Zoom Video Recording
Transcript
Mija Coppola: So, welcome to the Ask Us Anything. My name is Mija Coppola, and I am supporting organizational change management for the project. The rest of our panel today for questions and answers is, Mike Riley, who is our associate Vice Chancellor and Comptroller. Dan Parnas, who is our director of accounts payable and travel. Tracy Okamura, who is our director of the Financial Information Systems Team, and Jeff Kent, our accounts payable manager. So, if you need closed captioning, you can click the button at the bottom of the Zoom to get that. We will be answering questions that were submitted ahead of time via pop-in. And Carrie, who is our facilitator, Carrie Sowny, our behind-the-scenes facilitator, is going to put a pop-in link into the chat.
So, if you can put your questions there, that really helps me because it keeps it in one place for where the Zoom chat scrolls and I lose sight of it, and I do not want to miss a question. So, if you could put out any questions that you have today in there, that would be great. That would really help me. Carrie is going to be managing the chat too, so if you have any technical difficulties or anything like that, just put that question in there and she can see if she can help you out. We are gonna mute all participants. It just keeps the possibility of someone accidentally being off mute and background noises and things like that. So, just direct any questions through the chat, through the chat and then questions in the Zoom.
Okay, so, thanks everybody for joining. We are really glad you are here. This is a nice number for this January Ask Us Anything. We know we sent out a long communication in January. There was a lot of information in there. Hopefully, you are able to read through that all and kind of absorb it. We wanted to send that out ahead of time, so as you came to this session, you could ask questions related to the project and how it is changing. So, We are gonna start out a little bit different this time. Usually we go right into questions, but we only received a couple of questions pre-submitted ahead of time, and We are gonna work that into our discussion here to discuss what all has changed in the project and give you some updates there.
So, you know, when you look at where we were last fall, we did a pilot, and the groups that participated in the pilot were great at giving us very honest, open user feedback. Because of the results of the pilot, we wanted to be very diligent about the design of the system, to keep the campus in mind as we roll this out and make sure it is something that you all are going to be happy with. so, because of that, we did a six-week research and design sprint to get even more stakeholder feedback across various divisions, so that we can incorporate more voices into the design.
So, one of the primary areas that was identified by the pilot group as being an area that they felt needed improved was the approver workflow. Specifically, having the supervisor as a required first line of approver because in some cases, the supervisor they felt was not necessary when you look into grant funding or faculty-managed funds. So, we spent a lot of time on the approver workflow. And so, I wanna ask Tracy Okamura if you would not mind just talking a little bit about that design and some considerations that We are taking into play there for that piece. Tracy Okamura: Sure, absolutely. Thank you, Mija. So, we did listen to everybody when they provided the feedback about not wanting the supervisor to be the first line of approval. We also heard that there was different workflow that needed to be routed. If you were-- So our original, let me just backstep one second. In our original design for workflow, we had the supervisor as the first line of approval and then the second one was a department chart string approver. The feedback that we received said that that was not really going to work for our faculty-managed funds. And the department approver, the supervisor being the first line of approval was not necessarily gonna work for the user community, for the campus community.
So, we heard that and we went back to the drawing board and re-envisioned what our workflow would look like. What we decided to do was piggyback a bit on the configuration that we use today in thereby for faculty-managed funds. So, that we use the approver that is designated on the ChartField 2 value to route to whomever it is that you guys assume need to have that routed to for faculty-managed funds. And then secondarily would come the department chart string approver. And that is a mandatory required approval step.
The last step is the supervisor step. And that will only happen if there is no ChartField 2 approver. Or and if the payee is somebody that is a non-employee. So, a non-student employee or a third-party. So, let me try and reiterate that 'cause I think that was a little bit confusing. First approver is the ChartField 2 approver, who are contract and grant funds or for faculty-managed funds. Second approver is the department chart string approver, and the third approver is the supervisor, but only if it is for non-employees. I am sorry. Only if it is for employees in administrative units who are not spending on faculty-managed funds. I hope I said that a little bit more clearly the second time around. But if anybody has any questions, please let me know. Mija: Yeah, thanks, Tracy, and I do not see any questions on the pop-in link just yet. So, yeah, hopefully That is helpful. They spent a lot of time on the design of that. I know Tracy, it took several weeks to kind of pinpoint it to where you felt like you could achieve what the users were looking for on that piece. I think we have made a lot of progress there. Okay, just checking the pop in in case there is any follow-up questions. None yet. All right, so let's talk a little bit about the [crosstalk]. Yeah, go ahead. Tracy: Sorry, Mija, I saw one in the Zoom chat about wanting an example of the third approval level. This would be for people like myself who are traveling, or people on my team who are traveling on administrative funds. So, the workflow for folks like myself would go first to the department charged string approver, and then secondarily to Mike as my manager, as my supervisor. That is the way the third routing would happen, and that only happens for people that are spending on administrative funds with no ChartField 2 approvers, and no ChartField 2 or no ChartField 2 approver associated with that ChartField 2 value.
