Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016 ISSN: 2285 – 8067 Page 10 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d. DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND… [625186]

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 10 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
MANAGEMENT INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEMS IN PUBLIC
ENTITIES
Ioan MOLDOVAN,
Valentin-Florin CIOTEA,
Dimitrie Cantemir University of Târgu Mure ș, România

Abstract: Designing, implementing and developing a system of internal control /
management in public entities is aimed at improving performance and governance. The
purpose of managerial internal control standards im plementation is to provide public
entities with common points of contact and good pra ctices to ensure evolution towards a
modern and effective management.
Based on European Commission standards, which are b ased on COSO standards, were
adopted and approved for our country a total of 25 standards of internal / managerial
control, by Order 946/2005, and they were reduced t o 16 standards by 400 ORDER 12
June 2015, which constitute the reference against w hich it assesses / evaluates the
control systems, identify risk areas and possible c orrective measures. Implementation of
Internal Control Management supports public entity leader in efficient management of
activities to achieve the objectives of the public entity in an economic, efficient and
effective way and to prevent fraud and mistakes.
Community legislation in internal control consists largely of general principles of good
practice accepted internationally and in the Europe an Union. How these principles
translate into internal control systems it is count ry-specific conditions as determined by
legislative, administrative, cultural, etc.
In Romania implementation of internal control syste ms management is a difficult process,
started in 2005, with OMPF 946/2005 for approving t he Code of internal control /
management in public entities changed by Order 400/ 2015 and Order no. 200 of 12 April
2016 remains to be seen who will be the perspective of the public institutions, local
governments will declare their managerial implement ed internal control systems, ie
systems implemented in accordance with all 16 stand ards.
In order to enhance the implementation of the perfo rmance of the internal control
management in public entities is needed awareness o f leaders of public institutions, all
staff need to implement and continue the efforts, b oth at the level of public entities and the
General Secretariat of the Government, as the regul atory authority in the field.
Keywords: internal control management, monitoring committee, risk management team,
internal control management standard; procedures.

INTRODUCTION
A new amendment to the legislation on internal cont rol management took place in April 2016 as follows:
Secretary General of the Government Order No. 400/2 015 approving the Internal Control Code / manageria l

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 11 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

public entities, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 444 of 22 June 2015, is ame nded and
supplemented by Order no. 200/2016 on amending Orde r Secretary General of the Government no.
400/2015 approving the Internal Control Code / mana gerial public entities, entered into force on 12 Ap ril
2016. At the first analysis it seems that these cha nges are too frequent, but reducing the number of
standards from 25-16 standards required for institu tions in Romania, 16 years since any system of inte rnal
control as management is not implemented. In a firs t step on the implementation of the internal contro l
management system in public institutions were consi dered only the standard "procedures" and "Risk
Management". In many cases procedures were purchase d from consulting firms without an association
between the number of activities and procedures of the entity. Institutions also began to outsource th e
implementation of internal control systems manageri al practice that has not proven effective, these be ing the
conclusions reached by the institutions concerned.
Internal control management must be integrated in t he management of each structural component of the
public entity and enter into the care staff at all levels. Essentially, managerial internal control sy stem within
public entities means implementing standards in eac h of the 16 components of the organizational struct ure,
managerial internal control standards that define m inimum management rules that all public entities mu st
follow. Building a solid internal control system is a lengt hy process that requires significant efforts from t he
entire personnel of the entity and in particular from employees with management positions.
There is no "standard" system of internal control i n public because objectives and risks differ depend ing on
the entity. In this context, it is stated about int ernal control / management that:
/square4 it is integrated into the management system of eac h structural component of the public entity;;
/square4 enter into care of personnel at all levels;
/square4 provide reasonable assurance of achieving the obje ctives, starting with the individual and ending
with the general.

