Speaking as someone who has had to manage and audit accounting office practices (e.g., when I was acting in the role of Chief Accountant or Auditor) some years back, this opening post literally made my hair curl.
From memory, SAP (Standard Accounting Practice) for secure handling of cheques
used to include rules about security and processing of MICR pre-printed computer-stationery blank cheques. Printing of these cheques was to be done in a secure area and in tightly-controlled batches (even the one-off ones), and were to use a printer that was dedicated to the task of cheque printing and inaccessible to anyone not involved in the production process, whilst cheque printing was in progress.
This would be an audit requirement also.So the notion of using a network shared printer in an open office area probably wouldn't cut it.
The main purpose in this was prudent financial security, but in today's privacy-conscious times, there would be the added
legal obligation to ensure confidentiality.
This would be an audit requirement also.So, again, the notion of using a network shared printer in an open office area probably wouldn't cut it.
The Chief Accountant or someone with formally delegated management responsibility was to supervise cheque-printing and control processes and be accountable for operation of same - including sign-off on the day's batch controls. These controls recorded the cheque
numbers used - and spoiled - and the payee and amounts actually printed, and had the actual spoiled cheques attached for verification.
This would be an audit requirement also.Sometimes, rules and procedures might further stipulate that this batch control
must take place
before the cheques left the print area for envelope stuffing and being mailed out.
This would then become an audit requirement also.The OP seems to describe a cheque-printing process where it could be well-nigh impossible for the Chief Accountant, or someone with formally delegated management responsibility, to supervise cheque-printing and control processes, and be accountable for operation of same - including sign-off on the day's batch controls. The responsibility would seem to rest by default on "the girl who prints the checks".
Then there's this:I would like for there to be a way for everyone in their separate office, to be able to see whether she is at her desk or not, as she can't very well print checks otherwise. 
. Would like to have a little icon in the notification tray that turns green when she's gone, red when she's there.
It would probably be obvious now, therefore, that, given the above and from a financial security and confidentiality perspective,
the last thing in the world you would want to enable is for "everyone ... to see whether she is at her desk or not".
Thus, having "a little icon in the notification tray that turns green when she's gone, red when she's there." would not be such a good idea - which is putting it mildly.
Thus, from the perspective of ensuring continuing job security, I wouldn't recommend it, though, on the other hand, from the perspective of better enabling a potential fraud, it could be a useful idea.
It might be useful if these points were raised with management as potential areas of concern,
before implementing the little notification icon idea.
Just a thought.