Mija: Thanks, Tracy, and since you were talking, we have got several questions in the pop-in right now for you. So, here we go, right? You ready? What if the C&G funds does not have a CF2 value? What is the approval workflow? Tracy: And it will look like it goes to an administrative fund. Mija: Okay, so this is a question. So, if I am understanding correctly, if there is a CF2 approver, then supervisors do not approve. Tracy: That is correct. Mija: And can you clarify what you mean by ChartField 2 approver? Is it the PI themselves? Tracy: No, so, when you guys set up your ChartField 2 values, there is an attribute. I think it is on the 3rd tab of the ChartField 2 setup, or maybe it is the second one. I think it is actually called thereby approvers, but I would have to go back and double check the actual name of that tab. It is where, and you configure whomever it is that you want to approve for that ChartField 2 value. Typically, it will be an RA or somebody along those lines. Mija: All right, thank you. Next question: which approvals are always required? It sounds like only the department chart string approver will be in every case. Tracy: That is correct, yes. Mija: Okay. Tracy: I should clarify just one thing with the department chart string approver. So, in our case, in the controller's office, the department chart string approver and the supervisor in many cases will be the same people. So, I am, would be the approver for FSBFS. If what somebody put on in my team submitted a reimbursement request, then I would get the department chart string approval stuck. And because I am also their supervisor, that one auto approves. So, I do not actually have to approve twice, just once. Mija: All right, thank you. Next one. So, all non-C&G funds have to go to the supervisor as well as the chart string approver. Tracy: Unless it is a proxy is repaired on behalf of a non-employee, That is a non-student employee or a third party. Yes, that one is true.
Mija: Okay. Next one. Well, we knew this would be a good topic, right, Tracy, because this is okay. So, we have got a few more questions here that are coming in, which is great. We wanna end. That is what the session is for, is to get these questions answered. All right, next one. Can RAs be in the department approver pool? Tracy: Yes, the department approver pool, there is a request that goes in similar to a SAR request where somebody needs to ask for that access and then the supervisor, their direct supervisor, needs to approve for that access. But yes, they could be. Mija: Okay, next question, how will the department chart string approver be determined? Tracy: I just went through that, but I will do it again. You will go to a page in BFS where you will ask to be a department chart string approver for a specific org node. And that request will be routed to your direct supervisor for approval and then secondarily to the quarterly system access reviewer either the person That is reviewing or approving those quarterly system access requests. And once they approve, then you are set up in a queue to be an approver as a department chart string reporter. Mija: Awesome, and I think you kind of answered this too, but let's ask it again. So, can there be more than one CF2 approver? Tracy: Yes, there can. And that will just end up in a pool of people, so any of the people that are the CF2 approver can approve. it is not sequential where all of them need to or where all of them need to approve. Just one of them needs to appear.
Mija: Okay, super. Will the department admin have access to be proxy submitters, submit on behalf of employees or only approve? Will the department admin have access to be a proxy submitter to submit on behalf of employees, or will they only be able to approve? Tracy: That is probably more of a policy question that I would maybe wanna defer to Mike or Dan on that. But from the system's perspective, there is nothing that prevents people from doing that, no. Mija: Okay, Dan Parnas: Somebody can not prepare a report and then approve it. The same person can not do that. So, as Tracy said, any full-time employee, you know, if their appointment is active, can be a preparer for somebody else. But again, you can not approve a report that you prepare, you can not approve a report for yourself either. And approvals are also gonna be driven by, you know, the tables that Tracy mentioned. Michael Riley: Yeah, and just to add, That is a standard segregation of duty control That is required of any system that we use That is built into BFS for general ledger. it is built like that for a bear buy, and it is currently built like that in the the existing reimbursement system. No one person can fulfill two roles, however, they can function in both roles. They just can not function in both roles in a single transaction. But they can hold both of those roles. Mija: Thanks, Mike. So, the next question is about timeline, which We will get to in a second, so I wanna definitely group the questions here about the approval first and then I will come back to that. So, whoever submitted that, I am not skipping it. I will be right back to that. So, is the access for department approvers done at the L4 level? Tracy: it is done at the L4, 5, or 6 level.