1. GENERAL ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF INTERNAL CONTROL

1.1. THE CONCEPT OF INTERNAL CONTROL
Internal control represents all policies and procedures designed an d implemented by the public entity
management and staff in order to provide reasonable assurance to achieve the objectives of the public entity
in an economic, efficient and effective way ;
According to Government Ordinance no. 119/1999, rep ublished, as amended and supplemented, internal
control / management is defined as all forms of con trol exercised at the level of the public entity, i ncluding
internal audit, established by management in accord ance with its objectives and legal regulations in o rder to
ensure management of public funds economically, eff iciently and effectively; it also includes organiza tional
structures, methods and procedures.
The overall objectives of internal control manageme nt are:
/boxshadowdwn achieve at an appropriate level of quality, the du ties of public institutions, established in accorda nce
with their own mission in terms of regularity, effi ciency, economy and efficiency;
/boxshadowdwn protect public funds against losses due to error, waste, abuse or fraud;
/boxshadowdwn compliance with the law, regulations and managemen t decisions;
/boxshadowdwn the development and maintenance of systems for col lecting, storing, processing, updating and
dissemination of data and financial information and management as well as systems and procedures
adequate for public information through periodical reports.

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 12 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

/boxshadowdwn providing a collaborative attitude of its manageme nt and execution, one has the obligation to
respond at any time to support requests from manage ment and effective internal control /
management;
/boxshadowdwn ensure the integrity and competence of management and executive staff, knowledge and
understanding of the importance and role of this in ternal control / management;
/boxshadowdwn continuous oversight by senior management of all a ctivities and performance by senior staff of the
obligation to act fairly, promptly and responsibly whenever breaches of legality and regularity in the
performance of operations or carrying out uneconomi cal, inefficient or ineffective activities;[1]

1.2. LEGISLATIVE NEWS ON INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM MA NAGEMENT
Community legislation in internal control consists largely of general principles of good practice acce pted
internationally and in the European Union. I will p resent further legislative developments in Romania
regarding the internal control management. Minister of Finance no. 946/2005) approving the Internal Co ntrol
Code / managerial, with the necessary modifications , act modifier, Minister of Public Finance Order no .
1423/2012.
Order of Public Finance Minister no. 946/2005 appro ving the Code of internal control / management,
including internal control standards / managerial p ublic entities and internal control systems develop ment /
management, is repealed by Order no. 400/2015 approving the Internal Control Code / managerial public
entities.
SGG issue: Order no. 200/2016 amending and supplementing Government Secretary Ge neral of the Order
nr.400 / 2015 for approval of the Code of internal control / management of public entities, Order no.
200/2016 entered into force on 12 April 2016. Note that the Order 946/2005 was issued by the Finance
Ministry and the Order 400/2015 and 200/2016 Order was issued by the General Secretariat of the
Government.
If the takeover by the Government's General Secreta riat will contribute to a better design, implementa tion
and further development of the internal control sys tem in public entities in Romania, then this acquis ition is
justified.
As a novelty attached to Order no. 200/2016 are met hodological norms regarding coordination,
methodological guidance and supervision of the impl ementation stage of the internal control system
development and management of public entities from 02.26.2016, effective from 12.04.2016. Another
important change contained in the order 200/2016 re fers to risk management where are more explicit the
ways of organization. Such an explanation was requi red taking into account the practical importance of risk
management in public entities.
We believe that should not be changed so often legi slation on implementing the internal control system
management in public entities in Romania and develo pment of methodology "on coordination,
methodological guidance and supervision of the impl ementation status and development of internal contr ol
management in public entities, attribution of Direc torate for Inter-Institutional relations and Intern al Control
Managerial (DCIMRI) will benefit public institution s. Such internal control management system can be
assessed by public internal audit of public entitie s, the Court of Auditors Chambers County and Intern al
Control Department Managerial institutional relatio ns (DCIMRI) General Secretariat of the Romanian
Government. In art. 7 of Order 200/2016 states:
(1) he General Secretariat of the Government, throu gh the Department of internal control management an d
inter-institutional relations (DCIMRI), develops an d implements the policy of internal control managem ent,
coordinates and supervises the verification and met hodological guidance development and implementation
of internal control systems management of public en tities.

