responsibility list?
Run a DOPE Report for each individual in your responsibility list
Check to ensure:
Personnel were paid for the correct FTE & for the correct monthly amount
CAP Rates have been honored (calculation may be required)
Benefits have posted at the correct rate
No Payroll hit the Default FAU!!!
Process Adjustments as needed
Direct Retro to adjust Gross Earnings from 1 fund to another
Benefits, TIFs, GAEL, etc. (salary related expenses) will adjust automatically, proportionate to Gross Earnings adjustment
Benefit Journal to adjust Benefits Only from 1 fund to another
Soon to change to Benefit Adjustment Tool in UC Path
Open a ticket with CRU for all other issues

8. LEDGER ISSUE #1 – PAY RATE COLUMN
Pre-UCPath: For monthly employees, the Pay Rate column always equaled the salary rate used to calculate Gross Earnings (TNS for faculty, Salary Cap with Exaggerated Rate for non-capped funds, Total Salary Rate for Staff)
Therefore, you could multiply the Effort % column by the Salary Rate column to get the amount listed in the Gross Earnings column (Effort % x Salary Rate = Gross Earnings)
Post-UCPath: The above holds true except in the following cases:
Part-Time Employees
Employees paid using a Salary Cap rate (not all instances)

9. Pay Rate Column Issue – Part-Time Employees
How it manifests in payroll reports: The Pay Rate shown on the ledger is not the EE’s total salary rate. It is the pro-rated total salary rate based on the EE’s FTE.
Example: EE’s total salary rate is $100,000/yr. FTE = 75%. Pay Rate on ledger will be $75,000.
Issue: You can’t determine if the EE was paid at a rate over the cap.
Fix: Review either the UCPath Funding Entry page and/or the DOPE report to determine FTE and total salary rate, and confirm the rate is not over the salary cap.

10. Pay Rate Column Issue – Salary cap
How it manifests in payroll reports: In some instances, the Pay Rate shown on the ledger is not the sponsor’s salary cap rate, but rather, a rate over the cap.
Currently, we are not sure why the rate is okay some times, and not okay other times.
Issue: You can’t easily determine if the correct capped rate was used to determine Gross Earnings. And, EFM will ask you to fix these lines upon closing.
Fix: In most instances, the correct capped rate was indeed used. You need to review the UCPath MCOP Worksheet to determine which cap rate was used for that pay period , and multiply that rate by the Effort % column on the ledger. Does Effort % x Salary Cap = Gross Earnings*?
EFM is requesting print screens from the MCOP Worksheet for proof the correct salary cap rate was used.
*See slide regarding over the cap calculation issues

11. LEDGER ISSUE #2– GROSS EARNINGS IS OVER THE SALARY CAP DUE TO ROUNDING
How it manifests in payroll reports: In some instances, the calculation between the Effort % and the salary cap, does not exactly equal the Gross Earnings.
Issue: If it is over the amount calculated using the salary cap, we are technically out of compliance with sponsor policy.
Fix: This is a UCPath system issue that we cannot fix.
We’ve been informed that in case of an audit, EFM will provide print screens from the MCOP Worksheet for proof the correct salary cap rate was used.

12. LEDGER ISSUE #3 – earned dates
How it manifests in payroll reports: For retroactive pay lines, the CRU is entering an Earned Date of the date the retro pay was processed, not the actual date it was earned.
Example: In Aug 2019, an EE was approved for an increase with a retro effective date of 01/01/2019. The Jan-July 2019 pay lines will all have an Earned Date of 08/31/2019.
Issue: You cannot determine if the retro pay lines are allowable as per the fund project dates. In the example above, what if the start date of the grant were 03/01/2019?
Fix: You can check the Direct Retro screen to determine the true Earned Date. If any lines are unallowable, they must be moved off.
CRU is supposed to start entering the true Earned Date when processing retro pay.

13. LEDGER ISSUE #4 – OTC Indicator of “Y” on non-FEDERAL Funds
How it manifests in payroll reports: UCPath Funding Entry was entered incorrectly, so that a non-federal C&G fund was used to fund an amount over the cap (OTC).
Ledger: OTC column on non-NIH fund indicates “Y-00x”
Issue: These lines are unallowable on all C&G funds.
There is no Effort % associated with these lines
Fix: Direct Retros must be processed to correct the issue.
UCPath is working on a fix so that OTC lines cannot be changed to any C&G funds.