Rating of Audit Findings
| Rating | Seriousness of Finding* | Management Level Resolution | Communication to Board |
| Major | Highest | Deans, Vice Presidents, and the President should be personally involved. | Communicated to the Board in a timely manner given the nature of the finding. If a conflict of interest in reporting exists, the internal auditor may directly report to the Board. |
| Significant | High | Deans, Vice Presidents, and the President may be personally involved. | Communicated in the internal auditor's regular reports to the Board. |
| Notable | Average | Department or director level should resolve. | Communicated in the internal auditor's regular reports to the Board. |
| Nominal | Low | Department level staff should address. | Not communicated to the Board, |
*Some Factors Considered in Judging "Seriousness of Finding":
- Level of financial impact.
- Extent of violation of external laws, regulations and restrictions.
- Lack of a University policy or noncompliance with a policy in an important matter.
- Lack of internal controls or ineffective controls and procedures.
- Fraud, theft, inappropriate conflicts of interest or serious waste of University resources.
- Significant opportunity exists for real gains in processing efficiency.
- Poor cost controls or potential for significant savings and/or revenue generation.
- Condition places the University's reputation at risk.
- Ineffective reporting and/or communication structure results in financial risks and/or inefficient operations.
- Post audit implementation review reveals little or no effort to implement an action plan in response to a previous audit finding.
NOTE: The rating system for audit findings ranks the seriousness of the finding and indicates the level of management who should be personally involved in the problem resolution.