1. BAAF - Internal Auditing Focus Trending Control Issues February 14, 2013 Matthew Whitley, Director Internal Auditing Division University of Georgia 706-542-6854 mwhitley@uga.edu

2. Discussion Topics Purpose: Raise awareness of high profile audit concerns that you can address in your shop. -MyTime (Kronos) System -PAR Reports -Check Handling Procedures

3. My Time (Kronos)  Background: The University collects time and attendance data from its employees through the Kronos System. One method for collecting this information is “time stamp” which provides punch in and out capability for an employee through the convenience of web browser.  Audit Concern: Since Kronos can be accessed anytime, anywhere through any device with a web browser, there is an increased risk of reporting inaccurate worked hours which could lead to fund misappropriation.  Suggested Action: A unit using time stamp to collect hours should review the origin of the time stamp using Punch Origin Report or the Time Card Audit Trail. These reports are available in the Kronos system.

4. PAR Reports  Background: PAR stands for Personnel Activity Report. It is a computer-generated document that would show the percentage distribution of an employee’s workload during a particular pay period. The University receives federal grants and is therefore subject to the federal regulations covering these grants. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21 contains requirements for procedures and documentation.  Audit Concern: Section J.10 of the circular specifically requires that the PARs be completed and signed by the employee or by a responsible official having firsthand knowledge of the work performed. Failure to comply puts the University at risk for future grants.  Suggested Action: Review PAR reports and help ensure timely compliance.

5. Check Handling Procedures  Background: Industry best practices in accounts payable processes are that once checks are written, they should be mailed/delivered directly to the payee and not returned to the requestor.  Audit Concern: By sending a physical check back to the requestor it creates a segregation of duties issue. This process has the potential risk of improper payments as one person could authorize payments as well as receive the check. This increases the risk of “ghost” or fictitious employee or vendor payments.  Suggested Action: Avoid the return of physical checks to the requestor. If the check(s) cannot be delivered directly to the payee by Accounts Payable, establish procedures such that the check is not returned to the requestor. Checks made payable to individuals (such as research participants) should not be routed through campus mail.