Mija: Okay. Next question. Some employees have more than one job and may have multiple supervisors. How does the system determine which supervisor to route the reimbursement to? Tracy: There is a primary supervisor or a primary job record. And it will route based on the primary job record. Mija: Okay. Michael: You know, just from a feasibility perspective, according to our staff lists across campus, there is about 3,000 people out of the 30,000 employees that hold multiple jobs. So, it is an issue, but it is not, you know, a widespread issue pervasive across campus because of the number of people that hold multiple jobs across the system and the type of people that hold those multiple jobs probably would not be in an approval capacity, but they would be in that preparer role with it from a systems perspective. So, I just wanted to frame it from a population perspective in terms of the pervasiveness of that issue. Mija: Thanks, Mike. Next question, how are exceptional approvals managed? Tracy: The system is going to route exceptional or transactions that require exceptional approvals based on the rules that we configured in the system. So, nobody needs to do that manually outside of the system. The system will route that.
Mija: Thank you. Two more, Tracy, unless another few pop up here. So you are doing great. All right, how is the worklist for the department approval look? Meaning, how will the approver know which reports to approve? Will it show the full CoA? Tracy: Yes, it will show the full CoA and they will show up in your work lists just like any other approval that you deem to execute. However, we are also implementing email approvals, so you can take the action to approve based on an email that comes to your inbox that has one limitation and it is not really a system limitation. it is simply if you need to look, if your approval role requires you to look at the attachments, then you need to do that in the system. Otherwise, you can approve via the email. But that in the system, regardless of whether you approve via email or, actually logging into BFS, those items will appear on the approvals tile where you can see all of the ones that are yours or have been routed to you. Mija: Thank you, Tracy. Michael: Just to add, Tracy, can you confirm in the email that there'll be embedded links to the attachments within the email to make it easier so somebody does not have to, like, hunt and search for the attachment? Tracy: Yeah, so within the email, there will be an embedded link. It will take you into BFS onto the page where you can review the expense reports. And from there you can click on another link to look at the attachments. it is a two-step thing, but it does not take you directly to the attachment. It takes you to the report, and then you can see the attachments. Michael: But the important thing is that We are making it as easy as possible to get to the attachments without having to go through a bunch of extra clicks or extra steps to get to the attachments. Tracy: That is correct. you are not gonna have to-- the link That is in the email is not going to just take you to the BFS login page. It will actually take you to the report that is specified on that email request.
Mija: Thank you. All right, next question. What if the chart string is departmental, i.e., non-C&G funds, but it is using the PI's CF2? Tracy: So, if there is a PI's CF2 and there is an approver associated with that CF2, it will route to the CF2 approver regardless of whether or not it is contract and grant funds or not. You all have the control here, is what we were trying to do, is put the control for those types of approvals in your hands. So, if you are coding it, you code it, and you need to have somebody, a faculty-approved, designated approver. You can set up that approver associated with the ChartField 2 value, and you can use the CF2 value in your transaction. And by doing that, it will route to the person associated. Mija: Thanks, Tracy. I am gonna do the next question, but I think you have hit a couple of those points in that. So, the person says this sounds very confusing for the approval workflow. I do not know. I mean, once we get a visual for it down, We will send that out. We are working on a lot of those pieces right now. But as Tracy pointed out it is not that this is confusing, it is just that We are trying to put the approval process in your hands as opposed to the way the system was designed before, which was very prescriptive. So, We are trying to give you some flexibility and approval. So, the question says our department has many CF2s that are not tied to C&G funds. Will the system show the submitter who the approvals are going to next? Tracy: Yes, you can see the approval workflow. Mija: Okay, so will all supervisors who have never been in the system, will they have to get set up in BFS and be trained on the system? Tracy: Yes, that is true. The setting up in BFS is gonna be automated, so we will provision every employee in the system with access to BFS. And if you are a supervisor, you will also be automatically provisioned access to approval. If you are additionally gonna be a department chart string approver, then that requires an actual step that you need to execute. But otherwise, it will be automated. Mija: Okay, and can the CF2 approver and departmental chart string approver be the same person? Tracy: They can, yes. And if they are, then the system will auto-approve the second one.
