# Anyone tried to view the ICC hearings?



## RJJ (Oct 28, 2010)

I have tried to view the hearings twice now with very little luck. Seems the web cast cuts out. The place seems empty also. Anyone else experienced problems?


----------



## syarn (Oct 28, 2010)

yes

no problems for the most part...some freezed screen delays occasionally.

like watching congress on c-span...


----------



## pwood (Oct 28, 2010)

when i get done watching my paint dry, i'll take a look:mrgreen:


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 28, 2010)

I quit drinking about 30 years ago; and not looking for an excuse to start.

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Oct 29, 2010)

so no one is interested in the process!


----------



## Jobsaver (Oct 29, 2010)

RJJ said:
			
		

> so no one is interested in the process!


Too many interests, too little time. But you are making a good point, especially with all the posts in these threads about creating change.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Oct 29, 2010)

Did you follow the resounding defeat of the 'Ratification' amendment to the bylaws?  This appeared to be a "shame on us" situation, as the trusty ole fire service showed up en masse and testified against it, thereby sending it down in flames.  While I agree ratification may not be the answer, it certainly points the process in the right direction - away from the prohibitively costly and time-consuming hearing process to a 'remote' system.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 29, 2010)

Code: I missed that due to a very busy week. however, I was disappointed in the little I could see and hear. The quality of the production lack of sound and freeze ups probably would of prevented me from seeing it anyway. The IT sections of ICC is in need of over haul. They can't even produce a BB let alone a view of a hearing. God forbid they every get remote voting.

It does not surprise me to hear of a vote as described. I have been to the last two major hearings and seen the first hand the results. Tyco and other have bought the floor. The only way change to the process is going to happen is organized votes. Building inspectors could play the same game. It is a shame that the codes that are intended to protect life and property are for sale. I will get off the soap box now. I have said this many times.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 29, 2010)

The Fire Service can accept money from everywhere; the NAHB can buy Building Officials by paying their way to the hearings (all expenses) through the new rules; and the inspectors and plans examiners, who have to deal with the real world problems of code compliance have no voice; have no organization; and no money.

Done Deal,

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Oct 29, 2010)

It is only done till people stand up and bring change. If it does not happen it will be the same old stuff. Sad!

This Tuesday should show a big change in our country. The people are demanding that the junk of the past does not continue. Both republicans and Demo's are to blame. If it does not start to turn around in two years I think there will be more of the pork people kicked out. ICC is nothing more then a fly on a cows back side. If they don't get it together they will fade away.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Oct 30, 2010)

At this point, we can no longer blame the fire service, etc. - they're rightly acting in their best interest.  When they run the same play over and over and over again, however, and we don't change our strategy, then it's either our fault or faulty rules.  I tend to think a little of both.


----------



## Jobsaver (Oct 30, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> The Fire Service can accept money from everywhere; the NAHB can buy Building Officials by paying their way to the hearings (all expenses) through the new rules; and the inspectors and plans examiners, who have to deal with the real world problems of code compliance have *no voice; have no organization; and no money*.


In layman's terms, how, on a national basis, do the inspectors and plans examiners obtain a unified voice, a unified organization, and some unified money?

Also, how does this all tie in with maintaining, (or eliminating), regional authority to alter and administer the code?


----------



## RJJ (Nov 1, 2010)

Code I agree! The little of both is most certian.

Jobsaver: The answer is that we all need to work together. A system of communication is the first step. Establishing common goals is the next issue to be address. We will all never agree on all issues, that is for sure. However, there is common ground for inspectors to work from. It will take people willing to step forward and willing to improve the system we have. It is not about getting a new system just voting in the changes needed to make a better process and eliminate the special interests groups. The ? is often raised would we not become the same. Yes the answer would be, but if that's what it takes to bring change so be it.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 1, 2010)

It seems to me that the place to start is to establish a voting process amongst ourselves, and to decide whether or not our voice is to be established by a popular vote or a representative form of vote. For example, our state already has an organization comprised of code officials, Code Officials of Arkansas (COAR), having an elected body of officials and operating according to Robert Rule of Order. Perhaps this body could speak for Arkansas to any newly formed Code Officials of the United States (COUS), or Code Officials on the World (COW).

Do other states have like organizations?


