Download the Annual report 2011 - Unisa
Download the Annual report 2011 - Unisa
Download the Annual report 2011 - Unisa
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Since <strong>the</strong> merger in 2006, <strong>the</strong> focus of <strong>the</strong> university has<br />
increasingly veered toward effective, efficient, economic<br />
use of resources — and ethics became more of a focus<br />
point during 2008. <strong>2011</strong> saw a renewed and intense<br />
ethics drive on <strong>the</strong> part of Management and this process<br />
is set to continue concertedly through <strong>the</strong> next planning<br />
phase, and as an ongoing institutional focus. Although<br />
<strong>the</strong> university has not yet reached its target on effective,<br />
efficient, economic and ethical operations, plans are in<br />
place to introduce and embed <strong>the</strong> necessary improvement<br />
standards – including ensuring continual policy reviews,<br />
establishing and implementing procedures to<br />
ensure certainty of acceptable practices, and clarifying<br />
and/or re-defining roles and responsibilities to promote<br />
accountability — and many have already been implemented.<br />
Council, operating through its Audit and Enterprise Risk<br />
Management Committee (AERMC), oversees <strong>the</strong> university’s<br />
corporate governance, control and risk matters.<br />
The Management of <strong>the</strong> university monitors institutional<br />
risk, ethics and controls through <strong>the</strong> Risk, Ethics and<br />
Controls Committee (RECC) to pay attention to recommendations<br />
made in audit <strong>report</strong>s. All RECC <strong>report</strong>s are<br />
submitted to and discussed at <strong>the</strong> Management Committee<br />
and <strong>the</strong>n submitted to <strong>the</strong> AERMC. Late in <strong>2011</strong><br />
a Compliance Department was approved by Council to<br />
give greater attention to <strong>the</strong> aspect of controls compliance<br />
at <strong>the</strong> university. While compliance was monitored<br />
in a decentralised manner in both ICT and Finance, <strong>the</strong><br />
institution of <strong>the</strong> Compliance Department will provide<br />
better institutional insight into this area. The structure<br />
of <strong>the</strong> department has been approved and positions will<br />
be filled from 2012.<br />
Compliance reviews were also performed by <strong>the</strong> Internal<br />
Audit Department. A well-established internal audit<br />
function exists that is independent and objective and<br />
provides assurance and consulting services to <strong>the</strong> university’s<br />
Council and Management on governance, risk<br />
management and controls. Reports issued by <strong>the</strong> internal<br />
audit function receive appropriate attention from <strong>the</strong><br />
Management Committee and <strong>the</strong> Audit and Enterprise<br />
Risk Management Committee. Where weaknesses in<br />
any of <strong>the</strong> controls are identified through <strong>the</strong> aforementioned<br />
internal assurance reviews, recommendations are<br />
made to improve control and Management develops appropriate<br />
action plans to address <strong>the</strong> weaknesses. A<br />
process of following up on internal audit and external<br />
audit <strong>report</strong>s is well established and supported by <strong>the</strong><br />
Department: Internal Audit and <strong>the</strong> Directorate: Enterprise<br />
Risk Management.<br />
UNISA ANNUAL REPORT <strong>2011</strong><br />
| 54 |<br />
It must be noted, however, that <strong>the</strong> system of internal<br />
administrative controls is effective only to <strong>the</strong> extent that<br />
human error, noncompliance and intentional circumvention<br />
can be prohibited or prevented in a timely manner.<br />
The system of control is thus not entirely infallible.<br />
As <strong>the</strong> university’s focus in <strong>2011</strong> was on <strong>the</strong> effective,<br />
efficient, economic, social and ethical approach to its activities,<br />
controls and compliance <strong>the</strong>rewith were assessed.<br />
Where weaknesses or noncompliance were<br />
identified, <strong>the</strong>se were raised with <strong>the</strong> line managers for<br />
<strong>the</strong> controls to be reconsidered and improved. In most<br />
instances, <strong>the</strong> levels of acquiescence and co-operation<br />
toward ensuring a strict control environment could not<br />
be faulted. However, in some instances implementation<br />
was slower than required. These cases were identified<br />
and dealt with in <strong>the</strong> follow-up audits.<br />
Based on <strong>the</strong> findings, <strong>Unisa</strong> assessed its internal administrative<br />
controls for <strong>the</strong> financial year ended 31 December<br />
<strong>2011</strong> taking cognisance of <strong>the</strong> results and findings<br />
from <strong>the</strong> continuous and periodic internal assurance<br />
reviews. Based on this assessment, <strong>Unisa</strong> believes that<br />
for <strong>the</strong> financial year ended 31 December <strong>2011</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
internal administrative controls reasonably meet <strong>the</strong> criteria<br />
to effectively, efficiently, economically and ethically<br />
safeguard its employees, operations, information and<br />
assets, and to ensure accountability to its stakeholders.<br />
Ms A Steenkamp<br />
Executive Director: Internal Audit<br />
Advocate V Kahla<br />
Chairperson: Audit and Enterprise Risk<br />
Management Committee<br />
<strong>Unisa</strong> Council