Mija: Okay. Initially, will each user when they first go into the system need to set up a default department ID? Tracy: Yes, they will. Mija: Will certain individuals be able to see all the requests that are awaiting approval in an L4? Tracy: That is a good question. I would have to get back to you on that one. Mija: Okay, all right, we can put that in the follow-up email. What if the supervisor is not available to review the request? Will it be easy to reroute it to someone else for review? Tracy: So, there is two things that happen in the system. If a report is sitting in somebody's queue for longer than a week, it automatically routes to that individual supervisor. No actions need to be taken in the system at all. If you know in advance of going, say, on vacation, you are going on vacation for a week, you can delegate your approval workflow authority to somebody else, and then the expense report will be routed to them. The last resort is you did not know you were on vacation. This is an urgent thing. You do not wanna wait a week for the thing to get routed. In that case, there are administrative functions that the AP team can manage where they can redirect that report to the appropriate individual upon request. Michael: Tracy, can you also expand on what the employee can see in the system with respect to pending approvals? I believe that there is transparency in this system. From an employee perspective, they can go into the system and if they've noticed that in addition to everything that Tracy had said, and they noticed that their outstanding tickets aren't getting approved, there is things that they can do as well. Tracy: Well, you can certainly look at where it is in the workflow. So, there is a tile That is set that provides you metrics on the reports where you are the payee or in some cases, you are the proxy. And you can look at the information of the reports that you have submitted and the different statuses. When you click on the link to the reports in, let's say, a submitted status, you can then look at where it sits in the workflow approval, who is got it. Mija: Thanks, Tracy. What is the rationale not to have the supervisor approval when there is a CF2? Tracy: So, the feedback that we received was that there are folks in the academic units, especially faculty members who may be spending money on administrative funds possibly, but the dean is not really going to know whether or not the funds that are spent is within policy or We will know whether or not that individual should be traveling on those particular types of funds. So, I think I got a little bit lost. Can you rephrase that question again? Sorry. Mija: No, no, no, That is okay. So, what is the rationale not to have the supervisor approval when there is a CF2?
Tracy: It was primarily for the faculty-managed funds because if you are using faculty-managed funds, it should not go to the dean for approval. It should go to the faculty-designated approver rather than the dean of the unit if it is a school or college. Mija: Okay, thank you. So, that seems to be the approval work. I know I told you two more questions, ten questions ago, Tracy, but you fill them like a champ. But if we have any more pop-in, we can come back, right? So, but it looks like the pop-in has stopped asking questions related to approval flow. But again, if you guys have any, just pop them in there, we can come back to it. Tracy: Yeah, Mija, I would just ask that if you all have feedback on this, whether it is good, bad, or not, as the case may be, we'd love to hear that feedback. We really spent a lot of time trying to make sure that this revised workflow was gonna meet your needs. So, it would be good to know if we hit that mark or completely missed it. Mija: Yeah, thanks. Okay, so, some other questions that have come in unrelated to the approval workflow. I can answer this next one here. So, it'd be incredibly helpful to see the system. Talking about all of these things without any visuals is really difficult. When will we be able to see even one screen in the new system? So, That is a great question. And this is one of the reasons why we haven't done demos up to this point is because the system is changing, and if we would have shown you then, it is gonna look different moving forward. So, now that We are coming out of this research and design sprint, the keyword there being design, right? Everything that Tracy just articulated around the approver workflow has been designed. It has not been developed yet.
So, We are going to be doing a series of sprints moving forward, not just the approver workflow, but other areas of the system where we got great user feedback as well and need to make some changes. And so once we get things locked in and the system won't change, we can certainly do demos at that time to show you how things are shaping up. So, bear with us now because what we have all, what Tracy just all went over today is a locked-in design. And it is not developed yet in the system. So, as we lock in certain areas, We will look back at times when we can do some demos for you.
So, another question that came in, We will see which one of you guys will field this one. But the question: I am the sole financial administrator for the department, and I am currently processing reimbursements for multiple professors. How can we ensure that in the new system, they do not designate me as a proxy and instead submit their own expense claims? Who would like to fill that? See, let me read it one more time: I am the sole financial administrator for the department. I am currently processing reimbursements for multiple professors. So, it sounds like you are a proxy. But you do not want them to designate you as a proxy. And instead submit their own expense claims. So I am not really sure I fully understand the question. I do not know, Jeff, you went off mute. Would you want to talk about the proxies? Jeffrey Kent: Yeah, I did. All right, I think that, you know, in my experience, a lot of departments have been doing business in a certain fashion for a long time based on one of the primary drivers of business activity at Berkeley, which is inertia. Because if things weren't broken in the past, why change them? If today you are producing a bunch of, preparing a bunch of, expense reports on behalf of professors and when the new system rolls out, you would prefer that they prepare those expense reports themselves so that instead of assigning them to you as a proxy, I think this would be an excellent opportunity for you to have a conversation with your management about using the cutover to a new system to examine your local business practices and have your management make a decision locally about what the best method of handling that paperwork would be, would be my recommendation.
