| Overall Rating | Silver - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 56.72 |
| Liaison | Christie-Joy Hartman |
| Submission Date | May 12, 2017 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
James Madison University
IN-18: Pre-Submission Review
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.50 / 0.50 |
Christie-Joy
Hartman Executive Director ISNW |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
Kimberly Hodge, PhD
Director of Sustainability Initiatives and Education
Adjunct Professor of Environmental Studies
Washington and Lee University
A brief description of the review process:
A reviewer was contracted to conduct an independent review.
The review process included the reviewer:
1. Reading in the STARS Technical Manual v2.1 administrative update one (May 2016) all credits that JMU is pursuing and reviewing the corresponding JMU responses to each credit as entered in the online STARS Reporting Tool;
2. Checking that all required reporting fields, attachments, inventories and URLs are included and consistent with credit criteria and timeframes;
3. Checking that reported figures are consistent across credits, e.g. between the Institutional Characteristics section and specific credits that require similar figures;
4. Identifying any JMU entry/answer that does not meet the criteria/questions asked, i.e., checking that JMU answers the questions asked and JMU is not misinterpreting questions.
5. Documenting all of the above in the Excel spreadsheet provided by JMU, and providing in that spreadsheet detailed comments on any deficiencies and recommended actions to address the deficiencies.
JMU reviewed the suggested changes, recorded a response and actions in the spreadsheet, and returned the spreadsheet to the reviewer.
The reviewer confirmed that the responses and changes answered all questions from the review.
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:
Optional Fields
---
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 emissions inventory was completed and added to STARS after review. And the 4C initiative was moved from the innovation credit to the community partnerships credit after review.
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.