The STARS staff and Steering Committee have put together some key questions we've been wrangling with and we want your feedback.  The first half our panelists are going to be asking you those questions and we want you to indicate your feelings on the question using the colored sheets we've given you.  Then, we will be hearing from you in the second half - all your comments and burning questions. (Welcome by Meghan Fay-Zahner, STARS Program Manager)

Panelist Introductions:

• Angela Halfacre, Furman University, STARS Steering Committee
• Dave Newport, University of Colorado Boulder, STARS Steering Committee
• Chris O'Brien, American University, STARS Steering Commitee

Green Colored Card - Positive Reaction
Yellow Colored Card - Unsure
Red Colored Card - Negative Reaction

1st Topic:  Interactive STARS Data Displays  (explanation by Dave Newport)

As we start presenting STARS data on the website, we want to be mindful of the context in which it is presented.  Here's one idea, you can select one credit and see what schools got that credit and their score.  The danger is that you have schools that aren't in the same Carnegie Class being compared.  At the same time, we want to get quickly to the institutions that have done that credit.  Do you think AASHE should enable institutions to instiution comparisons within the STARS data displays?

VOTE:  Lots of green - probaby 50% with rest divided between red and yellow.

Should institution to institution comparisons be limited within Carnegie Classifications?

VOTE:  Majority green.

Comment:  I would hope that Carnegie Class would be a sortable field.

Comment:  Have you considered having some of these search features only being for STARS and participant schools while others are public?

Answer: Fay-Zahniser:  The AASHE staff are working on that question.  We obviously want to provide member value.  We will be getting to that question as we go on.

Would the ability to do comparisons with schools like yours be useful?

VOTE: Green.

Would an interactive tool, whtihc allowed you to sort filter institution bsed on thei STRS performance be useful.

VOTE: Green.

2nd Topic:  STARS Data Verification  (Chris O'Brien)

Customers believe that when things are labeled as green that they are.  Anybody hear about the EnergyStar rating hubbub earlier this year in which it was discovered that no one is verifiying the EnergyStar claims?  And the damage that did to the brand?

Which of the followig is true about STARS?

Is it a certification?

VOTE: Red.  Red is right answer.

Is it based on self-reported, unverified data?

VOTE: mostly green.  Green is right answer, but even in here that isn't clear.

Is it a voluntary standard?

VOTE: mostly green.

Do you feel that verification should be part of STARS?

VOTE: very mixed

Would your institution pay for a review of your data before it goes public?  (NOT verification, just a review to catch errors and raise questions.)

VOTE: very few green.  a lot of yellow and red.

Comment:  Need to split out interest and ability to pay.  We'd be interested but couldn't pay.

Would your institution be interested in having its data reviewed before it is submitted for a STARS rating?

VOTE: Green

Would your institutionbe willing to pay for that review?

VOTE: Lots of yellow and red.  Only a handful of green.

3rd Topic: STARS Accredited Profesional Program (Angela Halfacre)

How do we identify the level of expertise required to proceed with STARS?  Also, how do we help you communicate the professional expertise required for you to do STARS?  We could do something similar to LEED AP certification, but this would be quite difference because this covers curriculum, energy and operations and administrative expertise.

Polled the audience to get a sense of who was in the room.  Sustainability staff, Administrators, Faculty, Students, Fellows...  Quite a mix.

Do you think an accreditation for campus sustainability professionals would be valuable?

VOTE: about 50% green. about 40% yellow about 10% red.

Do you think this accreditation should be linked with STARS?  (The exam is based on expertise working with STARS credits.)

VOTE:  mostly green

Do you think AAASHE is the organization to coordinate the accrediation program?

VOTE:  majority green.  a few yellows and reds.

Question and Answers:

Comment:  When you asked "are you willing to pay?" that's an impossible question to answer without some price range.

Panelist: Fay-Zahniser:  sorry we don't have a range.  A lot of these ideas are in their infancy.

Comment:  We have to do major facilities certifications for the Clean Air Act on a regular basis where we prepare the submission and the President signs off saying that they certify the submission - under penalty of law.

Panelist:  Newport:  That's already required.  We don't have the hammer of the law, though.

