Financial Management - Hearing Process - Audit Report - 2008

National Energy Board - Neb

Sujets

• management
• pmo
• managers

Informations

• Publié par: Zuib
• Nombre de lectures: 22
• Langue: English

Extrait

Audit Report

Financial Management – Hearing Process

Audit Report

Financial Management – Hearing Process

Purpose and Scope of Audit

Currently all costs of conducting hearings, other than staff costs, are managed by the

Secretary’s Office.

The Secretary is responsible and accountable for the budget in total

with the Hearing Managers expected to provide a budget to the Secretary for their

hearing.

All other activities relating to the management of hearings are the responsibility

of the Hearing Manager who usually resides in Applications.

The audit consisted of four phases:

a)

Through interviewing Secretary’s Office staff determine the benefits to their

management of financial matters and the benefits accruing to the Board.

b)

Through interviewing the Business Unit Leader, Applications, and selected

Hearing Managers determine the satisfaction with the current process, any

added-value improvements possible and any benefits or disadvantage to

changing responsibility.

c)

Through interviews with some of the above staff and Regulatory Officers,

gain an understanding of the budgeting process and the process for approving

and spending of funds.

d)

Review financial analyses.

Audit Summary

•

There is very little opportunity for Hearing Managers or the Secretary’s office to

“control” the overall budget or individual budgets for hearings.

•

While certain assumptions can be made from available information at the

beginning of the year as to the number, location or duration of hearings, this can

all change with additions or deletions as the year progresses.

•

For budgeting purposes Regulatory Officers maintain information on standard

costs (airlines, hotels, hearing room costs, translators, reporters) which is provided

to Hearing Managers for input to budgets.

•

Costs of individual hearings and assumptions as to length of time and location can

also change depending on various dynamics.

•

Reviewed with the Secretary and Regulatory Administrator (Danielle Comte) the

process by which the overall budget for hearings is determined and the oversight

that is provided to costs incurred in individual hearings.

•

The Regulatory Administrator provided copies of the analysis she maintains and

explanations as to the process followed to record budgeted costs and the process

for approving and paying for actual costs incurred.

•

Actual costs are approved by the Secretary on the recommendation of the

Regulatory Officer, and are paid by the Regulatory Administrator.

Hearing

Managers are in agreement with this process.

•

An up to date spreadsheet is maintained by the Regulatory Administrator showing

both budgeted and actual costs by hearing although there is not a cumulative

comparison of budgeted to actual costs.

•

Good oversight over costs is maintained through the knowledge of the Regulatory

Officers and their review and approval of invoices.

•

Hearing Managers and the Applications Business Unit Leader do not have any

concern with the current process.

•

Hearing Managers, in consultation with the appropriate Team Leaders and the

Panel Chairs approve the participation of NEB staff on the project working group.

Staff costs are borne by that individual’s team.

Any overtime pay must be

approved by the individual’s Team Leader.

•

It was suggested by a Hearing Manager that a periodic summary comparing actual

and budgeted costs could be useful once significant costs start to be incurred on

their particular hearing.

•

Comparisons would be useful in identifying higher than expected costs to either

query costs (e.g., cost for a hearing room that was budgeted but not used) or as a

tools for budgeting costs on a future hearing.

Hearing Managers do not have a

significant oversight or approval role for individual costs incurred during the

hearing.

•

The

Hearing Manager Checklist

and the

Procedure for Resource Management for

Project Managers Pilot

were reviewed.

•

The Checklist is primarily a project management procedure, is current (updated

2008-07-11) and is a useful tool especially for less experienced Hearing

Managers.

•

The Pilot was a project undertaken by Ruth Mills with a working group and was

reviewed with the prior Chief operating Officer in early 2007.

While detailed,

there does not appear to have been any follow-up to integrate into the Checklist or

to otherwise establish as a separate procedure for posting on the Dashboard.

•

Also reviewed was a report from Graham Emmerson to Business Unit Leader,

Applications entitled

Role of the PMO in NEB Hearing Management

.

Although

outside the scope of this audit the report is useful in understanding the different

roles and responsibilities and is attached to this report for information.

Audit Results and Conclusions

There is very little opportunity for individual Hearing Managers and the Applications

Business Unit Leader to exercise control over the cost of individual hearings.

The

Secretary’s Office does have knowledge of the scope and amount of hearings likely to

occur in a given year and has knowledge of certain standard costs (interpreters, court

reporters).

The Regulatory Administrator has the tools to manage hearing budgets and

record actual costs.

The Regulatory Officers know actual costs as they are the ones who

are actually incurring the costs. Salaries and overtime costs of the project working group

are appropriately controlled with the oversight provided by the hearing manager, team

leader and panel chair.

Subject to the recommendations following, it is the conclusion of Internal Audit that

control over the overall Hearings Budget properly resides with the Secretary’s Office.

Recommendations

1)

To provide better oversight and to provide better information for Hearing

Managers, it is recommended that periodic (no less than monthly) analyses should

be provided by the Regulatory Administrator to the Hearing Manager comparing

budgeted costs to actual costs by budget category.

2)

Currently, information provided by the Hearing Manager to the Secretary’s

Office and others is sporadic at best.

Changes to the number of people travelling,

estimated duration of the hearing, and the need for consultants can impact the need

for funds to complete the hearing.

To provide for a regular dialogue it is

recommended that at least a monthly update on changes and estimated changes be

provided to the Secretary’s Office, the Panel Chair, the Business Unit Leader and

the Team Leader

3)

In the current process the Regulatory Officer recommends invoices for

approval and payment by the Secretary.

It is recommended that invoices for costs

in excess of a minimum level and any costs that exceed budget by more than an

agreed percentage be forwarded to the Hearing Manager who will provide

justification and for the overrun and recommend approval and payment by the

Regulatory Officer and the Secretary.

4)

The

Hearing Manager Checklist

and the

Procedure for Resource Management

for Project Managers Pilot

should be reviewed by responsible parties (the

Secretary’s Office, the Application BU leaders and Hearing Managers) and to the

extent they believe the Pilot is useful, either integrate the Pilot with the Checklist or

establish a separate procedure.