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 13 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

(2) For the tasks provided in para. (1), DCIMRI car ried out verification missions and methodological g uidance
to public bodies in the exercise of the function of chief credit of the state budget, the budget of so cial
insurance or budget of any special fund based on an nual activity plan of direction.
1.3. THE NEED FOR IMPLEMENTING THE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Necessity and internal control mandatory for public entities are regulated by Government Ordinance no.
119/1999 on internal control / management and preve ntive financial control, republished, as amended an d
supplemented.
According to Order 200/2016, the leader of each public entity has , taking into account the particularities of
the legal organization and operation and management of internal control standards, the control measures
required for the design, implementation and develop ment of internal control management, including upda ting
risk registers and procedures formalized on process es or activities that may be operational or of syst em
procedures, to achieve the objectives of the public entity in an economic, efficient and effective way and to
prevent fraud and mistakes.
We mentione below some issues regarding the need to implement internal control management system in
public entities:
– achieving the objectives of the public entity in a n economic, efficient and effective manner ;
– compliance with external rules, policies and manag ement rules; protection of assets and information;
– prevention and detection of fraud and errors; qual ity accounting documents and timely production of
reliable information on financial and management se gment;
– by implementing internal control standards manager ial it creates an uniform and coherent model of
managerial internal control;
– by implementing risk management establishes a meth odology aimed at providing a comprehensive
risk control, allowing you to maintain an acceptabl e level of exposure for the public entity, with
minimal costs;
– "Risk register" is a document certifying that with in the public entity is a system of risk management
and that it works;
– realization of operational and of system procedure s facilitates the normal activities as quickly, fai rly
and effectively as possible;
– by making the procedures are performed benefits fo r the entity and for management and employees.

1.4. PURPOSE AND DEFINITION OF INTERNAL CONTROL STA NDARDS OF MANAGEMENT
Managerial internal control standards define minimum management rules that all public en tities must
follow. Standards also constitute a reference syste m relative to assessing internal control systems
management, identify areas and directions of change . Control Standards aim is to create a model of uni form
and coherent internal control management, enabling comparisons between entities of the same kind or th e
same entity at different times, and make it possibl e to highlight the results of the entity and its ev olution.[2]
The standards are grouped under the five key elemen ts of internal control management:
Control Environment
Standard 1 – ETHICS, INTEGRITY
Standard 2 – ATTRIBUTIONS, FUNCTIONS, TASKS

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 14 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

Standard 3 – COMPETENCE, PERFORMANCE
Standard 4 – ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Performance and risk management
Standard 5 – OBJECTIVES
Standard 6 – PLANNING
Standard 7 – PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Standard 8 – RISK MANAGEMENT
Control activities
Standard 9 – PROCEDURES
Standard 10 – SURVEILLANCE
Standard 11 – BUSINESS CONTINUITY
Information and communication
Standard 12 – INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
Standard 13 – DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT
Standard 14 – ACCOUNTING AND FONANCIAL REPORTING
Evaluation and Audit
Standard 15 – ASSESSMENT OF INTERNAL CONTROLL MANAG EMENT
Standard 16 – INTERNAL AUDIT
1.5. ESTABLISHMENT OF A MONITORING COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNAL CONTROL
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
According to Order no. 200/2016 amending and supple menting Government Order No general secretary.
400/2015 approving the Internal Control Code / mana gerial public entities, "Art. 3. – (1) states: the
monitoring, coordination and methodological guidanc e to the implementation and development of internal
control management system, the head of the public e ntity constitutes, by an internal decision, a struc ture
with the necessary powers, called Monitoring Committee. The Monitoring Committee is made up of chiefs of
the organizational structure and is coordinated by a president, a person with management function.
Chairman of the committee shall appoint a secretary of the commission, ‘key’ person for the implementa tion,
development and management of internal control self -assessment. The Monitoring Committee operates
under a Regulation of organization and operation, i ncluding the powers of the chairman, secretary and
committee members.
Powers of the Monitoring Committee:
• Coordinates the process of updating the objectives and activities of attaching or outcome
performance indicators for their evaluation.
• Analyze and prioritize significant risks that may affect the overall goals of the operation of the pu blic
entity, by setting risk tolerance limits annually a pproved by management of the entity, which are
mandatory for all departments and submitted for app lication.
• Examines and approves formalized procedures for ap proval and send them to the manager of the
public entity.

