BCDFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
1
NameInstitution/OrganizationPosition/Role1.1. Comments on the sustainability staffing and coordination indicator1.2. Comments on the DEI staffing and coordination indicator2.1. Comments on the public sustainability and social justice commitments indicator2.2. Comments on the measurable sustainability objectives indicator2.3. Comments on the joint campus-community resilience planning indicator3.1. Comments on the shared governance bodies indicator3.2. Comments on the campus-community relations committee indicatorPlease provide any suggestions you may have for Innovation & Leadership credits related to Coordination & Planning.Additional comments on Coordination & Planning in STARS
2
Aaron DurnbaughLoyola University ChicagosustainabilityWhy isn't the staffing level normalized against weighted campus user? This seems like an easy and straight-forward approach. I appreciate that there is a concern about underrepresented voices in sustainability decision-making but why no reciprocal requirement of the DEI function? I'd much rather see some performance-based metrics related to sustainability staffing and coordination (must provide demonstrated impact, authority level of entity membership, etc...) than this performative request. How will you evaluate that "enough" underrepresented participation took place? How about list the name and titles of those on this committee/entity? This does a better job of reflecting if the institution is taking sustainability seriously than what you are currently asking.Why is this here and not in the DEI section? Doesn't seem like a helpful re-organization. Seems performative and US/Canada/Europe centered. Why don't you ask how sustainability or other cross-cutting value is included in this entity's charge? Is there no existing DEI assessment that can be used/referenced instead of STARS trying to do something that it is not structured to do?Really don't like that high-level commitments to sustainability in the highest document (Strategic Plan, Master Plan, Charter, etc..) was dropped. The excuse is that planning is decentralized! Then that means that the whole institution isn't doing it and shouldn't be recognized as such! Is there still a public engagement about policy participation? How is this "commitments' section any different? I think you should make the reporter differentiate these commitments at the institutional or subunit (Department or School) level. PRME is for business schools (for example) and shouldn't have the same weight as a Climate Leadership Commitment. Could also differentiate by which ones require ongoing participation/reporting vs. those that just stay on a webpage somewhere. What are you doing with this change? If we have a DEI target we're good for all Administration? Likewise a water reduction goal covers us for all operations? Huh?!? This was a powerful credit before that drove our school to set new goals in areas that we weren't focused on. Not everyone is going to have meaningful, or ambitious goals for each but now this is like an automatic full points credit? Not sure that this credit should be framed as anti-corruption. That's kind of weird focus for higher education. Plus you're talking about private and public organizations here. I'd rewrite the first rationale sentence. Have you considered including community representation as one of the categories. Most boards are made up of external (alumni, funders, experts, mission-aligned) but no problem in recognizing that external voices are a good thing. Imagine if the board was all just non-academic employees. What happened to the representation on this highest body? It was great to have gender and ethnicity questions here and allowed for meaningful conversations about why Trustees look the way they do. Why did this go away? You are requesting that the sustainability office seek under-represented participation but not the highest governing body? What about does that body have a sustainability committee or charge? Does that body have a DEI committee or charge? And why did you take away that the student/faculty/staff member need to have a vote! That was powerful to include. Just having a student government, staff or faculty council isn't that big of a deal! good to recognize and list but needs to have representation or official authority. Why is STARS getting easier, not more rigorous? No major comment. Maybe just ask for examples of received and acted upon community feedback in the previous period. Also, I think who sits on those committees is important. Are they elected officials, chambers of commerce, community organizations or just open seats/events? Also, where is the voice of underrepresented folks here? How is social justice being addressed in these big projects? Collective action to combat corruption doesn't seem like an exemplary practice. Have any schools reported this previously? Maybe its a thing is some regions but not others? The Ecological Footprint Tool seems better suited linked to Operations - biodiversity. As I said, why did the Inclusive Governing Body leave the main credit? It should go back. I l like having Participatory Budgeting here but wonder if any schools are doing it? I think a specific question regarding the amount of funds and the formalized process for fund allocation should be added. We have this in our communities here in Chicago and while they are all called "Participatory Budgeting" what they look like in practice is quite different. If you actually want to gather useful data or give schools a dataset to learn from. In reporting assurance, might you ask if folks paid for the service, how much they were charged? as an optional line? I'd be interested if folks will report that. Have any schools certified as a social enterprise? I don't really understand this one. I get the intent but most schools charters have a social benefit (education) from the get-go. Seems misguided. Can't really speak to the data quality certificate as its the first time I'm hearing of it. As I said, the Sustainability-focused strategic plan should go back in the main credit. Why is the sustainabiltiy projects fund here but student-managed fund under the Investment credits? Don't have an issue, just don't understand the reasoning. Everything I see is that you've been watering down STARS. Looking back at the 3.0 Vision I don't see how you've "prioritized performance over process" or "have meaningful goals to strive towards". By moving items to innovation you've done the opposite of "Identify important foundational aspects of an effective sustainability program...". I just noticed that I don't see a public phase for Point Allocation? I think you're going to need a process when all these credit sections are stitched back together and points allotted to get feedback as I think it will be significant and A LOT of schools will be platinum or nearly.
3
Margaret BoundsConnecticut CollegeDirector of SustainabilityI am curious how the qualifying commitments will be chosen. It looks like the HESI only has "voluntary initiatives" but it is on the list - would that count as a reporting requirement? Some of the draft list of qualifying commitments are more investment focused vs. broad sustainability focused - would a public greenhouse gas commitment with reporting requirement also count (for example reporting to The Climate Registry). I also have a concern that some of these have costs associated (like Second Nature) to making a commitment, and that will privilege institutions with more financial resources.I like the simplified credit!I was surprised that the reporting assurance was being moved back down to just Innovation vs. being included in the credits. It seems like peer review uptake has been high - has it not produced the results that you were hoping for?
4
Gioia ThompsonUniversity of VermontSustainability StrategistGood to see both sustainability and DEI included
Good to see this--there's a big difference when there's a formal commitment
Difficult to have measurable indicators for academics (beyond #courses, research). Can the "measurable" aspect be about percent progress towards a goal such as completing or updating a policy or creating a training program?
Looks good
Is this about having a single campus-community relations committee, versus separate for housing, transportation, other issues?
Use of life cycle cost analysis perhaps? Are there dashboards for public information?
5
Elaine DurrElon University
Senior Director of Sustainability
STARS Data Quality Certificate: Consider awarding full points for one of the options (A OR B) OR only having one option (A).
Sustainability-Focused Strategic Plan: Consider a partial points option if not all areas (A-D) are addressed.
Re-consider the value and necessity of adding a new, unscored Reporting Methodology section in the Report Preface.
Consider adding an I&L credit or some other mechanism to reward institutions for having a high quality report, whether that is 0-3 required revisions/issues or a higher bar (0 required revisions).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100