[pdf] Download Report

Executive Summary:

Staffing and Functions To determine whether the System Office was adequately staffed to perform its functions, we reviewed information from other states, reviewed information regarding the functions of the System Office, and interviewed selected personnel. We concluded a comparison of overall staffing levels to other states is, by itself, not reliable due to various differences in responsibilities of the system offices, the number of institutions, students included in the systems, and the differences in centralization of functions. When comparing various functional areas of the System Office to other states, it appears the staffing level may be low. However, if staffing at the campus level were to be considered in the comparison, even areas which initially appeared low were then comparable to the other states. We also identified concerns related to the lack of a plan for the System Office identifying functions or performance measures. Taking into consideration this information and other factors, we determined the System Office itself does not appear to be adequately staffed. However, resources within the entire university system may be available to adequately staff the System Office. We conclude the System Office should be adequately staffed to perform its functions. This would include determining whether campus resources can be used by centralizing certain functions and providing support for personnel costs. A system-wide monitoring function needs to be established by the System Office. We conclude there is not a unified system of higher education. We identified improvements are needed with planning.

System Office Improvements Our review of compliance with laws, policies, and procedures identified improvements were needed. The System Office should ensure early retirement agreements only include payments authorized by policy. We identified improvements were needed with the assessment of campuses for paying the costs of System Office employees. Improvements are needed related to the internal audit function within the university system. Reviews of laws, policies, and procedures should be conducted to ensure information is up-to-date and reflective of current practices. The System Office should make improvements to ensure information provided is consistently and accurately reported.

Findings

• Staffing and Functions of the System Office - 5 Recommendations
• System Office Improvements - 10 Recommendations

2017 Follow-Up

[pdf] Download Report

Executive Summary:

The Office of the State Auditor conducted an audit follow-up on the performance audit entitled University System Office (report #3033) dated February 4, 2013. The objective of this audit followup was to determine the implementation status of the 15 recommendations presented in the performance audit report.

Findings

The Auditor’s Office has chosen to not provide a status on four of the 15 recommendations. These recommendations were determined to be either too vague to give a meaningful status in the context of a follow-up review or they were redundant.

These four recommendations included:

• Recommendation 1-1 Obtaining Resources to Adequately Perform Functions
• Recommendation 2-5 Perform a Comprehensive Review of Policies and Procedures
• Recommendation 2-6 Establishing Guidelines for Procedures
• Recommendation 2-7 Improving the Indian Scholarship Program

The University System Office has fully implemented five of the remaining 11 recommendations presented in the performance audit report. Three of the remaining six recommendations were considered partially implemented and the other three were considered not implemented.