Comment: Maybe there is something in the middle.  Maybe like getting an independent eye short of rigorous verification.  I think it should be explored.

Question:  Newport:  How many people would keep doing STARS if there was a Washington Post expose saying STARS is a toothless tiger?

VOTE: about 25% of audience raised hands

Question:  O'Brien:  How would feel about a lumber company saying we have a self-certification, trust us?

Comment:  That's apples and oranges.  Verification doesn't prevent the toothless tiger stories.  LEED went through that.  If we go down the verification road, you are going to incurr a lot of expense without avoiding that problem.

Comment:  I think review process can be built into STARS.  Maybe require that a third person internally review the submission - other than the President.  But, there is no way that I'm going to send this to my President with false data and thus put our jobs and schools reputation on the line.  So, it is good as it is now.

Panelist: Halfacre:  That's a good way to think about it.  But one of the things that kinds up is levels of interpretation. 

Comment:  Newport:  The President's signature on your STARS certification is the same as the one on your diploma - which no one is third party verifying.

Comment:  What about the idea of peer review?  Another thing that you've talked about before is ranking.  I'm interested in hearing what is going to happen when the journals jump in and start using STARS to rank us.  What information is going to be available to them?

Panelist: Fay-Zahniser:  Want to be clear that the answer to the questions of what data and comparisons will be shared publicly has*not*been decided.

Panelist: Newport:  We have to be realistic.  Your submission is public.  They journals are going to go and data mine them and slice and dice the data.  If we don't provide comparison views that provide*context*we don't have the opportunity to shape the comparisons they are going to publish.  How many campuses here participated in the Pilot?  One thing we found in that was that Carnegie Class wasn't good enough to shape the comparisons because schools were so different - that's why we reformulated STARS so that you can opt out of specific credits and tailor it to you?

How many of you think AASHE should be organization that*allows* institution to institution comparisons of submissions?

VOTE:  Mostly green.

Comment:  Right now, I'm having a hard time just getting into the door with that $900 fee.  Give us 5 years.  Let us get this into our administrators heads that this is just something we do.  That is happens every year and is a regular part of the budget.  Then, when they are used to that, we can add the verification cost.  In the meantime, STARS could be working with the bodies where we already have verificatin processes.  Like we have to go through accreditation.  What if STARS worked with them so that they had sustainability components?  (Lots of green cards go up)  That way, our administration isn't just feeling the pressure from the poor sustainability coordinator.  They are getting it from all angles.

Panelist: Newport:  We have submitted proposals to 3 accreditation bodies and been invited to make presentations.  We are heading down that road but this is a 10 year cycle thing.  It's not going to happen fast.

How many of you would like STARS to offer an*optional*review that you could pay for but don't have to?

VOTE:  Mostly green.  A couple yellows. One red.

Comment:  We are new and just starting with STARS.  There's anxiety about whether we are going to have a good score.  The process of going through this process of getting everybody together is far more important than the score. (some green cards go up)  I'm concerned about the focus on scores.  What I like about the accreditation idea is that that is a process focused certification. 

Panelist:  Halfacre:  I'd encourage everyone in this room to talk to your institutional review department and working with them to institutionalize the data collection process.  

Who hear understands the STARS Reporter rating?

VOTE:  A mix of green and yellow with a few reds.

Panelist: I want to clarify that STARS Reporter allows an institution to go through STARS, put the data in the Reporting Tool, publicly report your data, privately see your score, but not have the score be public.  So you get to use the tools, get credit for participating, get ability to share your data publicly.

Comment:  As a consultant to campuses, we've been able to explain this as being just like paying an auditor to review your taxes. 

Panelist: Halfacre:  It's really important that students, faculty and staff are involved.  That doesn't mean there isn't room for consultancy.  But participation is essential.

Panelist: O'Brien:  How many people used the CA-CP GHG inventory tool?  We used it and after publishing our first one we realized we made mistakes.  So the second time we paid a consultant to third party verify it.

Comment:  Seems like should be able to provide benchmarking data views.

