Final
June 20, 2024
Internal Audit Report
2024.08
Post-Tenure Faculty
Review
Issued to: Issued by:
Board of Trustees: Julia Hann,
Kevin Hyde (chair), Michael Barcal, Jason Chief Audit Executive
Barrett, Mike Binder, Jill Davis, Jay Demetree,
Annie Egan, John Gol, Allison Korman Shelton, Auditor:
Christopher Lazzara, Paul McElroy, Steve Jillian Litchfield,
Moore, and Nik Patel Senior Internal Auditor
President: Moez Limayem
Provost and Vice President for Academic and
Student Affairs: Karen Patterson
Associate Vice President, Strategy and
Implementation: Karen Cousins
Senior Associate Provost for Faculty and
Research: John Kantner
Page 1 of 6
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Internal Auditing
Table of Contents
Background ....................................................................................... 3
Audit Objective .................................................................................. 3
Scope and Methodology ....................................................................... 3
Prior Audit Recommendations ............................................................... 4
Conclusion ........................................................................................ 4
Appendix I ................................................................................................. 5
Post-Tenure Review Faculty Outcomes ................................................... 5
Appendix II ................................................................................................ 6
Report and Item Ranking Scale ............................................................. 6
Page 2 of 6
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Internal Auditing
Background
In 2022, the Florida Legislature amended Section 1001.706, Florida Statutes, authorizing the
Florida Board of Governors (BOG) to adopt a post-tenure review regulation requiring each
tenured state university faculty member to undergo a comprehensive post-tenure review
every five years. The BOG then adopted Regulation 10.003, Post-Tenure Faculty Review,
which states, in part, that “each university must conduct an audit of the comprehensive post-
tenure review process for the prior fiscal year and submit a final report to the university’s
Board of Trustees by July 1.” The regulation further states, “The auditor must provide the
university board of trustees with a report that includes the following:
a. The number of tenured faculty in each of the four performance rating categories [as
follows]:
1. Exceeds expectations: a clear and significant level of accomplishment beyond
the average performance of faculty across the faculty member’s discipline and unit.
2. Meets expectations: expected level of accomplishment compared to faculty
across the faculty member’s discipline and unit.
3. Does not meet expectations: performance falls below the normal range of
annual variation in performance compared to faculty across the faculty member’s
discipline and unit but is capable of improvement.
4. Unsatisfactory: failure to meet expectations that reflect disregard or failure to
follow previous advice of other efforts to provide correction or assistance, or
performance involves incompetence or misconduct as defined in applicable
university regulations and policies.
b. The university’s response in cases of each category.
c. Findings of non-compliance with applicable state laws, Board of Governors’
regulations, and university regulations and policies.”
Audit Objective
The objectives of the audit were to evaluate:
• Compliance with Florida Board of Governors Regulation 10.003, and its requirements
for a comprehensive post-tenure faculty review.
• Effectiveness of the review process and its alignment with University’s policies and
procedures.
Scope and Methodology
The scope of this audit included data utilized for the University’s first post-tenure faculty
review (PTR). To satisfy our objectives, we performed the following:
• Evaluated UNF Policy 2.1100P, Post-Tenure Faculty Review, and UNF-UFF Post-Tenure
Faculty Review Memo of Understanding (MOU) for compliance with Board of Governors
(BOG) Regulation 10.003, Post-Tenure Faculty Review.
• Gained an understanding of Section 1012.91, Florida Statutes, Personnel Records and
UNF Regulation 4.0030R, Limited Access Personnel Records.
• Verified accuracy of tenured faculty population.
• Validated selection process of tenured faculty for the review.
• Ensured timing of communications with faculty regarding the selection process
complied with the MOU.
• Reviewed exceptions to the PTR review and verified compliance with the MOU.
Page 3 of 6
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Internal Auditing
• Verified completion of annual evaluations for tenured faculty in administrative roles,
as required by the BOG regulation.
• Evaluated accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness of documentation considered
within the PTR review.
• Ensured chair, dean, committee, and provost reviews were completed in accordance
with the BOG regulation, UNF policy and MOU.
• Confirmed outcomes and compensation were in accordance with the MOU.
• Verified provost report contained required information and was provided to the
President, Board of Trustees and UFF, as required by the MOU.
