Monthly payroll, allocation of staff costs between donors and control of advances

Details: E1: 220,000 + 12 × 1,500 = 238,000. E2: absence deduction 660,000 / 22 × 2 = 60,000, gross 660,000 + 66,000 - 60,000 = 666,000; tax = 10% × 300,000 + 20% × 313,028 = 30,000 + 62,606 = 92,606. E5: contribution capped at 4.2% × 750,000 = 31,500; tax = 30,000 + 20% × 853,500 = 200,700. Net E1 = 238,000 + 20,000 - 9,996 - 20,300 - 50,000 = 177,704; net E4 = 154,000 + 20,000 - 6,468 - 12,253 - 30,000 = 125,279.

Check of advance deductions: E1, net before deduction 227,704, one third = 75,901; E4, 155,279, one third = 51,760: the deductions of 50,000 and 30,000 are within the limit.

Charging E2 100% to A would make A bear XAF 229,776 of time spent on B (A: 1,758,784 instead of 1,529,008; B: 800,384 instead of 1,030,160). This charging does not reflect reality: donor A would pay for an expense that is not its own (possible double funding if B also funds it one day), which is disallowed at audit and constitutes misconduct.

Reply: I charge according to the signed timesheet (70 / 30). For the overspend on B, we need to: inform the grants manager, request a reallocation or amendment from donor B, or temporarily charge the excess to own funds. If E2 works 30% on B on a lasting basis, the budget key is corrected. I reply in writing and copy the finance manager.

• AV-21 (E1): 50,000 not accounted for, deducted in October with written consent: compliant; the advance is cleared after the payroll.
• AV-25 (E4): 30,000, less than one third of net pay (51,760), deducted in October: compliant and cleared.
• AV-27 (E3): 200,000 with no supporting documents since 02/09, i.e. almost two months: non-compliant. Written request for justification within 5 days (invoices, supplies received into stock).
• AV-29 (E5): 400,000 approved by E5 themself (self-approval is forbidden); return on 16/10, accounting due by 26/10 at the latest: overdue. Report to the country finance manager, have it validated retrospectively by E5's line manager and require the supporting documents.
• AV-30 (E3): second advance while AV-27 is still open (only one advance allowed) and recorded by the recipient herself (no segregation of duties). The amount (150,000) is within one third of net pay (153,220), but the advance should not have been granted.
• AV-31 (E2): return on 30/10, accounting deadline 09/11: compliant to date.

Open advances after the October payroll: 200,000 + 400,000 + 150,000 + 120,000 = XAF 870,000.

Plan for E3 (350,000 if AV-27 is not accounted for): with her written consent, deduction limited to one third of net pay, i.e. 459,659 / 3 = 153,220 per month: November 153,220, December 153,220, January 43,560. If E3 refuses or if the documents reveal fraud, the case goes to the finance manager and human resources (disciplinary procedure). Immediate measure: remove E3's ability to record her own advances.

Checks: (1) reconciliation of the payroll list with the human resources staff register (no ghost employees, no forgotten leavers); (2) timesheets and absence records signed by the supervisor; (3) review of changes compared with the previous month (overtime, allowances, new staff); (4) dual signature: preparation by payroll, verification by another person, approval by the authorised manager; (5) agreement between the bank transfer or mobile payment file and net pay, with verification of any changed bank details.

I refuse: changing a signed timesheet to fit the budget is falsification of a document and fraud against donor A, whatever the intention. I explain this calmly to the coordinator and propose legitimate solutions (reallocation on B, own funds, revision of the key). I confirm my position in writing and inform the country finance manager. If the pressure continues, I use the organisation's reporting mechanism (whistleblowing policy), which protects against retaliation.