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 15 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

• Analyzes, for approval, the monitoring performance information on the entity level, drafted by the
secretary of monitoring, annual reports based on an nual performance monitoring, from the
compartments.
• Analyzes for approval, information on conducting r isk management process developed by the risk
management team, based on annual reports from the d epartments.
• Developes the internal control management system p rogram called Development Program.
• Prepares the summary under Annexes 1-4 of the Orde r 200/2016.
• Powers of committee members are passed in the job description.
The organization of the commission depends on the o rganizational structure of a public institution. If the
organizational structure is very large committee me mbers are heads of services, offices, directorates, for it
functionality, effectiveness.[3]

1.6. CONSTITUTION OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT TEAM AND D RAWING OF RISKS
RECORDS
The aim of practical application of risk management process within the entity or a department involves taking
the necessary measures to bring the risks associate d TO objectives / activities to an acceptable level
Risk tolerance is the amount of risk that an organi zation is prepared to tolerate, or put another way, that is
willing to be exposed at a time.
Capping risk tolerance is a major act of managerial accountability, because through it is determined t he
exposure to risk.
The head of the public entity shall establish and i mplement a risk management process that facilitates
efficient and effective achievement of its objectiv es.
According to Standard 8 – Risk management , head of the public entity has an obligation to cr eate and
maintain an effective risk management, mainly by:
a) identify risks in close connection with the activit ies of the specific objectives whose achievement
could be affected by risks materialize; identifying threats / vulnerabilities present within the curre nt activities
of the entity that could lead to committing acts of corruption and fraud;
b) risk assessment by measuring the probability of occ urrence and impact on activities of the
objectives if they materialize; ranking and priorit izing risks based on risk tolerance, approved by th e
management entity;
c) establishing the strategy of risk management by ide ntifying the most appropriate ways to deal with
risks, so as to be within the risk tolerance approv ed by the management entity and ensure delegating
responsibility for their management to the most app ropriate decision-making levels;
d) monitoring the implementation of control measures a nd their effectiveness;
e) review and periodic reporting of risk situation.
To manage the risks to the public entity, its leade r is, by an internal decision, a structure with the necessary
powers called risk management team .

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 16 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

Risk Management team includes the heads of departments or their substit utes, the organizational structure,
updated whenever appropriate and coordinated by the Chair person holding managerial position and he /
she must be different from the person who coordinat es the Monitoring Committee.[4]
Measures for a better risk management in the public entity:
/head2right Designation by heads of departments of a person responsible with risks.
/head2right Their professional training on risk management, to develop risk registers for each compartment.
/head2right The issue of an internal decision by the head enti ty that establishes the risk management team.
/head2right Risk Management team includes the heads of departments or their substit utes, the organizational
structure, updated whenever appropriate and coordin ated by the Chair person holding managerial
position and he / she must be different from the person who coordinates the Monitoring Committee.
/head2right Risk Management Team Secretary and his deputy are appointed officers of risks to the
compartments.
Responsibilities within the risk management team :
President of Risk Management Team:
/square4 issues agenda of team meetings,
/square4 manages meetings and the preparation of minutes of meetings, which include debates on risks and
control measures established sent to departments fo r implementation.
Secretary of Risk Management Team:
/square4 developes risk register at entity level, by centra lizing risk registers from the compartments, and
updates it annually.
/square4 elaborates, based on annual reports on the trials risk management at the level of departments, but
also on the implementation of plan of control measu res drawn up by the secretary of defense, an
information that is discussed and analyzed to be su bmitted for approval to the Commission of
monitoring.
Officers in charge with the risks in compartments of the public entity collects:
/head2right risks related activities determined by job descrip tions,
/head2right risk strategy,
/head2right revised risks and control measures being implement ed, established under the Risk Management
Team meetings from staff within each department.
To update the risks to the compartments, based on t he forms ‘alert to risk’, they are analyzed and dis cussed
in team meetings of the risk management team, estab lishing also the control measures needed to be tak en,
which are transmitted to compartments based on the protocols drawn up by the Secretary risk management
Team
The control measures set out in the Risk Management Team meetings, sent to departments for
implementation, are centralized at the entity level by the Secretary of the team, in a plan for implem enting
control measures in order to monitor their implemen tation.

