Author: Jeff Yennie

I had the opportunity to travel to Alaska a few summers back for a week of fishing on the Kenai Peninsula.  As part of the return trip, my luggage included a 50 pound box of vacuum sealed fillets of silver salmon, halibut, lingcod and rockfish.  I’d ate and cooked plenty of salmon and halibut before, but I didn’t have a clue what to do with the lingcod or rockfish.  And then, while flipping through a cookbook, grilled fish tacos entered and changed my life forever.

The recipe below is from an America’s Test Kitchen cookbook.  I don’t claim it to be my own, but here’s what you’ll need:

2-3 fillets of white flaky fish (mahi-mahi, rockfish, bass, or walleye)
Chili powder
Peppers in adobo sauce (you’ll find them in the Mexican aisle of the grocery store)
Cabbage
Mayo
Lime juice
Olive oil
Salt and Pepper
Cilantro, if desired
Tortillas
Limes

Prep work:
Start by mixing about 2-3 teaspoons of chili powder with a pinch or two of salt.  This will be the seasoning that you put on the fish.  I brush the fillets with olive oil, and then rub the seasoning mixture onto one side of the fillet.  Set the fish aside.

Next, shred the cabbage.  I usually shred about a 2-3 cups of cabbage, which will be enough for 4-6 tacos.  Drizzle some olive oil and lime juice over the cabbage, mix it up, and season with salt and pepper.

Finally, mince anywhere from 2-6 peppers from the adobo sauce, and then mix in with about half a cup or a cup of mayo, and about a tablespoon of lime juice.

Grill work:
The grill needs to be nice and hot.  Oil the grates by putting vegetable oil on a paper towel and then applying to the grates.  This will help keep the fish from sticking.

Once the grill is hot, put the fish on the grates, seasoned side down.  Let the fish cook for 3-5 minutes depending on the thickness of the fillet, and then flip.  Cook for another 3-5 minutes or until done.  Cover the fish and set aside.

The most important step:  Put the tortillas on the grill for about 20-30 seconds per side, or until they are warmed up and a little crispy.  A cold tortilla just isn’t the same.

Prepping the tacos:
Put about a spoonful or two of the mayo mixture on each tortilla, add the cabbage, and then top with the fish.  I usually squeeze a lime wedge over the top.  You could add in the cilantro at this point also.

Enjoy on a patio and with your favorite cold beverage while Summer is still here.

Paying our home utility bills, credit card statements, or even sending money to friends and family has never been easier.  I write less than 20 physical checks each year.  I can logon to the bank website and pay all of my utility bills in less than 5 minutes.  No check needs to be written and I can save the stamp.   If I logon to my online credit card statement, I can review all of my transactions and have the payment directly withdrawn from my checking account within a day or two.  Businesses and non-profit organizations may not be using online bill pay as often as I do personally.  However, as I continue to work with organizations in Rapid City and surrounding areas, electronic payments are being used more frequently.  Like any other payment, electronic payments need to be subject to appropriate internal controls.

Let’s assume your organization pays all bills with a physical check and has the following internal control procedures.  Invoices are received and then reviewed and approved by the executive director, Mary.  The invoices are then given to an administrative employee, Peter, to post to the general ledger and print the checks.  The checks and invoices are then given to the finance manager, Paul, to sign the checks.  Paul reviews each invoice and check before signing, to make sure the amounts agree, and then gives the signed checks to the receptionist to mail.  These controls segregate the approval, posting, signing, and mailing of the checks, which mitigates any risk of the same person having absolute control over the entire process.

Now let’s assume the organization starts paying its electricity bill online each month.  The electricity invoice is received and approved by Mary.  The invoice goes to Peter to post to the general ledger.  Peter posts the expense to the general ledger and uses the online bill pay function to make the payment.  The physical checks go to Paul and follow the normal process as described in the previous paragraph.

What is wrong in this scenario?  Peter has limited oversight regarding the electricity bill.  He could pay the organization’s electricity bill and his personal electricity bill.  It is possible to make an online payment for more than one utility account in the same transaction.  As a result, there would be one entry to the general ledger and one expense on the bank statement, even though Peter paid two separate bills.  Unless Mary remembers the exact amount of the electricity bill each month during her review of the bank statement, this scheme could go on for a while.

This example is fairly simple but illustrates the importance of ensuring the internal controls over cash disbursements follow the same process whether a physical check is printed, signed and mailed, or an electronic payment is made using some form of online bill pay.  Hopefully, such fraudulent transactions would be caught during a review process, but without the correct processes, the fraud opportunity is available.  Mitigating controls are not nearly as important as preventative controls.

A preventative control that could be implemented in this scenario would be Peter printing the payment verification and giving this to Paul along with the physical checks and invoices.  Paul could agree the payment verification to the invoice during his review process.  Alternatively, a dummy check could be generated for the electric bill so the expense is attached to a check number in the system and given to Paul for his review during the normal process.

If you have questions on your internal controls surrounding cash disbursements and electronic payments, feel free to contact the not-for-profit team at KT.

The favorite time of year for most nonprofit board members, executive directors and accounting personnel is when the budget process is in full swing, right?  While budgeting can be painstakingly boring, tedious and time consuming, the annual budget is the document that will help your nonprofit achieve financial stability to continue operating the programs that our communities need.