I will also say that, especially with the adoption of the upcoming corporate travel and entertainment card that We are going to roll out, our hope is that the process of creating the reports for users of the travel and entertainment card is easier than it is ever been. I was lucky enough to get my hands on a beta version of that card, processed my own travel report, and it went very quickly. I was very pleased with the process. I think your professors will be as well.
I am more than happy, and I think Dan would be as well to help assist with those conversations as we roll the new system out. So, you know, We are absolutely willing to help you have those conversations with your manager, but ultimately at the end of the day it is going to be a decision about how the department wants to route the business internally. Thank you, Mija. Mija: Thanks, Jeff. And just, I know, Jeff's putting in plugs for that travel and entertainment card wherever he can because it is going to make lives a lot easier in the new system. This new system is easily integrated with the U.S. bank and it is going to make expense report submittal very quick and efficient. And I know you have been asked, Jeff, about the T&E card and when that can come out and if people can get their hands on it now.
So, we just want to make sure everyone's aware that this is something That is coming out with the new system. it is not something that Jeff and his team can give travel and entertainment cards out beforehand. So, the issuance of the T&E card will come in line with the system deployment. And so you just have to wait a little bit longer for that to come out. So, a question I happened to notice it popped into the-- Oh, and I answered that one: when is the new credit card going to be available? So I am glad I answered that one before I saw the question.
So, in the chat, I just happened to look down and see how will we avoid being a proxy approver for a reimbursement we submitted. So, you can be a proxy for submitting, preparing and submitting, expense reports. I do not know that we have a proxy approver role. The approver, it will go through the approval workflow as Tracy went through with us, and if you become a delegate approver, maybe That is what you are asking there, Marianne, you know, if you are a delegate and you submitted the expense report. So, I do not know, Dan or Jeff, if you can answer that one. Jeffrey: Just to make sure I understand correctly, I do not believe the system will allow you to provide approval on any report that you submitted, no matter what. So, and Tracy, you can let me know if I am wrong here, but I do not believe that this is a possibility. Tracy: Yeah, I need to do just a little bit of a double check. I believe that that is correct, but before I answer definitively, I would like to just triple check in the background. Jeffrey: I think I can safely say that if the system were to allow it, for some reason, that would not be expected behavior. And so it was something we would work to, to not have happen, thanks. Mija: Perfect, thanks, Jeff. And Jeff. Michael: If I understood the question correctly, they are asking, can they be a proxy approver, and That is not really a role in the system. A proxy can fit one of the other approval roles like the CF2 approver, the chart string approver if I understand it correctly. But it is provision, it is not provisioned under, you know, proxy. Proxy approver. But, you know, theoretically, an individual who is listed as a proxy, and Tracy, you can correct me if I am wrong, could fit an approval role. It would just get provisioned in the normal way that those roles get provisioned, meaning that your DFL has to approve it or your SAR approver has to approve you to fill that role. But theoretically, a proxy can be an approver in the system. it is just not a defined role. There is no defined proxy approval role. it is just, you are just fitting into another defined approval role within the system. Mija: Thanks, Mike. Tracy: And that is correct, Mike.
Mija: Thanks, Tracy. All right, Jeff, this one's for you. For the T&E card, is there a default CoA, or does the traveler have to pay the bank directly? Jeffrey: That is a great question. The traveler does not have to pay the bank directly. The new travel and entertainment card is a corporate liability direct pay card where UC Berkeley pays the bills directly to U.S. Bank and U.S. Bank pays the vendor. There will be a default charge string on file for using your card. But the actual credit of the individual who gets the card is not impacted by the use of the card. And they do not have to cut a check to the bank directly. That creates a huge loop that does not serve our staff and faculty well. So, all travel card, travel and entertainment cardholders have to do is enjoy themselves while using the cards and then come back and fill out their travel or entertainment report detailing how they used the card, and our system handles everything else automatically. Dan: Yeah, and just to be clear, it is a huge benefit. You know, people have been asking us for years and years, when can we direct bill a hotel? When can we direct bill rental cars? And by having a corporate T&E card, you are direct billing all of your expenses. So, and it gives you a lot more flexibility as well. The one thing to keep in mind though is the new reimbursement system that We are talking about here, the purpose of this meeting, when you complete a trip or you have an event that you need reimbursement for, you still complete your expense report just like you would do today, and the expenses that you put on that corporate travel card go into that expense report, the system is just smart enough to know that those expenses by doing it, you are reconciling those expenses. you are not getting reimbursed for expenses that the university paid directly, but That is the mechanism.
