A Performance Audit
An Audit Report on The University of Texas at El Paso’s Compliance with Benefits Proportional Requirements
February 2017
Summary Analysis
The University of Texas at El Paso (University) did not complete its accounting policy statement 011 (APS 011) benefits proportional report for appropriation year 2015 in accordance with the Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller’s Office) requirements. The Comptroller’s Office requires state entities to complete the APS 011 reporting form to administer benefits proportionality requirements.
The University did not complete its APS 011 benefits proportional report for appropriation year 2015 in accordance with the Comptroller’s Office requirements. Specifically, the University incorrectly included benefit expenses that it paid with nonappropriated funds on its APS 011 benefits proportional report.
When completed in accordance with the Comptroller’s Office’s requirements, the APS 011 benefits proportional report for appropriation year 2015 showed that, as of June 2016, the University had received:
• $2,024,442 in excess General Revenue for Social Security and retirement.
• $3,239,706 in excess General Revenue for group insurance. It is important to note that the General Appropriations Act authorizes the University of Texas System (System) to transfer group insurance appropriations among the higher education institutions that it oversees. Therefore, if the University had completed its APS 011 benefits proportional report correctly, the System could have transferred any unexpended portion of the University’s group insurance appropriations to the other higher education institutions that the System oversees.
The Comptroller’s Office’s APS 011 benefits proportional report is intended to ensure that benefits are paid proportionately to a state entity’s appropriated method of finance, and state entities must comply with the requirements for that report.
However, inconsistencies in the benefits proportionality requirements within the General Appropriations Act make it unclear whether state entities should pay benefits (1) proportionately to their appropriated method of finance or (2) from the same source of funds used to pay the respective salaries.
The University did not have the process its policy required to verify whether it charged salaries and benefits to the correct cost center. As a result:
• For 40 employees, the University incorrectly used $16,064 in General Revenue to pay for the Social Security benefits and optional retirement program benefit expenses that it had not assigned to an educational and general cost center.
• The salaries and benefits the University paid using General Revenue were not always associated with eligible employees. Specifically, the University used $135,920 in General Revenue to pay for the salaries, Social Security benefits, and optional retirement program benefits for 7 employees who were assigned to auxiliary departments.
Graphics, Media, Supporting documents