It is important to remember that the budget is a guideline of best laid plans, and plans are more often achieved when they are realistic and intentional.  In an article on the National Council of Nonprofits website, the author discusses the myth that the budgets of a nonprofit organization need to balance.  The process should not be focused on creating a budget that is balanced, but rather focused on creating a budget that defines the goals of the organization and reflects those goals accurately.  For example, if the goal is to begin building surplus cash reserves, the budget should reflect this and would have a net profit at the end of the year, allowing cash reserves to increase. Alternatively, if the organization already has adequate cash reserves but wants to start a new program to further the organization’s mission, hire additional staff, increase their online presence by creating a new website, or invest in new equipment or computers, then the budget should reflect these goals and potentially show a deficit for the year.  The fact that the organization’s budget and financial statements show a net loss for the year can be a positive outcome, as long as it was intentional and reflects the goals of the organization.

In addition to creating a budget that is intentional and realistic, it is also important to monitor the budget during the year after it is approved.  The budget is only a useful tool if it is referred to throughout the year.  Comparing actual revenue or expenses to budget figures can help management and the board determine if they are ahead or behind schedule.  Monitoring will allow management to determine the need for a potential budget amendment, or identify any unexpected expenses or revenues.  This process will also assist management determine from an operational standpoint which programs are working well and where overspending may be occurring.

Next time your organization is sitting down to start the budgeting process, take a step back and look at the big picture.  Keep an open mind and focus on defining what the goals of the organization are for the year, and how these goals should impact your budget. And lastly, and most importantly, make it a point to review and adjust the budget during the year as needed.   If you need advice or have any questions please feel free to contact the Non-Profit Team at Ketel Thorstenson.

Hello. I am Jeff Yennie and I am a Manager on the KTLLP Non-Profit Team.

I am a Wyoming native and a Rapid City transplant, moving to the Black Hills after finishing college in 2011.  I grew up in Green River, WY and then attended the University of Wyoming earning my undergraduate and graduate degrees from the UW accounting program.  I’ve spent my public accounting career at Ketel Thorstenson working for clients in several different industries, but tend to focus more these days on cities and school district audits in the summer and fall and retail and manufacturing clients during the winter and spring with a few not-for-profit clients still mixed into my schedule throughout the year.  On a personal note, I have a broad range of hobbies that I enjoy, however fly fishing seems to be the one constant and continuous activity that I’ve participated in since I was a child. I grew up fishing the mountains of western Wyoming in the summer and still return each year to spend time fishing and hiking in the mountains.  I’ve spent the last few years getting accustomed to the smaller creeks of the Black Hills and have started to figure out the local brown trout (finally).

Music is another hobby of mine having grown up in a musical family (my dad was a music teacher).  Although I don’t play much music anymore and my guitars are collecting dust in the basement, I enjoy finding new music to listen to.  It usually works out that any new music I listen to is actually from older artists.  I have a reputation around the office for listening to the “old country” of past generations such as George Jones, Merle Haggard, Charley Pride, John Prine, Kris Kristofferson and many others.

Other favorite activities include playing cards (cribbage is a favorite and have recently started playing pinochle), yard games, trying different beers and grilling.  The best beer I’ve tried recently is Melvin IPA from Melvin Brewery out of Alpine, WY and my favorite meal to prepare on the grill is fish tacos.  Look for a future blog post with a fish taco recipe.

The new Uniform Guidance (UG) provides detail of the audit requirements in Subsection F, part 200.500.  The new audit requirements are not drastically different than the previous audit requirements; however there are some key elements that have changed and will have an impact on audits performed under the UG.  This article will highlight those changes that will be effective for audits with December 31, 2015 year ends.

The first key difference is that the audit threshold has increased to $750,000.  For entities that were previously required to have Single Audits under OMB Circular A-133 with federal expenditures between $500,000 and $750,000, compliance audits will no longer be applicable.  Only those organizations with federal expenditures in excess of $750,000 will be required to have a Single Audit under UG.

Under both A-133 and UG, the auditor is required to use a risk assessment process to determine which federal programs will be audited in detail (treated as a major program).  Under A-133, federal programs exceeding $300,000 of annual expenditures were required to be audited every third year and potentially more often depending on other risk factors.  This threshold is now $750,000 under UG (unless total federal expenditures exceed $25 million).  As a result, fewer programs may need to be audited under UG.

Another key difference as a result of the UG is the determination criteria related to qualifying as a low-risk auditee.  The UG adds the requirement that the auditor cannot have reported substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern in the prior two audit periods.  In the previous A-133 requirements, going concern issues would not have precluded an entity from being considered a low-risk auditee.  The other requirements to qualify as a low-risk auditee are essentially the same.

Whether an entity qualifies as a low-risk auditee determines how many federal programs are audited as a major program.  Previously, auditors were required to obtain coverage of 50 percent of total federal expenditures for a high-risk auditee, and 25 percent coverage if an entity qualified as a low-risk auditee.  Under the new UG, these percentages decrease to 40 percent and 20 percent audit coverage for high-risk and low-risk auditees, respectively.

The last change that auditees should be aware of is the reportable questioned costs threshold has increased.  Auditors were previously required to include questioned costs over $10,000.  This threshold has changed to $25,000.  The auditor is required to report known (specifically identified) questioned costs greater than $25,000.  Auditor’s must also report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000 for a compliance requirement of a program audited as a major program.

Additional detail of the audit requirements under the Uniform Guidance can be found at https://www.ecfr.gov and then selecting Title 2 – Grants and Agreements from the drop-down menu.  From there, select Chapter 2, and then Part 200.500 for the auditing requirements.  Please contact Traci Hanson, Shelley Goodrich, or Jeff Yennie if you have any questions.