| Overall Rating | Silver - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 53.85 |
| Liaison | Aimee Lemrise |
| Submission Date | Jan. 10, 2020 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
IN-18: Pre-Submission Review
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.50 / 0.50 |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
Sustainability Council team:
Dr. Leslie Duram, Faculty, Geography & Env. Resources
Dr. Tao Huang, Faculty, Art and Design
Dr. Kofi Akamani, Faculty, College of Agricultural Sciences
Connie Kaniewski, Graduate Student, Geography & Env. Resources
Seth Traiteur, Undergraduate Student, Civil Engineering
Dylan Gibson, Graduate Student, Geography & Env. Resources
Sally Wright, Staff, Recreational Sports and Services
Brad Cowley, Staff, PSO Building Services
Sarah Marbes, Staff, Center for Service-Learning and Volunteerism
A brief description of the review process:
The internal review for our submission was completed by the Sustainability Council. The council was introduced to the review process at one of their regular meetings. The STARS Graduate Assistant (GA) walked them through the process of reviewing the credits, oriented them to the review document, and provided reviewer access to the Reporting Tool. The attached presentation was used at that meeting. Council members had been divided into 3 groups with pre-assigned credits. From there, each group divided the credits, based on their areas of expertise and interest. Because some members were also contributors to some STARS credits, we ensured that no member was assigned their own credit/s. After the meeting, some members also had one-on-one conversations with the GA to explain and support when needed. We shared the STARS Review Template sheet with the reviewers via an online shared documents (one for each of the three groups) and they worked individually by providing their feedback. The Sustainability Office team coordinated the institutional responses for each portion of the review process. After the review process was complete, the shared review sheets were downloaded, assembled into one document, and uploaded to this credit.
Which of the following describes the review process?:
Internal 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:
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:
In order to complete the official review of this credit, the STARS Review document was uploaded without the review of this IN-18 credit included. After the review process for this credit is complete, an updated STARS Review document will be uploaded to include record that this credit was reviewed.
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.