Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Internal Audit Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Campus internal auditors report tight staffing and ongoing audit backlogs to Regents committee
Summary
Internal audit leaders from Kansas State, Emporia State and Fort Hays told the Regents’ fiscal committee they are operating with small teams (some with one to three staff), have carryover audits and are prioritizing high‑risk areas; the committee asked for benchmarking of staffing across the six state universities.
Three campus internal audit leaders briefed the Board of Regents’ Fiscal Affairs & Audit Committee on audit plans, quality reviews and staffing pressures across the state university system.
Jana Clark, Kansas State internal audit, described a 2025 audit plan that includes follow‑ups from 2023 and 2024, two audits carried over because of a 2024 cyber incident, and a duplicate‑payments review about 80 percent complete. Clark said the office updated its audit charter in 2024, conforms with Institute of Internal Auditors standards following a 2023 external review and currently has three full‑time audit staff — a small team for an R1 research institution.
Dr. Tammy Norman, Emporia State director of internal audit, said her charter was signed that morning, that her office uses graduate students to extend capacity, and that cybersecurity audits and building‑access reviews are priorities. Norman said she plans a quality assessment review in 2026.
Baron Green, Fort Hays State controller serving as interim internal auditor, said Fort Hays currently lacks a permanent internal auditor and is prioritizing follow‑ups and high‑risk areas while searching for a hire; he described completed audit work on student health, the farm and event operations and said IT monitoring (Arctic Wolf) has been implemented following legislative post‑audit recommendations.
Regents pressed presenters on whether the Board of Regents holds any centralized resources; Vice President Frisbie said there are no pooled Board‑level audit resources and suggested campuses provide benchmarking of audit staffing relative to peers. The committee asked staff to return with benchmarking information for all six universities and encouraged cross‑training to reduce single‑person risks.
