| Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 68.22 |
| Liaison | Mary Ellen Mallia |
| Submission Date | Dec. 21, 2018 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
University at Albany
IN-18: Pre-Submission Review
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.50 / 0.50 |
Mary Ellen
Mallia Director of Environmental Sustainability Finance and Business |
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
Ryan McPherson, Chief Sustainability Officer, University at Buffalo
Melanie Dominick Valencia Velasco, Office of Innovation and Sustainability, Universidad de San Francisco de Quito
A brief description of the review process:
The University at Buffalo agreed to review UAlbany's STARS report as part of a pilot program of NYCSHE (New York Coalition for Sustainability in Higher Education) to create a peer review process and stable of reviewers for New York State.
The universities switched draft STARS report and reviewed using the template provided by AASHE. Melissa Cadwell, Sustainability Coordinator for Syracuse University and Steering Committee member of NYCSHE, oversaw the implementation of the STARS peer review program for the organization. She also recently completed the STARS 2.1 submission for Syracuse and drew upon that experience to guide the process.
Mary Ellen Mallia, UAlbany Sustainability Director, met Melanie Velasco during a scoping trip to Ecuador. The two discovered they both were compiling STARS reports and agreed to exchange. Both made the other observers of their report and filled out the suggested template.
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:
Both reviewers were satisfied with the changes made based on their responses and approved the campus to submit the reporting tool to AASHE
Both reviewers were satisfied with the changes made based on their responses and approved the campus to submit the reporting tool to AASHE
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.