So, there is still a requirement that you do that in a timely fashion, just as you are required today to submit your expense reimbursement within 60 days. Even if you put it on that corporate T&E card, you still need to do that in a timely fashion. You just do not have to pay that money yourself, and it is a lot easier to do that reconciliation because those transactions will actually feed directly into a queue in the reimbursement system for that cardholder so that you can just assign those expenses to your expense report and it reduces a lot of the entry of a lot of fields like it knows the amount, obviously, it knows the date, and things like that. So, it simplifies everything and makes it so that you do not have to pay for it in expense and then wait to be reimbursed. Michael: Just to add to what Jeff and Dan just mentioned, in case anybody has questions, well, how do we prevent abuse? How do we prevent personal charges being made by those on those cards if the university is paying the card off directly? And am I responsible for chasing people to collect for those personal charges that an employee might have inadvertently put on that travel card? The department is not responsible for recovering those personal charges. The central office will manage that, but if somebody does put a personal charge on that corporate card, then, you know, the university will bill the employee for the personal charge, and we will do that centrally.
And so, department heads, CAOs, DFLs will not be responsible for executing or performing those procedures directly. We will do that on the back end on your behalf, utilizing our systems, so that it is streamlined and easy to manage and to collect from the individual directly. So, we manage all the communications, We will manage all the collections, We will manage the process directly. Jeff, Dan, anything? Jeffrey: No, That is exactly correct. When I was testing the new travel and entertainment card, I intentionally put a small personal charge on there to see what would happen. It was easy to identify, and it resulted in a bill that I now have to pay, which is fine. And that expense never hit our departmental charge string. I think That is a critical point. If you have someone who runs up a bunch of personal expenses, we will handle it centrally, and it will not hit a departmental charge string as part of the normal process, yeah. Michael: That is not to say if we do not notice concerning trends, we will work with the CAOs and the DFLs directly to ensure that it does not happen or it does not continue to perpetuate with that. That means that we keep departments in the loop in terms of when we identify problematic behavior. Mija: Right, thank you. Okay, so, let's talk a little bit about roll out. The timeframe for the development to refine and improve all the areas that we identified as needing further development are being determined right now through a very detailed project plan. So, Dan, could you talk a little bit about the timelines for rollout? you are on mute. Dan: Sorry about that. Happens to the best of them. No, I am not one of the best of them, but it happens too. Yeah, so, you know, we completely understand people, we have been talking about this for a long time. People wanna know when is it gonna happen. But based upon the feedback and what we learned from the pilot, you know, we have learned that it is more important that we make sure the system is right than we set a date out there that we may or may not be able to meet. So, you know, we learned a lot during the pilot and then the research and we spent the last several weeks building out a product roadmap and aligning on what must have, what we must have prior to the rollout.
Trust me, Jeff and I are advocating very strongly on behalf of those features that we think are very important for the users. We are getting ready to launch a series of two-week sprints. You may or may not know what a sprint is. I just learned. And We will know more about potential dates once we get a few of those sprints under our belts. Basically, it is where we just focus on the most important issues and instead of trying to do everything all at once, let's get them done, be happy with it and then move on to the next most important ones. So, once we know more, you know, we will absolutely be letting people know. We just do not wanna keep setting dates out there that we can not meet and we wanna get this right. We just do not want the project to be date-driven, we want it to be quality-driven. Mija: Awesome, thanks, Dan. You know, we talked a little bit about this also in the communication, but it is the stage gate roll out. So, We are looking at different groups on the first groups to go, right? We want it to be very simple, so, you know, not a lot of grant funding and things like that. So, We are looking at administrative units, and those types of divisions so we can, you know, onboard slowly, make sure everything is working, clean up anything that those initial users may find, and then start to ramp up from there. So, that stage gate rollout, the divisions that will be selected for that, We are talking about those things right now. And once we have those locked in with the project plan, We will obviously, especially the first groups to go, We will reach out to those folks right away.
I know there'll be questions around the power user training, so let's talk about that for a second. So, the power users are very integral in this system rollout because you are gonna have eyes on the system early and you will be able to help your divisions modify any internal business processes that you currently have around the Legacy system. A lot of those business processes, not a lot, but many may change depending on how you look at the new system and how it fits in with your current business process, you are gonna have to change some things. And so those power users will be an integral part of that. So, our hope is to get power users onboarded in advance of their division rolling into the system so they have some time there to talk those details over.
