# ICC collapsing



## CodeWarrior

You may find getting ahold of organizations a lot harder these days with the effects of Covid-19 forcing changes in the way they carry on their business.

Add ICC to the list. Several employees, some with 30 + years experience have been furloughed or dismissed recently. This means those who you like working with may not pick up the phone or reply to that email. Since experience appears to be a detriment at ICC, the move appears to be their way of ridding themselves of nuisance  workers and those with salaries corresponding to their many years with the place. 

ICC’s recent acquisitions apparently were planned based on continued growth, so it is stunning that in the two months since lock-downs began nationwide, customers largely stayed away, forcing the contraction of the workforce.

Maybe they need to get the 2021 codes out soon. If there is anyone left working there to finish them, that is.


----------



## Mark K

Separate from the pandemic you should look at the Supreme Court Ruling in Georgia v Public.Resource.org.  This greatly strengthens the recognition that once a jurisdiction has adopted a model code there is no longer a copyright for ICC's contribution to the adopted building code.  This means that income from sales of codes is likely to go away.

ICC should think of itself as an organization looking after its building department members and not an organization whose  first duty is to purchasers of its evaluation reports and certifications.


----------



## cda

Yep what is the fall back, ..NFPA??

*Hammurabi code* ???


----------



## Pcinspector1

ICE code!


----------



## Keystone

CodeWarrior said:


> You may find getting ahold of organizations a lot harder these days with the effects of Covid-19 forcing changes in the way they carry on their business.
> 
> Add ICC to the list. Several employees, some with 30 + years experience have been furloughed or dismissed recently. This means those who you like working with may not pick up the phone or reply to that email. Since experience appears to be a detriment at ICC, the move appears to be their way of ridding themselves of nuisance  workers and those with salaries corresponding to their many years with the place.
> 
> ICC’s recent acquisitions apparently were planned based on continued growth, so it is stunning that in the two months since lock-downs began nationwide, customers largely stayed away, forcing the contraction of the workforce.
> 
> Maybe they need to get the 2021 codes out soon. If there is anyone left working there to finish them, that is.




My .2 cents. Yes as with most organizations, people with experience have been furloughed. This in itself is not unheard of. However while it may be likely those folks will transition from furloughed to permanently separated it is as far as I know speculation, unless of course any one person on this forum has direct knowledge such as I believe JP Ranch and can and would be willing to confirm. 


Even if that is the case, employers owe employees nothing! We are all replaceable, some less easily then others. Dedication to an employee or employer, working from young adult through retirement with the same employer is almost a bygone experience.  The economy and world is undoubtably a different place. Any business not concerned after this pandemic and making changes toward its future will suffer or meet its demise. ICC has for better or worse evolved from its inception and I would suspect will continue to do so. Why, they have taken random codes throughout the United States and transformed them into a national and international code based platform, they are a face within the politics, they have worldwide exposure.


----------



## Glenn

I have still been busy working with many ICC staff members on both my second edition book and on webinars and training.  The organization is just having stresses like all of us, but I don't think collapse is coming.  They have already greatly shifted their code development revenue away from book sales, although those other revenue sources are taking a hit.

I think the first sign would be a change to the frequency of the code hearings, but I have heard zero word about that.  I think it's convenient that this was already an "off year" for hearings.


----------



## jpranch

The sky is not falling folks. Btw, NFPA let go some employees before the COVID-19 even started.


----------



## north star

*% ~ % ~ %*

Thank you ***jp*** for the update !  

*% ~ % ~ %*


----------



## ICE

If ICC goes down the federal government will have to take over.


----------



## CodeWarrior

A few days ago, ICC had several employment openings posted. Now they disappeared. Additional employees were notified that would be furloughed or terminated. Then ICC realized that these folks could haved filled those advertised positions. Oops! The affected workers had to be reinstated and the openings were closed. 

As the politicians like so say "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. This means it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

This is probably hanging on someone's wall at ICE. We'll see if the furloughed return.


----------



## Mark K

The Federal government will not take over nor can they.  Building regulation is one of the things reserved to the states.

ICC provides very little content.  The vast majority of the effort is provided by the entities that produce the reference standards.  ICC does manage the process by which the model codes are modified and if ICC ceases to exist then somebody else could take over that effort.

While it is possible that ICC could be much smaller I doubt that it will totally cease to exist.