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 1, 2010)

Association Talk

In my opinion there needs to be a bi-partisin (spelling?) code official effort to include building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire to address "special interest" influences in code development.  I have served on many committees in code development and until the officials begin to agree on measures that can we can find common ground and improve code initiatives we will all be fighting each other at the podium or committee level.  Strength comes with numbers and we all don't need to agree on everything but should be able to recognize what can benefit the common good and "safety" in real world applications......sorry for the rant.


----------



## V767 (Nov 1, 2010)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Code: I missed that due to a very busy week. however, I was disappointed in the little I could see and hear. The quality of the production lack of sound and freeze ups probably would of prevented me from seeing it anyway. The IT sections of ICC is in need of over haul. They can't even produce a BB let alone a view of a hearing. God forbid they every get remote voting.


The freeze ups had little to with ICC and more with how bad the connection was at the Charlotte Convention Center. This issue was addressed, but I am not sure how resolved it ever became during the Hearings.

Here are the Final Action Hearing Results, and this is the final version too.

V767


----------



## Architect1281 (Nov 1, 2010)

I was watching, monitoring as background noise, the energy portions of the code hearings.

Thank god they don't allow firearms.

the noise over consistency between IRC ch 11 and IECC ch 4, and the 30% and the water waasted by not having

in the envelope insulation .................... KAAAABOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM!

the occasional freeze ups were a welcome diversion it cooled my desire to expurgate.

RI has statewide (covered by small sheet) chapter

RI Building Officals Association  http://www.riboa.net


----------



## RJJ (Nov 2, 2010)

FM: You and I are on the same page. Now 50% of my work is fire, but I am still a building inspector to start. These go hand in hand. The problem is how to organize? Then the task of direction to bring real change in the voting process. We first need to gather enough voices willing to move forward. I certainly don't believe that the group should be just building inspectors or plumbing inspectors. It needs to be just inspectors. At the end of the day building and fire need to work together. The real issue is that the ICC process has put the regulations in the hands of special interests. To bring the needed changes we need to put votes on the floor. If needed we need to change management and any and all obstruction that will fall short of a better process.


----------



## ewenme (Nov 2, 2010)

I was there in Charlotte. Some of the comments I heard were: 'This seems a lot more civilized than Minneapolis.'  'Where do you get this b*** *hit?' and others. As this was my first time attending the final action hearings, I had questions for the more seasoned: Is it always like this? Is this more civilized than Minneapolis was? Are there always the same faces testifying? Why don't more building officials testify?

The answers I got:  Way more civilized than Minneapolis. Always the same faces testifying. They can't afford to come for the whole week.

One question upon leaving, the last day: Would I do it again?  [this came from a seasoned attendant] Yes, I would, but I'd like to be one of the ones proposing code changes: common sense needs to be infused on a much larger scale.

After sitting through several hours/days of hearings here's what I can tell you:  It's the lobbyists who do the code change proposals, for the most part. Some changes actually do come from building inspectors. It's the lobbyists who are pro or con for the proposals. They are passionate and loyal to whomever is paying for their loyalty. The voters were building officials, and some of them actually formed voting blocks and stuck together like tar and feathers, much to the dismay of some of their neighboring jurisdictions. It looked to me like sheer numbers of voters was all it took to make or break a code change proposal: common sense had no say at all.

I still think we need an 'Independent Building Inspector/Official Organization' with our own paid lobbyists [from our own ranks] to participate at the high levels. Then we need to do some fund raising to get more votes to the hearings.

IMHO: There are a lot of well-meaning nice people who are part of ICC who are passionate, informed, and good at heart. I only wish they were the majority!


----------



## conarb (Nov 2, 2010)

Carol:

Can you tell us which manufacturers/political groups the lobbyists represented? Major examples? This whole process is political.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 2, 2010)

Dumb question #1

Speaking from strictly the building inspector perspective, how would I, as an inspector, have any better of a grasp on what a code "should be" than any other party? I don't see enough of any one issue to have a statistical sampling of whether my "results" have any bearing.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 2, 2010)

Since this thread is going in that direction,

And, not hoping or expecting anything; but; here are a few suggestions:

Form a national organization of Certified Inspectors and Plan Reviewers including Fire and other specialty Inspectors. These are the people who know the codes; and, work with the codes at the ground level.

(Having all certified members adds credibility to the orgainization. They also are the majority of elegible voters.)