With the stage gate rollout, We are gonna train the power users as we go. So, the divisions selected for the first group We will train those first, and then the next wave, We will train those power users. So that way it is more real time as opposed to getting your training in advance, but you might not go for a while yet. So, We will do a phased rollout there for the power user piece also. So, That is, let me think. I have 15 minutes left. So, what's the soonest it might roll out and what's the longest? Like, are we talking you are aware internal processes are all up in the air with no information. And so, Dan, you can talk to that again. That is the part that we do not wanna do is to put a date out there that, you know, you kind of pin yourself to. Dan: So you want me to answer that question? Yeah, again, We are not going to give you a date right now. You know, as soon as we can, we wanna do this as soon as we can. we have all been spending a lot of time on it. we have been working very hard and we wanna get it out there for people to use. We wanna get that T&E card out there for people to use, as soon as it is ready. it is just not ready yet. So, it is not, but we do not feel it is that far off. But I do not wanna put any dates out there because we just do not know yet. But, so take that from as soon as we can, and it is not that far off, and you can interpret that however you like.
Mija: Yeah, and We will ramp up communications when those types of things start to feel like we have an idea. But I've been on a lot of system implementations, a lot, and, you know, I have a 30-year career in this, and I can tell you not one has ever gone at the date that you thought because there is always a little bit more that you can do to make it better and improve it. So, to help with that, like when we know you all will be the next to know when that date will be. A couple more questions that came in, we have a little bit of time. Well, let's see, Jeff, this one can be for you. Will the new system indicate which AP auditor is reviewing the report? It would be helpful to know who to contact if needed. Jeffrey: Make sure this question is not for Tracy. Mija: Oh, it can be. If you would like Tracy to take it, absolutely. Tracy: I think what is gonna happen is it will route to the auditor's queue. There will be a number of people in that auditor queue who, which auditor actually updates it, you won't know in advance. They will select from their queue and they will work it. Once they've selected it, if they start having questions about a particular report, they will put that report for that approval on hold. And then you will know which person is working it, but until that happens, you won't know. you will just notice. Jeffrey: Thanks, I super appreciate that because I was not 100% sure. But in the Legacy system, there is no way to tell which auditor is working on your report unless they leave a comment for you. And so, the new system will essentially be no different. If your report is reviewed by an auditor and they say wow, everything looks great, look how good this documentation is, and they click approve, it is not going to say on your end who approved it. If anything holds it up or there is any feedback, you will see the name of the person who is listed as taking that action. Yeah, so in that it is better than the old system. Tracy: You will know that it may go to one of multiple people, but you just won't know which of the multiple people is working it. Michael: Yeah, That is why, I mean, by doing it the other way, that sort of locks us in a box and it risks miscommunication. It risks a communication going to one of the AP auditors that might not be the person That is working it, and then the person who is working it never sees that message. So, there is a lot of like implicit risks with that latter model that would be discouraged just from a workflow operational efficiency perspective. We do not wanna risk miscommunications. We do not wanna risk missed communications by.
And so, you know, the point is, we have a pool of AP auditors and we want to make sure that We are pushing those transactions through in the most efficient and effective way possible so that we can maintain a level of service to the employee to get them to that finish line to get them paid. That is our ultimate goal, and we want to get them paid within the shortest, most expedient manner, and which is why the workflow is designed the way that it is. Mija: Thanks, Mike. Okay, Jeff, this one I know is for you. So, I am positive on this one. What are the consequences to the traveler if they do not submit a report timely? So, if they do not reconcile between the T&E card and submit their report in a timely way? Right, okay, this is a great question. All right, because, similar to today, travelers are required to fully document their travel and entertainment expenses within 60 days of the end of the event. This is an IRS requirement. We did not come up with this because we wanted to. We have to do it. If the report has not been submitted within 60 days, the report can be considered taxable, or the income can be considered taxable, to the recipient. Critically, this does not change because the expense was paid with a corporate travel and entertainment card instead of being paid personally.
So, I would go ahead and say there will be no real difference in how this is handled today versus how it was handled in the past. If somebody goes completely non-communicative, refuses to respond to us, will not work with us in their department to get the expenses resolved, we reserve the, you know, ability to charge that off as a personal purchase that was erroneously made on the card. I want to assure you we will bend over backwards to avoid doing that. But if somebody runs up $1,000 of expenses on the card, and then just never answers their email or does anything with it again, there are methods built into the system for resolving that, yeah. Michael: And to add to Jeff's point, these are mandated federal requirements that we do not have the ability to not comply with. And so, if somebody, you know, for example, incurs $1,000 worth of reimbursable charges, then, you know, ultimately, and if they are in the 30% tax bracket, that means that there is a financial consequence to them. There would be a 30%, they would be responsible for a 30% tax, meaning that they have to pay for a portion of those expenses. And That is not something that the University of California has the ability to change, because we are bound by IRS regulations. So, the employee has a financial incentive to submitting on time. Otherwise, we have no choice but to respond accordingly. And That is the same process as Jeff mentioned that we operate in today. they are procedures that we can not avoid. We have to do them.
