| Overall Rating | Silver - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 57.66 |
| Liaison | Michael Kensler |
| Submission Date | Jan. 23, 2019 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Auburn University
IN-18: Pre-Submission Review
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.50 / 0.50 |
Amy
Strickland Program Manager Office of Sustainability |
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
Ashley Hamberlin, Internal Auditor, Office of Audit, Compliance, & Privacy, Auburn University;
Stacey Walker, Director of Internal Auditing, Office of Audit, Compliance, & Privacy, Auburn University;
Michael Kensler, Director of Sustainability, Office of Sustainability, Auburn University;
Jennifer Morse, Communications Manager, Office of Sustainability, Auburn University;
Amy Strickland, Program Manager, Office of Sustainability, Auburn University;
Nanette Chadwick, Director of Academic Sustainability Programs, Auburn University
A brief description of the review process:
Primary data collection and entry was completed by staff from the Office of Sustainability and the Academic Sustainability Programs. Once each credit had all data entered, it was reviewed by staff from Auburn University's Office of Audit, Compliance, & Privacy (OACP) using the STARS provided review template. If no data errors, discrepancies, or needs for clarification were identified, then the OACP staff considered the credit ok to be marked complete in the STARS system. If OACP identified a need for a correction/clarification, they informed the Office of Sustainability staff, who then either directly addressed the issue or contacted original data providers (when needed) to gain clarification or corrections. Once the data was revised, OACP was notified it was ready for the second review. This back-and-forth process continued until all auditing concerns had been adequately addressed.
Which of the following describes the review process?:
Affirmation from the reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template:
Affirmation from an additional reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template for the 2nd reviewer:
Affirmation from a 3rd reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template for the 3rd reviewer:
Affirmation from a 4th reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template for the 4th reviewer:
The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.