Letters - Letter to the Editor

Internal Auditor, Dec, 2001

TACKLING TURNOVER

It's about time someone addressed the issues covered in Michael Barrier's article, "Turnover: The Ebb and Flow" (October 2001). When I retired from internal auditing 11 years ago, I believed that internal auditing should be making sure that the right things were being done as much or more than seeing that things were being done right. I found a conflict between using the audit function as a training ground for advancing people through the company versus the need for an effective oversight operation to assist management.

It was my contention then that there needed to be a cadre of professional internal auditors to train the new and advancing people and to ensure that the oversight function was carried out effectively. If there is no need for the cadre of professionals, there is no need for a profession and, therefore, no need for The IIA. Congratulations to Mr. Barrier on a fine article.

ALBERT WINKLER, CPA (RETIRED) Baltimore, Md.

Arwink2@hotmail.com

Why would The IIA publish an article that openly promotes age discrimination? The overall tone of Barrier's piece was against retaining older employees and in particular stated, "a healthy internal audit department will be staffed overwhelmingly by young people just a year or two out of college." Also, "You can get continuity through having the same people, although to me that's always bred more stagnation." And, "overall, strong policies are preferable to a core of long-term employees."

Don't the author and The IIA realize that such employment practices are against U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state laws? It always amazes me that companies that follow such age discrimination policies later complain when they are sued or fined.

WILLIAM G. SACK, CIA

Western Springs, Ill.

wsack@aol.com

EDITOR'S NOTE: The professionals interviewed in the story were talking specifically about ways to ensure employee retention -- regardless of age -- in internal audit departments and the organization. Their suggestion was to use internal auditing as an entry point. One option discussed was starting employees out in the internal audit group and then moving them on to other, higher positions within the corporation -- not getting rid of them. The article was not about staffing an organization with young people; rather, it was about challenging employees and doing what's good for the company.

A comment in "Turnover: The Ebb and Flow" struck me as being particularly against auditors who find mistakes and do "gotcha" auditing, which I feel is part of the auditor's job. The author states, "He cut managers, supervisors, and team leaders, getting rid of 'a lot of people who specialized in finding mistakes, or 'gotcha' auditing.'" As a 16-year veteran of internal auditing, I have seen a tremendous change in the way business is transacted. Yes, internal auditing is moving toward a more proactive role, which is good. But is this really so much a change in methodology as a change in wording or perception? For example: "risks" instead of "problems," "value added" instead of "compliance," "process improvement" instead of "negative information."

I read every Internal Auditor from cover to cover and find a wide variety of opinions from very respected authorities. For every internal audit authority who promotes reactive auditing, there is a like number discounting this method in favor of proactive auditing. There is no hard and fast rule as to what audit methodology to use. All audit techniques in the auditor's toolbox must be used. For example, in mitigating fraud risks, proactive tools are necessary. However, if no gotcha, auditing is performed, how can internal auditing give reasonable assurance of anything?

Internal auditing is a challenging and rewarding vocation, especially in these changing times. I am a firm believer that additional proactive audit methodology is required, including partnering with management, defining best practices, and providing value-added services. At the same time, I believe that "gotcha," after-the-fact auditing must be used when appropriate by internal auditing to provide maximum effectiveness.

ROBERT A. BASS, CIA

Internal Auditing Director

Standard Register

Dayton, Ohio

robert.bass@standardregister.com

A NEW PERCEPTION

Alicia Filak's column, "Changing Perceptions" ("In My Opinion," October 2001), is right on the money! A perception often directed at internal auditors is that they are resource consumers rather than resource providers. One way to overcome this is to produce audit findings that add value. Of course, "value" can be a subjective term!

EUGENE KORFF

Internal Auditor

Seventh-day Adventist Church

Silver Spring, Md.

eugenekorff@yahoo.com

VALUE IN ADVERSITY?

Jonathan Black's essay, "The Value of Adversity" ("In My Opinion," August 2001), is a timely reminder of the tensions between compliance and consultancy in modern internal auditing. Black draws an intriguing parallel between the auditor and the prosecuting attorney, and he suggests that an adversarial approach to auditing may elucidate issues by vigorously presenting the raw data from which conclusions may be drawn.