Overall Rating Silver
Overall Score 61.29
Liaison Kalen Pilkington
Submission Date Aug. 31, 2018
Executive Letter Download

STARS v2.1

MacEwan University
IN-18: Pre-Submission Review

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 0.50 / 0.50 Kerstyn Lane
Engagement and Outreach Advisor
Sustainability
"---" indicates that no data was submitted for this field

The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:

Shannon Leblanc, MSc
Program Coordinator, Energy Management and Sustainable Operations (EMSO)
Utilities, Facilities and Operations, University of Alberta

Michelle Hauer, MASc
Program Planner, Energy Management and Sustainable Operations (EMSO)
Utilities, Facilities and Operations, University of Alberta


A brief description of the review process:

1. Shannon and Michelle reviewed STARS Technical Manual and the Independent Review Template to re-familiarize themselves with the credits. The External Review was scheduled for July 17 and July 20 from 9 a.m to 4 p.m. The reviewers were present on both days and were talked through each credit by Romy Kupfer (STARS Coordinator).

2. Using the Independent Review Template, the reviewers examined each credit, the requirements for the credit, the available data, and whether MacEwan would be pursuing the credit. The credits had a considerable amount of work completed before the review session was conducted which allowed the peer reviewers to review the report, timeframes and attachments at a relatively high level. There was ample opportunity to discuss areas of concern and areas where more information or clarification was required. Feedback and questions were captured in the Review Template.

3. Once the feedback was gathered from both days, the MacEwan STARS Coordinator reflected on the comments, gathered further information, made note in the Review Template, updated the credit information and completed the draft STARS submission.

4. Upon completion of all credits MacEwan was planning on pursuing, a final draft report was provided to both UAlberta reviewers, who reviewed the report a second time to ensure accuracy, completeness, consistency in figures and timeframes, and relevance. They also checked if the feedback from the two review days was incorporated.

5. The reviewers confirmed that the changes and suggestions were incorporated into the final draft and that MacEwan was submitting a valid, representative and complete STARS submission.


Which of the following describes the review process?:
Independent reviewer(s)

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:
---

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 and complete the Data Inquiry Form.