Code Committees:

Appoint/elect Committees for each code from volunteers/applicants.

Committee Members required to be Certified in that code.

Two separate committees for each code;

One committee, to examine new code adoption/change proposals; offered by other organizations; which will be considered at the ICC hearings. This committee would research the code proposal and present their findings and recommendation; to the general membership for consideration to support or defeat that code change proposal.

Another committee to consider and write code proposals and changes to be submitted for adoption at ICC hearings. These code changes and proposals should be submitted by the general membership to the committee. Members proposing new code adoptions and/or changes must be certified in that code.

(Again this gives weight and credibility to the proposal/change)

A committee to study and provide guidance on ICC hearing rules and proceedures for code change proposals.

Here is one that may not be popular; but, could be invaluable. A committee to research within other organizations; and, gather information conserning the source of their funding and/or incentives to offer their code change and/or adoption proposals.

Note: There are Code Official/Building Official organizations throughout this country. That does not indicate that they have the best interest of building safety and structural integity. There are one or two that would make great allies; but, many would not.

A committee to work with other organizations; to support each other's proposals and code changes, that we agree on. We would not form any other organizational affiliation with those organizations; but, remain independent.

First, an organization must be formed. Two or more individuals is all that is needed to start; but, it must be complete; and a formal, legal organization. It must be independent and not affiliated with any government organization (municipal leagues, code organizations, etc.). Bylaws, and all that stuff must be in place before soliciting membership. Establish a website and heck; you can even call it the Don Quixote Code Club.

There is nothing as invigorating as tiltling at windmlls and winning.  

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Nov 3, 2010)

Carol: Thanks for you view! You have always had both feet on the ground and thus your view comes with great respect from me. My message has and will not change. It boils down to votes on the floor as Carol has now experienced for the first time. Glad you got to see the show!


----------



## ewenme (Nov 3, 2010)

ConArb:

AAMA [American Architectural Manufacturer's Association]; Concrete and Masonry Institute; Fenestration organizations [loosely coordinated]; CDC [yes, Centers for Disease Control]; Healthy Homes; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); DOE; Fairfax County Virginia; Quality Buildings; New York City Buildings Department; Energy Efficiency organizations [several individual, not necessarily a coordinated block/group]; Green Building groups; and a few building officials who had proposed code changes: VABOA, Massachusetts BOs, Nevada. The list could go on.

Yes, indeed, it was very political. Watching a block of building officials vote for a specific industry proposal had me wondering. And the same not voting for a common sense proposal from a building official. Amazing. Fearsome. Strange.

I was glad to finally get to see the workings at that level; and more importantly, I'd go back with some code proposals if I had support!  Without some support, my jaws would just be flapping in the wind.


----------



## conarb (Nov 3, 2010)

Carol said:
			
		

> Yes, indeed, it was very political. Watching a block of building  officials vote for a specific industry proposal had me wondering. And  the same not voting for a common sense proposal from a building  official. Amazing. Fearsome. Strange.


Carol:

Let's come right out and say it, did it appear that these "blocks of building  officials" had been bought off by the political/commercial interests?


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 3, 2010)

If you can't form an organization from this website; then it's a lost cause. I don't believe there is a more vocal group anywhere. Other than getting a paid vacation; by attend the hearings; there is really no reason to purse changing or effecting the ICC system. Just go to the hearings if that's your thing; and have a good time.

Uncle Bob


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 4, 2010)

I viewed the 2009 IRC hearings and came away very disillusioned.


----------



## ewenme (Nov 4, 2010)

I do not think anyone in attendance was 'bought-off' but I do think that the groups were passionate about their point of view and unwilling to listen to reason or opposition. The lobbyists did their jobs very well: make their point of view fit. There were some good points made by many of the lobbyists, however, if you step back from the swaying information/hype, then you are left with one decision: does this make sense for the code? In voting items down, which I did participate in voting things down, it was because it was not a good idea, not enforceable, and certainly not the job of the building inspectors. Case in point: putting the methods and recommendations for lead paint abatement in the IPMC. Another case in point: limiting the number of occupants in a dwelling based on square footage in the bedroom. I am not going to be the one to go into someone's bedroom and count heads. Code should be enforceable.