Mija: Thanks, Mike. Okay, another question. Tracy, I am gonna send this one your way. Can an approver change the COA, or does it still need to be returned to the preparer to make the update? Tracy: Needs to return to the preparer to make the update, yeah. Mija: Thanks. One more about the T&E card. How will AP be able to tell which purchases on the T&E card are personal versus business? Jeffrey: Oh, I am glad you asked. The department is going to tell us which ones are personal versus business. Essentially, when the charges roll in on the travel and entertainment card, they go into what's called a wallet. And when you click on the wallet, you see all the lists of the different charges that you have incurred on the card during the time period you were using it. And if you see one and you think to yourself, gosh, I accidentally put that gift for my kids on my corporate travel and entertainment card, when you were building the reports, there is an option to select accidental personal purchase. And then you slot that expense in under that category. It does not hit your departmental charge string, and it sets off a process by which we send the cardholder a bill for that amount.
So, we cannot look at a purchase and tell whether it had a business purpose or not, but this is the exact same as the current system. If you have an expense on your expense report, it is not possible for us in AP to know whether or not that expense, you know, was really related to the business you were doing or if it was a personal expense unless you could give us the receipt, or in some cases there are things that just couldn't possibly be a business expense because of the nature of what you purchased. From that angle, it is really no different than today's system and that the department will be letting us know and the submitter will be letting us know when That is the case, if that makes sense. Mija: Yeah, and Jeff, follow up here. You said 60 days to submit reimbursement, and we have a question here, they think it is 45. So, is it 60 or 45? Jeffrey: Okay, well, it is just, I mean, earlier I would said that, you know, here in the comptroller's office in AP, we do not come up with plans on how to apply taxes on late reports because we get any enjoyment whatsoever out of doing so. I regularly have to report people who unfortunately submitted it late, and I do not enjoy it. And we do everything we can to exempt people from it. And we, in fact, have two different policies here: a 45-day policy that UC policy, UC Office of the President policy, says reports should be submitted within.
And a 60-day IRS policy. It was deemed to be confusing to have two different dates, and so we have chosen to go with the IRS 60-day limit because we have no option but to follow that one, and to allow people who submit between 45 and 60 days to be reimbursed as normal. Like I said, we do not want to charge people off for taxes or personal purchases. We will try and avoid it if we possibly can. And so we-- more permissive limit. Dan: Yeah, just think about it as the person who tells you to be there at 12:45 even though it does not start till 1 because they know you are always late. The policy is 45, so we tell you 45, but the IRS requirement is 60. So, as long as you get it in before 60 days, you are not gonna get dinged for it. But really, focus on 45, and that way, if you forgot, you still have 15 days left before you really get the penalty.
Mija: Thanks, all right, we have one more question and then We will wrap up here. But it is one that I know I can answer. But Tracy, if I answered incorrectly, please pop in. Will the submitter be able to reapprove a rejected report that needed correction because the current system does not allow us to do that right now? So, the answer is yes. If a report has been rejected, it goes back to the submitter or proxy or the person preparing the report. It would have to be recertified again by that person if it was through a proxy, and that would all be electronic. But Tracy, if I am wrong, you can correct me. Is that right? Tracy: That is right. So, there is no such thing as a reject. We actually took that option out of the options that are available in our current system. there is no deny. there is only send back. So, it is either approved or send back, which means that the submitter or the preparer is the person That is in complete control as to whether or not that thing moves forward or gets canceled. It will not automatically close on you, but so, anyways. There is the option to copy a report if really you got into a mess, but the approver will not close or lock down the report. The submitter is the only one that can do that. Mija: Thank you. All right, well, we thank everybody. The only other question on the pre-submitted was FAQs, which they were looking for FAQs. We have a set of FAQs, but they are old and have to do with the old approver workflow. So, We are gonna pull those down and based on the questions that we have today, We will generate a new FAQ and get that link out to you. So, thanks for that feedback as well. But if you have any other questions, feel free to put them in the pop-in. Here it'll be live for a little bit longer.
And the next Ask Us Anything will be in two months, but we greatly appreciate your participation and involvement. These are really great questions, time well spent. And now we kinda know that the things you are thinking about, we can tailor future communications to those as well. So, thanks, everybody. We will sign off now, and have a great afternoon. Jeffrey: Thank you.