Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance director: payment-fraud assessment rates Provo as very low risk; four items flagged for follow-up
Summary
Finance Director Dan Follett presented the annual payment-fraud risk assessment, reporting a city score of 369 out of 395 — placing Provo in a ‘very low risk’ category — and noting four areas where controls or documentation need improvement.
Dan Follett, Provo’s finance director, presented the city’s annual payment fraud risk assessment and said the city earned 369 points out of a possible 395, a score the presentation classifies as “very low risk.”
Follett discussed four areas where the city did not claim full credit: a separation-of-duties exception in engineering permit fee adjustments, partial completion of an annual ethics attestation process for employees, incomplete completion of entity-specific training for elected officials, and a recently funded internal-auditor position that has not yet produced an audit.
“The person that handles and manages that area has the ability to make adjustments ... we have a system generated report that’s generated each month and it’s reviewed by management,” Follett said of the engineering-area mitigation.
Key details from the presentation: - Separation of duties: Most departments separate those who collect payments from those who adjust customer accounts; engineering permit fees are an exception, mitigated by monthly system reports reviewed by management. - Ethics attestations: Historically done manually; the city has automated about half of employees and intends to incorporate the process into Workday. - Elected-official training: Five of seven council members have completed the state-provided entity-specific training within the required time frame; the presentation recorded partial credit accordingly. - Internal audit: The budget and position for an internal auditor have been approved and filled, but no formal internal audits have been completed yet; the assessment therefore gave partial credit.
Follett said those four items account for the difference between full credit and the received score. Councilors asked clarifying questions about the training timeline and the assessment’s effective date; Follett confirmed the assessment reflects status as of June 30 and that the training requirement is interpreted to apply within four years of each elected term or appointment.
Ending: The council did not take formal action on the assessment; Follett said staff will continue to implement the mitigations and automation steps described in the presentation.