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 17 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

Control measures are required in order to manage significant risks in every comp artment and are to be
implemented by the advice of the internal audit dep artment and operate until a new analysis and their annual
review.
Leaders of the compartments ensures the organizatio nal and procedural implementation by those
responsible of the control measures established in the meetings of the risk management team and is
pursuing based on a situation of implementation of control measures by responsible with risk from the
compartments.
Leaders of the compartments ensure:
/head2right drafting reports on the trials of risk management, which comprise the total managed risks to the
compartments, and
/head2right the number of risks treated and also unresolved un til the end of the year,
/head2right control measures implemented or under implementati on and possible revision of the risk
assessment, compliance with risk tolerance limits a pproved by the manager of the public entity,
which are transmitted to the Risk Management Team Secretary.
The Responsibility of the President Risk Management Team President's
• The organization and operation of the risk manageme nt team is established by the organization of
public entity, on the basis of the team’s regulatio ns, but also by the volume and complexity of the
risks of the public entity.[3]
2. DEVELOPING OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES OF WORK (PO) A CTIVITIES FOR
UNITY
To achieve the objectives of the public entity must ensure a balance between tasks, powers (conferred by
delegating decision-making authority) and responsib ility (obligation to achieve goals) and to define
procedures.
A procedure can be defined as: all the logical step s to follow, working methods and rules applied to p erform
the activities and actions that control activities implemented, responsibilities and powers of the man agement
and execution of the public entity.
Define an activity : all the powers of a certain nature that determine work processes with a high degree of
uniformity and similarity; knowledge needed for the activity is are limited areas, used staff training can have
such a sensitive unit; activity includes tasks incu mbent to homogeneous compartments within public ent ity.
Defining an procedural activity : all the powers of a certain nature that determine work processes with a
degree of complexity and high homogeneity, which ma y establish rules and working methods generally
available to fulfill the conditions of regularity, efficiency, economy and efficiency in order to achi eve the
targets in every compartment / public entity.
Defining procedures
Operational procedure – a procedure that describes an activity or a proc ess which occurs in one or more
compartments of a public entity.
System procedure – a procedure that describes an activity or a proc ess which occurs in all departments /
structures of a public entity.
In order to become effective tools of internal cont rol, procedures must>:
/boxshadowdwn cover all major processes and activities;
/boxshadowdwn ensure a proper separation of functions of initiati on, verification and approval of operations;

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 18 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

/boxshadowdwn be specified in written documents;
/boxshadowdwn be simple, complete, accurate and tailored to activ ity procedures;
/boxshadowdwn be constantly updated;
/boxshadowdwn be made known to the staff involved.
It is important to note that : a procedure is not an element of excessive bureau cracy, but, contrary to this
claim, it is a tool that facilitates the normal act ivities as quickly, fairly and effectively as possi ble .
The advantages of having procedures within public e ntities
Advantages for the public entity:
• Increasing the efficiency of the entity.
• Adopting the best practices for performing activit ies.
• Reduces the risk of error.
Advantages for management:
• Facilitate employee evaluation.
• Provide training activities for employees.
• Ensures business continuity in the event of staff turnover.
• Represent evidence to third parties on the organiz ation of fair activities;
Advantages for employees:
• Allow employees to know their responsibilities and role in the public entity.
• Represent evidence in front of the management abou t the proper performance management of
tasks.
• Represent evidence to third parties on the proper performance of duties. Application of good faith
and fair procedure helps to demonstrate that the em ployee can not be guilty of some incorrect
operation.
It can be said that such a procedure is not an element of excessive bureaucracy, but, c ontrary to this claim, it
is a tool that facilitates the normal activities as quickly, fairly and effectively as possible. Forma lized
procedures designed and implemented by the staff of the public entity must ensure a separation of init iation
and verification functions, duties and responsibili ties so that approval, execution and control of ope rations to
be entrusted to different people. In this way, it reduces the risk of error, fraud, infringement and the risk of not
detecting these problems.
Leaders of public entities that, because of the sma ll number of employees, limit the scope of applicat ion of
the separation of powers and responsibilities must be aware by the risk of aggregation of duties and
responsibilities and to compensate for this limitat ion with additional control implemented on flow of processes
and activities.[5] The procedures are usually devel oped by the holder of the procedure activity.
Formalized procedures are signed as it follows:
• the preparation by the responsibles of activities,
• verification by the head of the department,
• endorsement by the chairman of the monitoring commi ttee, and

