Accountability, Ethics and Internal Controls Page I of I

Staff Development &Professional ServicesDivision of Human ResourcesUC Davis

Accountability, Ethics and Internal ControlsInstructor:JohnGregg

Increasingly we are required to engage in complex decision-making with no clear policy or law to guide us. Thiscourse is designed to enhance understanding of why university policies and procedures exist and the importance

of UC institutional values in decision-making. The case studies and examples are designed to enhanceapplication of UC values in deciding between valid options that go beyond "legal vs. illegal." Resources will be

identified to help participants determine if departmental duties are properly separated and if departmentalprocedures support ethical decision-making. Participants will also learn what to look for if they suspect or discover

departmental fraud or misuse.

http://sdps.ucdavis.edu/browse/ba/ba0262.htm 6/16/2005

IDate

IITime

IILocation

I

IDecember 15, 2004118:30-11:OollUniversity Clubl

IMarch 17, 2005 118:30-11:oolluniversity Clubl

MSO Risk Assessments Page 1 of2

MSO Risk Assessments

MSO Forums, 2003 and 2004A risk assessment was taken at the January 2003 MSO Forum. A follow-up assessment was perfonned at the September 2004MSO Forum. The risks assessed were those that would prevent or hinder an MSO in fulfilling their role. The table belowshows the results of these assessments.

* Impact and Likelihood each polled using a 1-5 scale:1 = VeryLow 2 = Low 3 = Medium 4 = High 5 = Very High

Questions used for each risk:

. What impact does this risk have on your ability to achieve your role?

http://saab.ucdavis.edu/refs/mso Jisks.cfin 6/16/2005

9/13/2004 MSO Forum 1/15/2003 MSO ForumIdentified Risks

59 Participants 91 Participants

Score Impact* Likelihood* Ranking Score Impact* Likelihood* Ranking

Faculty don't believe in controls 4.0 4.1 4.0 1 4.1 3.9 4.3 4

Lack of time and support staff 4.0 4.1 3.9 2 4.1 3.9 4.3 3

Inability to hire qualified staff because 4.0 4.0 3.9 3 3.8 3.7 4.0 12of noncompetitive salaries

Low staff morale 3.9 3.9 3.9 4 3.9 3.9 4.0 11

Budget reductions 3.8 3.9 3.8 5 4.8 4.6 4.9 1

Staff turnover 3.8 3.8 3.8 6 3.6 3.5 3.7 19

Lack of space 3.8 3.5 4.1 7 3.9 3.6 4.3 9

Lack of Communication 3.7 4.0 3.4 8 4.1 4.2 4.0 6

Competency of Support Staff 3.6 4.1 3.2 9 3.6 4.1 3.2 20

Insufficient support from service units 3.6 3.8 3.4 10 3.7 3.6 3.7 16

Policies too complex, evasive and 3.5 3.4 3.6 11 4.2 3.9 4.4 2ambiguous

Losing documents (e.g, business 3.5 3.6 3.4 12 3.7 3.9 3.6 18contracts and accounting)

Inflated egos and micromangement 3.5 3.6 3.4 13 3.7 3.7 3.7 17from the top

Late response from other units 3.4 3.3 3.5 14 3.9 3.8 4.1 10

Controls not cost effective 3.4 3.4 3.4 15 3.8 3.6 3.9 13

Not enough staff in HR to handle the 3.3 3.4 3.3 16 4.0 4.0 4.0 8workload

Not having access to training in a timely 3.3 3.3 3.2 17 3.7 3.7 3.7 15manner

Ineffective change -too much scar 3.2 3.3 3.1 18 4.0 3.8 4.2 7tissue

Contract and grant award process: pre- 3.2 3.3 3.1 19 4.1 3.9 4.3 5and post-award

Decentralization 3.2 2.9 3.4 20 3.7 3.3 4.2 14

MSO Risk Assessments

. What is the likelihood of this risk occuring considering what you are already doing to prevent it?

This site maintained by UC Davis Accounting & Financial ServicesQuestions about this site? Contact us at afsweb@ucdavis.edu.

http://saab. ucdavis.eduJrefs/mso risks.cfm

Page 2 of2

6/1612005