Also, from my first-time attendance at the hearings, it is very apparent that 'one-size' does not fit all. Climate and exposure vary so widely that it is difficult to pare down the written code to fit every circumstance. That's why SBCCI, ICBO and BOCA codes were different. They were specifically addressing regional variations. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to bring about code changes that are applicable in a common sense manner: California earthquake requirements don't belong in non-seismic zones; hurricane requirements in the desert don't make a lot of sense either.

IMHO


----------



## RJJ (Nov 4, 2010)

UB: I detect frustration! This will take time and diligence. If it was easy everyone would do it. It probably will not happen until we have another Minnesota mess.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 5, 2010)

Ewenme,

I'd love to adopt the 1997 SBCCI codes; and, throw all this ICC crap into the dumpster. Didn't even have to adopt the watered down CABO; because the SBCCI codes included residential requirements. This theory that you have to meet more strengient requirements for a commercial buildings; and screw the home your family lives in; just doesn't hold water. Sorry, I forgot; now, that we have to seal up the home; it will hold water. Instead of a blower test; one day, they will require us to fill the home with water and do a water test, like for the sanitary drainage system.

I have the required CEUs for renewing my ICC certs; and, I'm suppose to renew this month; but, in this State, all I need is my State unlimited Inspector's license; and I've got that and don't need ICC certs anymore. Screw the ICC, I'm keeping my money. 

I just re-read this post. I am, a cantakerous old man; lmao.  

Uncle Bob


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 5, 2010)

With the new sprinkler requirements, it won't be long before many homes will get a water test!


----------



## texasbo (Nov 5, 2010)

Add a couple more; Steel Institute, Insurance industry (big time), and of course fire sprinkler industry. Energy and green lobbying is a snowball that is big and will continue to get bigger until our codes have been f----d up beyond all recognition.



			
				ewenme said:
			
		

> ConArb:AAMA [American Architectural Manufacturer's Association]; Concrete and Masonry Institute; Fenestration organizations [loosely coordinated]; CDC [yes, Centers for Disease Control]; Healthy Homes; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); DOE; Fairfax County Virginia; Quality Buildings; New York City Buildings Department; Energy Efficiency organizations [several individual, not necessarily a coordinated block/group]; Green Building groups; and a few building officials who had proposed code changes: VABOA, Massachusetts BOs, Nevada. The list could go on.
> 
> Yes, indeed, it was very political. Watching a block of building officials vote for a specific industry proposal had me wondering. And the same not voting for a common sense proposal from a building official. Amazing. Fearsome. Strange.
> 
> I was glad to finally get to see the workings at that level; and more importantly, I'd go back with some code proposals if I had support!  Without some support, my jaws would just be flapping in the wind.


----------



## ewenme (Nov 5, 2010)

UB: I'd go back to the ICBO Uniform Building Code [1997] in an instant! Unfortunately, ICC probably owns the rights to it.

After today's work on two code enforcement issues with the same players, I'm feeling a whole lot cantankerous! I had the city attorney call me and tell me I'm the spindle on which the City wheel turns. I said, oh please, not me.  It's been a long week. I'm tired of people who flaunt the laws and the codes. Our electrical inspector was shocked when the had his hand on one panel and touched a sub-panel with the other hand. Can anyone say, 'shoddy work?' That was not the only code violation where five young ladies were renting. Fun times at work. :-(


----------



## incognito (Nov 6, 2010)

Random thoughts;

Ratification--Did not know which way to vote--until all the fire guys started yapping about how bad it was. Unfortunately the building officials were not smart enough to vote FOR ratification. Wake up guys---always vote in opposition to what fire service wants!!

When a fire sevice guy is running for a board position against a building official---always vote for the building official!!

Energy code BS--What the he-- are you people thinking??!! All you have to do is pay attention to who is advocating this "stuff" to know you should vote against each and every proposal.

Money to get there---It does not make a dam- bit of difference who pays your way to the code hearings. NAHB payed my way in the past but would have been very disappointed in the overall result. My vote corresponded with their desires at times and not so much at other times. Maybe some of you haven't noticed but your name and ID number is not recorded with each vote to track how you vote!!

Who votes--Each jurisdiction should get one vote--regardless of jurisdiction size. Yeah thats right New York City and LA get one vote just like Albert Lea, MN and Sedona, AZ get one. And if you are not a building official you do not get to vote--no more special interests buying memberships in order to influence the outcome of a vote.


----------