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 19 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

• is approved by the head of the public entity.[3]
Develop procedures represent only a small part of t he whole process of design, implementation and
development of their internal control management sy stem. Written operating procedures can not be
elaborated by another entity, even superior, becaus e:
/square4 must be tailored to each institution ,
/square4 should refer directly and immediately to its funct ional structure and personnel structure ,
/square4 must customize service tasks and activities of eac h employee / post within the structural
departments ,
/square4 must ensure separation of duties and, also, to be the vision and the expression of manager.
Also, the procedures can not be elaborated by the M onitoring Committee for two reasons:
/head2right firstly, procedures (internal control and all step s) must be performed by employees of the functional
departments, who know best their activities and the their specific ,
/head2right and secondly, C.M. has a role just in monitoring, methodological guidance and coordination in
internal control management .
The fact that the legislature issue such regulation s, methodologies, regulations, etc., creates just t he general,
legal framework of the organization and conduct reg ulated activities.
Basically, the role of all the steps to implement and enforce the standards of internal control /
management – including the development and use of o perational procedures written – is to translate at the
level of institution, to customize at the level of department what legal rules are governing with gene ral title [6] .

3. SELF-EVALUATION OF THE MANAGEMENT'S INTERNAL CON TROL SYSTEMS

3.1. ASSESSMENT OF THE INTERNAL CONTROL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM – 15 STANDARD
In order amending Order 200/2016 on the Secretary G eneral of the Government no. 400/2015 approving the
Internal Control Code / managerial public entities, self evaluation of managerial system of internal co ntrol is
defined as a process in which internal control effe ctiveness is examined and assessed in order to prov ide
reasonable assurance that all public entity's objec tives will be achieved.
Also in the same order we find the definition for evaluation – is a management function which consists in
comparing the results with the objectives, the caus al detect of the main deviations (positive and nega tive) in
order to take corrective or preventive measures.
In describing the standard, evaluation of internal control management (Standard 15) is stated:
– The head of the public entity establishes an evalu ation function of internal control management,
developing with this scope, policies, plans and pro grams.
– The head of the public entity shall, annually, by assuming managerial responsibility, write a report on
its own internal control management system.
Some of the standard’s requirement:
– The head of the public entity shall review and ass ess continuously functioning of internal control
management system and its components, to identify w eaknesses in time / internal control
deficiencies and take corrective action / remove th em in time.

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 20 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

– Conducting public entity will carry out at least o nce a year, based on a plan / program evaluation an d
appropriate documentation, verification and self-as sessment of its system of internal control
management to determine its compliance with the sta ndards of internal control management.
– The head of the public entity take promptly and ap propriate measures to remedy deficiencies /
weaknesses identified in the self-assessment of int ernal control management system.
– The head of the public entity shall draw up an ann ual report on the internal control system
management as a basis for an action plan containing the vulnerable areas identified, control tools
need to be implemented, measures and courses of act ion to increase the capacity of the internal
control management for the achievement of entity’s objectives.[7]
3.2. METHODOLOGY OF SELF-ASSESSMENT OF INTERNAL CON TROL SYSTEM
As a methodology for self-assessment of its own sys tem of internal control management is used a proced ure
that runs all departments in the entity.
This system procedure assures entity’s management on:
• conduct appropriate and timely assessment of the a ctivity of internal control / management and the
existence of appropriate documentation regarding th e development of this activity;
• ensures business continuity, including in terms of staff turnover, for the performance on the
assessment of internal control / management in the public entity.
• support the audit and the actions of other bodies authorized to audit and / or control, and the entit y’s
manager in making decisions on the results of the a ssessment of internal control / management.
Under section. 15.2.2. of the General Requirements of Standard no. 15 – Evaluation of internal control /
management of the Code of internal control / manage ment of public entities, management of public entit y will
carry out at least once a year, based on a plan / p rogram evaluation and appropriate documentation,
verification and self-assessment of its own system of internal control management to determine the
compliance of the internal control management stand ards
The main activities that depend on self-evaluation of the system of internal control / management are:
• establishment of measures to remedy the deficienci es of internal control / management;
• system development program update of internal cont rol / management of the entity;
• preparing the annual report on internal control sy stem / managerial for the entity.
Thus, the procedure shall be applied by all departm ents entity which must carry out the duties for car rying
out the self-assessment of internal control system / managerial progress according to the way establis hed by
the Monitoring Committee .
Article 8 (2) states: Status of implementation and development of internal control systems at the mana gerial
level public entities and special situations, estab lished by the Monitoring Committee, subject to repo rting,
centralizing situations by drawing semester / yearl y, according to the model in the Annex. 3 – The agg regate
on the implementation of the internal control syste m development and management, which are transmitted to
the superior public entities, at the time limits pr ovided. (4)
At paragraph (3), the same article states: Evaluati on of the implementation stage and internal control
management system development is done in all depart ments of the organizational structure of the public
entity, including those subordinated or which are u nder their coordination.

