| Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 70.85 |
| Liaison | Laura Young |
| Submission Date | Feb. 28, 2019 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Michigan State University
IN-18: Pre-Submission Review
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.50 / 0.50 |
Mara
Spears Sustainability Program Coordinator Office of the EVP for Administration |
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
Dayne Walling, Independent 3rd party reviewer, 21st Century Performance LLC . Sally Gatlin, Operations Coordinator, MSU Residential Hospitality Services.
A brief description of the review process:
Reviewers received the STARS technical manual, as well as the 2016 report as an introduction to the STARS Process. A simple checklist was made of all credits in addition to the templates used for credit review (provided by AASHE) to track progress of review for all parties. Early versions of credits were reviewed and discussed in-person, at which point the authors of the credits took feedback and revised their credit response. Further work on credit review was then done in the pre-submission review templates. The review process consisted of the internal and independent reviewers:
- Reading the content of each credit and reviewing the narrative for completeness
- Reviewing credits for clarity
- Affirming credit alignment with the technical guidance
All comments were recorded on the review sheet, and several review meetings were held to go over comments of all credits in the weeks leading up to the submission. Any questions brought up by reviewers were clarified with data providers, and responses were edited accordingly. No credits were submitted without approval from both reviewers. Additionally, the final versions of each credit were reviewed with the Vice Presidents of each work division before submission via the STARS Reporting Tool.
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.