We conducted employee interviews, performed process and documentation reviews, and
evaluated risks and their impact on outcomes.
Audit fieldwork began March 6, 2024, and concluded on May 29, 2024. We conducted the
audit in accordance with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal
Auditing published by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA). We relied on State of Florida
Board of Governors Regulations, UNF Regulations and Policies, UNF-UFF Post-Tenure Faculty
Review Memo of Understanding and best business practices to support strong internal
controls.
Prior Audit Recommendations
Our examination generally includes a follow-up on observations and recommendations of prior
internal audits, where the subjects of such findings are applicable to the scope of the current
audit being performed. There were no prior internal audits pertinent to the post-tenure
review.
Conclusion
The mission of the Office of Internal Auditing (OIA) is to provide independent, objective
assurance and consulting activities that add value and help improve operations. We assessed
the overall residual risk ranking as low, as no issues were identified which warranted areas
of opportunities for improvement (as defined in Appendix II).
To summarize the PTR selection process, as of October 2, 2023, tenured faculty totaled 329.
From this population, 185 faculty were properly removed prior to the random selection
process because they were administrators, faculty promoted within the last five years, or up
for promotion. The sample of tenured faculty for the first PTR review included 10 faculty
promoted within 2018 and a randomly selected sample of 20% of the remaining 134 faculty
within the population, or 27, resulting in a combined total of 37 faculty. Two faculty were
properly removed from the sample due to retirement and approved leave, reducing the
sample to 35.
The auditor performed a review of each of the 35 faculty’s dossiers and validated the outcomes
as summarized in Appendix I.
It is worth mentioning that the staff members involved in the audit demonstrated a high level
of expertise in their respective areas. They promptly addressed inquiries and exhibited
patience during the review process. We appreciate their cooperation and collaborative
approach.
Page 4 of 6
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Internal Auditing
Appendix I
Post-Tenure Review Faculty Outcomes
Exceeds Meets Does Not Meet
Position Expectations Expectations Expectations Unsatisfactory Award
Professor 11 5% increase to base salary
Associate Professor 9 One-time, nonrecurring wage payment of 5% base pay or $6,000, whichever is higher
Professor 2 One-time, nonrecurring wage payment of 3% base pay or $4,000, whichever is higher
Associate Professor 11 One-time, nonrecurring wage payment of 3% base pay or $4,000, whichever is higher
Professor 1 Faculty received notice of performance improvement plan
Professor 1 Faculty received notice of termination
Grand Total 20 13 1 1
Page 5 of 6
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Internal Auditing
Appendix II
Report and Item Ranking Scale
Overall Report Residual Risk Ranking
▪ Low
o The internal control system scoped within the audit is functioning satisfactorily,
and remaining operating risks are low.
o The collective audit issues are considered minor deficiencies.
o Related corrective action need only be addressed to improve current
operations.
▪ Moderate
o The internal control system scoped within the audit is functioning in a manner
that provides reasonable assurance that most major risks will be mitigated.
o Corrective action to address the audit issues may not be critical to the
university’s business operations, but needs to be addressed to minimize
financial, reputational, operational, and strategic risks.
▪ High
o The internal control system scoped within the audit needs major improvement.
o The deficiencies identified could significantly impair operations.
o If corrective action is not implemented timely, issues may escalate to cause
critical financial, reputational, operational, or strategic risks.
o Corrective action plans should be given a priority.
Reportable Item Ranking Scale
▪ Minor Risk [Osprey Opportunity]
o Observation reportable to address a nominal risk.
o Recommendations provide opportunities for improvement.
o Minor violations of procedures, rules, or regulations.
o Routine administration attention requested.
o Corrective action strongly recommended to improve quality or processes of
area being audited.
▪ Notable Risk
o Significant observation reportable to address an increased risk.
o Multiple violations of policies and procedures, and/or weak internal controls.
o Important opportunity to improve effectiveness and efficiency.
o Corrective action required.
▪ Critical Risk
o Major observation reportable due to a critical risk to the university.
o Material violation of policies/procedures/laws, and/or unacceptable internal
controls, and/or high risk for fraud/waste/abuse, and/or major opportunity to
improve effectiveness and efficiency.
o Material risk identified.
o Immediate corrective action required.
Page 6 of 6
