Celebrating 125 Years

Rating of Audit Findings

Rating Seriousness of Finding* Management Level Resolution Communication to Board
Major Highest Deans, Vice Presidents, and the President should be personally involved. Communicated to the Board in a timely manner given the nature of the finding.
If a conflict of interest in reporting exists, the internal auditor may directly report to the Board.
Significant High Deans, Vice Presidents, and the President may be personally involved. Communicated in the internal auditor's regular reports to the Board.
Notable Average Department or director level should resolve. Communicated in the internal auditor's regular reports to the Board.
Nominal Low Department level staff should address. Not communicated to the Board,

*Some Factors Considered in Judging "Seriousness of Finding":

  1. Level of financial impact.
  2. Extent of violation of external laws, regulations and restrictions.
  3. Lack of a University policy or noncompliance with a policy in an important matter.
  4. Lack of internal controls or ineffective controls and procedures.
  5. Fraud, theft, inappropriate conflicts of interest or serious waste of University resources.
  6. Significant opportunity exists for real gains in processing efficiency.
  7. Poor cost controls or potential for significant savings and/or revenue generation.
  8. Condition places the University's reputation at risk.
  9. Ineffective reporting and/or communication structure results in financial risks and/or inefficient operations.
  10. Post audit implementation review reveals little or no effort to implement an action plan in response to a previous audit finding.

NOTE: The rating system for audit findings ranks the seriousness of the finding and indicates the level of management who should be personally involved in the problem resolution.