| Overall Rating | Gold |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 69.72 |
| Liaison | Roxane Beigel-Coryell |
| Submission Date | March 3, 2023 |
California State University, Channel Islands
PA-4: Reporting Assurance
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 1.00 |
Roxane
Beigel-Coryell Sustainability & Energy Manager Facilities Services |
Has the institution completed an assurance process that provides independent affirmation that the information in its current STARS report is reported in accordance with credit criteria?:
Did the assurance process include internal review, an external audit, or both?:
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
CSUCI partnered with Cal Poly Humboldt to complete an external audit of our STARS report.
The Cal Poly Humboldt review team included:
Katie Koscielak, Sustainability Analyst
Morgan King, Climate Action Analyst
Andrea Alstone, Energy Manager
Emily Read, graduate student assistant
Amber Chung, undergraduate student assistant
A brief description of the institution’s assurance process:
The Cal Poly Humboldt review team used the STARS 2.2 Review Template to complete the external audit of this STARS report. The team reviewed reporting fields, attachments, inventories, and URLs for consistency and gave their best attempt to confirm and check accuracy of included information. They submitted feedback for which credits should undergo revision and/or improvement, having identified any typos, broken web links, outliers, duplications, or areas that did not appear to meet their interpretation of STARS criteria.
Following their first review, they sent comments via the STARS 2.2 Review Template spreadsheet (attached). CSUCI personnel then responded to the first round of feedback, mitigating many of the concerns and making several updates to the report to better meet credit criteria or intention. Cal Poly Humboldt's team then completed a second review of the changed information to determine whether and how inconsistencies were addressed.
Affirmation from the reviewer(s) that the report has been reviewed in full and that all identified inconsistencies and errors have been successfully addressed prior to submitting it to AASHE:
Completed STARS Review Template:
Affirmation from the reviewer(s) that the report has been reviewed in full and that all identified inconsistencies and errors have been successfully addressed prior to submitting it to AASHE (2nd review):
Completed STARS Review Template (2nd review):
Affirmation from the reviewer(s) that the report has been reviewed in full and that all identified inconsistencies and errors have been successfully addressed prior to submitting it to AASHE (3rd review):
Copy of completed STARS Review Template (3rd review):
Website URL where information about the institution’s reporting assurance 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.