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 21 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

Paragraph (4) of the same Article 8 states: The pub lic institutions in which is exercised the position of chief
credit of the state budget, the budget of state soc ial insurance or budget of any special fund, transm itt to
DCIMRI, the Secretariat General of the Government, half-yearly summary statements referred to in para. (2)
until the 25th of the month following each quarter ended and annual summary statements, by 20 February of
the following year for the previous year.”
Very important statement of the purpose of internal control self-assessment of its system of managemen t is
in "Art. 81: (1) The head of each public entity sha ll annually report on the internal control system
management on December 31, 20 .., based on art. 4 p ara. (3) of the Government Ordinance no. 119/1999
on internal control / management and preventive fin ancial control, republished, as amended and
supplemented, the model shown in Annex. 4 Order – I nstructions for the preparation, approval and
submission of the report on internal control manage ment system, which takes the superior body to the l imits
set by it, in the time limits provided. (2).
We present further the document with their origin, contents and their role on self-assessment of its o wn
system of internal control management:
− The aggregate semester on the implementation and de velopment of internal control /
management on … – Chap.I (acc. Model in Annex no. 3 Notes ):
/square4 Provenance : prepared by designee of the Monitoring Committee ;
/square4 Content : indicators on the system of internal control / ma nagement of the Entity and the
entities under the subordination / coordination the reof;
/square4 Role : present status of implementation and development of internal control / management at
the Entity and special situations, found in the actions of mo nitoring, coordination and
methodological guidance;
− The aggregate yearly on the implementation and deve lopment of internal control /
management on … – Chapter II (acc. Model in Annex no. 3 Notes ):
/square4 Provenance : prepared by designee of the Monitoring Committee ;
/square4 Content : indicators on the system of internal control / ma nagement of the Entity and the
entities under the subordination / coordination the reof;
/square4 Role : present status of implementation of internal cont rol standards / managerial, according to
results of self-assessment;
− Self-assessment questionnaire on the stage of imple mentation of internal control
standards / managerial (as illustrated in Appendix. 4.1 Notes ):
/square4 Provenance : elaborated by the heads of departments from the o rganizational chart;
/square4 Content : general criteria for assessing the state of imple mentation of internal control standards
/ managerial;
/square4 Role : resent status of implementation of internal contr ol standards / management within the
department;
− Summary situation of the results of self-evaluation (as illustrated in Appendix. 4.2 Notes ):
/square4 Provenance : elaborated by designee of the Monitoring Committee ;
/square4 Content : state of implementation of standards for each dep artment and at Entity level;

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 22 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

/square4 Role : establish the degree of compliance of the interna l control system / managerial
standards;
− Report on Internal Control System / management at D ecember 31 _ 20_ (as illustrated in
Appendix. 4.3 Notes ):
/square4 Provenance : elaborated by designee of the Monitoring Committee ;
/square4 Content : Entity manager's statements on internal control / managem ent of the entity, existing
at the balance sheet date;
/square4 Role : official form of ownership by the head of the pub lic entity management on internal
control / management;
CONCLUSION