Panelist:  On the ACUPCC site they've collected 105 inventories now.  They just provided a statistical breakdown.  So you can look and see aggregate, no-name attached benchmarks like the average and mean emissions for a school in your category so you can see if you are above or below.

Comment:  How about trend analysis data views?

Panelist:  Newport:  This raises the real-time reporting issue.  Currently STARS is a 3 year reporting cycle.  If we all wait 3 years to update our STARS reports, it's going to be a long time before we can do trend analysis.

Q:  We've been talking about the data aggregation issue in terms of verification and validity.  Now it is coming up in terms of data views.  What are we really that afraid of here?  STARS is not only a publicity tool it is a management tool?  Especially when we talk about the data views, that functionality is critical to being able to make data comparisons for management purposes.  Even if there isn't a STARS data comparison tool, grad students and others are going to data mine and make comparisons that aren't that helpful.  Also, I think the ambivalence seen in the vote and questions around validation and verification are about the specifics.  Maybe you can comeback with a proposal that has those.

How many institutions are primarily participating in STARS to document their sustainability efforts to the outside world?

VOTE:  60% red.  30% yellow.  10% green.

How many are using it as an internal planning document?

VOTE:  mostly green

Comment:  The more data available about what each institution is doing about each credit facilitates better learning from each other.  I think outside verification is very important.  We work with a lot of clients that must do projects to the "LEED Silver certifiable level" and they usually are not.

Do you want to cease submitting all thes other surveys and just use STARS?

VOTE:  Overwhelming green.

Do you want the possibility of STARS as a real-time data repository you can continuously update?

VOTE:  Overwhelming green.

Panelist:  O'Brien:  I'd like to encourage you to*not*submit your data for public consumption if you are not confident in it and really only using STARS for internal management.  You can use the tool without having to submit the data.

Comment:  I like the idea of review and verification.  My school probably would pay for it because we are investing a lot in this.  Linking it all back to the AASHE Resource Center would be awesome.  

Comment:  This is all very dejavu for me.  APPA went down this exact same road a decade ago with a program called FBI.  There was a debate about whether people wanted to use this a political tool with a race to get to the moon, or not.  The facilities managers had the wisdom to use it predominately as a non-political, internal management and peer-sharing tool.  It is very very successful.  Today, something like 90% of the institutions in the US participate in it today.

Panelist: Newport:  Thank you for that wisdom.  What i think is different is that we are getting constant high profile external scrutiny examining our sustainability efforts.  The high profile nature of sustainability right now is driving this conversation.  A VP told me a couple of years ago told me that he needs defensibility when a bad story gets written.  He needs to be able to say "here's how we perform compared to a comprehensive system developed by our peers."  If it becomes showmanship, you are right, that will be very bad.

Panelist:  Halfacre:  Many institutions are looking at incorporating sustainability into their master plans.  What our trustees think, what our administrators think, funders think can be highly influenced by these external rankings.  And this is a way to have another measure.

Comment:  Want to reiterate a critical statement made by Angela Halfacre... Get your Institutional Research Department on board.  We did that.  They read the entire 300 page manual and are totally on board.  (Halfacre:  They are talking about sustainability at the conferences of Institutional Research staff.)  A conern I have about the professional accreditation is that it could make people feel disempowered because they feel like "I don't know enough or I need extra training to participate in that."

Comment:  I think we are a biased group when you ask if we are usign this as an internal or external tool, because I want to use it as an internal tool but if you talked to our Institutional Advancement office, they would say they want it for external communication.

Comment:  I think this question of what our motivations are for using STARS is super important.  As a small school, I need this to get external publicity so that we can get internal traction to do better.  If we get done with this and do bad, that's fine with me!

Q:  Have you considered external verfication on a random basis, like the IRS does?

Panelist:  Newport:  That would make AASHE the traffic cop which is a bad place for AASHE to be. 

Panelist:  O'Brien:  There is a model for that working with EPEAT computer certification right now.  It is self reported but with the threat of random audit.

Fay-Zahniser:  Unfortunately, we are out of time.  If you have more questions, please write them on the cards we passed out and put them in our suggestion box at the back of the room.  From the beginning STARS has been developed for you with your input.  We want your input.