| Overall Rating | Bronze |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 28.04 |
| Liaison | Jodi Kennedy |
| Submission Date | July 5, 2022 |
Georgia Southern University
PA-4: Reporting Assurance
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 1.00 |
Jodi
Kennedy Director Office of Leadership and Community Engagement |
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:
Lissa M. Leege
Professor, Department of Biology
Rob Yarbrough
Associate Professor, Dept Of Geology & Geography
Christopher Randle
Environmental Specialist, Environmental Health & Safety
Jodi Kennedy
Director, Leadership & Community Engagement
Ken Gassiot
Associate Vice President for Student Development, Student Affairs
Bradley Mullis
Marketing Specialist, Communications & Marketing
Kang Hsu
Assistant Professor, Logistics & Supply Chain Mgt
Verva Jean Shumate
Assistant Director of Housing Operations and Resident Life
Carolyn Altman
Director, Botanic Garden
Michael Murphy
Director, Marketing-Auxiliary
Tracy Ham
Senior Associate Director of Internal Operations
David Owens
Assistant Professor, Middle Grades & Secondary Education
Zachary Baumann
Student Assistant, Leadership & Community Engagement
Dillan Brock
Graduate Student, College of Engineering
Zinia Chowdhury
Graduate Assistant, Leadership & Community Engagement
Genoah Culler
Student Assistant, Leadership & Community Engagement
Matt Horst
Director, Shooting Sports Education Center
Gene Sherry
Executive Director, Campus Recreation and Intramurals
Ryan Wingers
Director of Program and Risk Management
A brief description of the institution’s assurance process:
The assurance process was conducted internally by Georgia Southern University’s Sustainability Advisory Committee. Each sub-committee was assigned to credits based on their lack of involvement in the reporting of that credit information, for example the energy sub-committee was assigned IN-7 the community garden credit which they are not involved in at all. This process illustrated in this example was applied to all of the credits we pursued ad reviewed during the assurance process. Each sub-committee assigned two reviewers to each credit. The reviewers feedback and changes made due to the feedback are documented in he 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:
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.