| Overall Rating | Silver |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 62.34 |
| Liaison | Christie-Joy Hartman |
| Submission Date | Jan. 27, 2022 |
James Madison University
PA-4: Reporting Assurance
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 1.00 |
Christie-Joy
Hartman Executive Director ISNW |
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:
Essa Paterson, Program Coordinator, ISNW
Christie-Joy Hartman, Executive Director, ISNW
Jeffrey Tang, Associate Dean, College of Integrated Science and Engineering
Jini Cook, Director, Real Property & Space Management
Rick Larson, Assistant Vice President, HR Training and Performance
Marsha Mays-Bernard, Associate Vice President, Student Health and Well-Being
Per the guidelines, the reviews by the first four reviewers, each of whom reviewed different credits, are in one of the workbooks attached. The second reviews, by Rick Larson and Marsha Mays-Bernard respectively, were submitted in two additional, separate workbooks.
A brief description of the institution’s assurance process:
Credits were reviewed by ISNW Staff and the ISNW Executive Council Members. The three review templates submitted document who reviewed each credit. All credits were reviewed by at least one person. Credits PRE, IN, and PA were reviewed by two people, independently. Additionally, the OP credits were read by either Gary Shears, Executive Director, Facilities & Construction, or Towana Moore, Interim Vice President Administration & Finance.
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.