Implementation of Internal Control Management must become a necessity of urgency within public
entities in Romania;
A first step is awareness of all employees, especi ally those responsible for the management on the
need to implement internal control management syste m;
The establishment of two committees, the Commissio n for Monitoring and Risk Management team in
the entity, by decision of the manager;
Inventory of all activities within the functional departments in the organizational chart for drawing up
the Book of risks across all departments and at ent ity level;
Establishing risk management measures identified a nd assessed at the level of activities within each
compartment of the entity;
Inventory of all procedural activities and prepara tion of operational and of system procedures;
Establishing a system of monitoring their activities from the s tructure of objectives, based on annual
reports in order to monitor performance indicators within every department;
Implementing the program of staff training for dev eloping and implementing the internal control
management system within the public entity;
Achieving Development program of internal control / managemen t with deadlines and
responsibilities;
Public entity manager must take the most appropria te and prompt action to remedy deficiencies /
weaknesses identified in the self-assessment of int ernal control management system.
Identify and inventory functions with high risk fo r corruption and fraud by developing inventory of
sensitive positions;
Establish a system for monitoring and performance reporting based on indicators associated with
specific objectives / activities of each department ;
Introduction of controls sufficient and appropriat e oversight to activities that involve a high degre e of
exposure;

Academica Science Journal
Economica Series No. 1 (7) – 2016
ISSN: 2285 – 8067

Page 23 Copyright  2016 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserve d.

Establish the most appropriate communication chann els through which managers and senior
executives within a compartment to be informed of d raft decisions or initiatives adopted in other
compartments that could affect their tasks and resp onsibilities;
Operation of the system of internal control self-a ssessment / management is completed by
preparing, by the head entity, the annual report on internal control system / managerial;
Building a solid internal control system is a lengt hy process that requires significant efforts from t he
entire personnel of the entity and in particular from employees with management positions.
AUTHORS
– Ioan MOLDOVAN is lecturer at Dimitrie Cantemir University, Bodon i Sandor 3-5, Tîrgu Mure ș, Mure ș,
România.
– Valentin-Florin CIOTEA is Associate professor at Dimitrie Cantemir Univer sity, Bodoni Sandor 3-5, Tîrgu
Mure ș, Mure ș, România.

REFERENCES
1. Ordonan ță Nr. 119 din 31 august 1999 / Republicat ă privind controlul intern/managerial și controlul
financiar preventiv;
2. Ordinul nr. 200/2016 – modificarea și completarea Ordinului secretarului general al Guv ernului nr.
400/2015 pentru aprobarea Codului controlului inter n/managerial al entit ăților publice, Anexa 1, Codul
Controlului Intern Managerial al entit ă/uni021Bilor publice , art 2.1; art 2.2;
3. Ioan Moldovan , Implementarea sistemului de control intern manageri al în entit ă/uni021Bile publice – Suport de
curs – Universitatea Dimitrie Cantemir din Tirgu Mu res ;
4. Ordinul nr. 200/2016 – modificarea și completarea Ordinului secretarului general al Guv ernului nr.
400/2015 pentru aprobarea Codului controlului inter n/managerial al entit ăților publice, Anexa 1, Codul
Controlului Intern Managerial al entit ă/uni021Bilor publice , art 8.2.3;
5. Ordinul nr. 200/2016 – modificarea și completarea Ordinului secretarului general al Guv ernului nr.
400/2015 pentru aprobarea Codului controlului inter n/managerial al entit ăților publice, Anexa 1, Codul
Controlului Intern Managerial al entit ă/uni021Bilor publice , art 9.2.6;
6. Ghid de implementare a sistemului de control man agerial în Ministerul Educa /uni021Biei, Cercet ării Știin /uni021Bifice și în
institu /uni021Biile și unit ă/uni021Bile care func /uni021Bioneaz ă în subordine acestora, pag 15-16;
7. Ordinul nr. 200/2016 – modificarea și completarea Ordinului secretarului general al Guv ernului nr.
400/2015 pentru aprobarea Codului controlului inter n/managerial al entit ăților publice, Anexa 1, Codul
Controlului Intern Managerial al entit ă/uni021Bilor publice , art 15.1-15.3.