| Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 65.76 |
| Liaison | Mark Klapatch-Mathias |
| Submission Date | Feb. 21, 2018 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
University of Wisconsin-River Falls
IN-18: Pre-Submission Review
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.50 / 0.50 |
Mark
Klapatch Sustainability and Custodial Supervisor Facilities Management |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
Kiana Johnson, UWRF Student, WE Bike River Falls and Resource Management club member.
Kendall Keegan, UWRF Student, President of the Student Alliance for Local and Sustainable Agriculture.
Johnathan Van Roekel, Student, Environmental Corps of Sustainability member.
A brief description of the review process:
All three students were sent the completed STARS report electronically. They attended a meeting with Mark Klapatch. He went through the process of how they were to read the report and verify the information, look for common mistakes, confirm all responses are supported, verify timeframes, cross reference figures to make sure they are consistent, and check URLs. the sections of the report were then divided between the students so all sections were reviewed by at least 2 people. The students then had two weeks to read through their sections and document any needed changes or suggestions. They then met with Mark to discuss all areas of concern. Mark then made the appropriate changes and revisions to the report. Students then received updated documents to review to make sure all concerns were addressed. According to all students, all changes were satisfactory. Throughout the entire process, students had the technical manual in case they had any questions.
You will notice in the completed STARS templates that are attached that all documents are the same. All responses were combined into one spreadsheet to ensure nothing fell through the gaps. All reviewer concerns are noted with their initials so we know where the concern originated.
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:
---
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.