----------



## jpranch

The code council is in no danger of "ceasing to exist". We have worked very hard to build reserves, diversify our revenue streams, and be financially responsible stewards of the memberships resources. If I was to tell you that all is well that would be pure B.S. and I know that you would call me out on it. All is not well with this COVID-19 and the impact it has had on the global economy and it should be completely understandable that changes or adjustments needed to be made. Do not ask me specifics on ICC staff as I'm certain you understand that I cannot and will not be able to respond to that. Anybody that has ever supervised employees would certainly understand. Again, the sky is not falling folks.


----------



## tmurray

Our municipality has pulled posted openings for positions and laid off some staff. I would imagine we are in the majority. If these are signs of imminent failure, then everyone is at risk of imminent failure.


----------



## ADAguy

ICE said:


> If ICC goes down the federal government will have to take over.



Say it won't be so!


----------



## cda

ADAguy said:


> Say it won't be so!



Don’t worry 

We are going to roll out “ The Interstellar Building Code Forum Code” !!!!

Good for use on any planet in the universe.


----------



## jpranch

The romulans will never go for it!


----------



## CodeWarrior

ICC has a brilliant position, by publishing essentially _the _building code in the USA. I initially said _created, _but we all know that is not true, because ICC itself provides no research or original content. But they sell (or maybe ration is a better word ) the codes anyway without having to compensate  the volunteers who develop the things. 

The evaluation service seems to act similarly, with the manufacturers who know the ropes writing reports and criteria, which ICC publishes . New companies who don't know the ropes are ignored until they either figure it out or give up. Overall,  also pretty profitable. 

Where does the money go?


----------



## Mark K

To find out where the money goes it would help to see the organizations budget and the income tax filings.  Is there a claim of immunity?

I suspect that a significant amount of  the money goes pay generous salaries for management.  ICC should be beholding to its members but if a lot of the income comes from manufacturers of products, we could have a situation where management is more differential to manufacturers.  Can you spell conflict of interest?


----------



## Keystone

Mark K said:


> To find out where the money goes it would help to see the organizations budget and the income tax filings.  Is there a claim of immunity?
> 
> I suspect that a significant amount of  the money goes pay generous salaries for management.  ICC should be beholding to its members but if a lot of the income comes from manufacturers of products, we could have a situation where management is more differential to manufacturers.  Can you spell conflict of interest?



ICC operates as a non profit therefore statement of financial interest and taxes are available to the public.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Here is 15 years of annual reports for your reading pleasure

https://www.iccsafe.org/about/overview/annual-report/

*Annual Report 2019*
*Archives 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



*
_*The Code Council’s most recently filed IRS Form 990 will be made available upon request.*_

_For faster viewing/downloading, right click link and select "save target as" and save to your computer._


2018 Annual Report
2017 Annual Report
Part 1 (4MB)
Part 2 (5MB)

2016 Annual Report
2015 Annual Report
2014 Annual Report
2013 Annual Report
2012 Annual Report
2011 Annual Report
2010 Annual Report
2009 Annual Report
2008 Annual Report
2007 Annual Report
2006 Annual Report
2005 Annual Report


----------



## jpranch

If you want to follow the money folks just go to the IRS website and look at the 990's. The 990's are public information. The IRS website is not the most user friendly site but you can find what you are looking for. The reports (990's) are published each May for the preceding year. You can also look at other SDO's such as ASTM, NFPA, ANSI, etc...


----------



## Glenn

CodeWarrior said:


> ICC has a brilliant position, by publishing essentially _the _building code in the USA. I initially said _created, _but we all know that is not true, because ICC itself provides no research or original content. But they sell (or maybe ration is a better word ) the codes anyway without having to compensate  the volunteers who develop the things.
> 
> The evaluation service seems to act similarly, with the manufacturers who know the ropes writing reports and criteria, which ICC publishes . New companies who don't know the ropes are ignored until they either figure it out or give up. Overall,  also pretty profitable.
> 
> Where does the money go?



I respectfully disagree on all counts.

You mention conflict of interest, but then compensating those that contribute to developing the code...  Read that one more time and think about it.  The lack of compensation is why all ideas are welcome from anyone and everyone.  The code is developed honorably (yes, of course there are dishonorably players and stories, but that's the case in everything).  Those that vote on committees or as government members don't get paid either.  Thank the Lord!  If money was involved in the hearings, you would absolutely have a bought code.  That is the furthest from anything we should ever wish for.  The development process is an extremely expensive endeavor, yet costs nothing to anyone at any point to attend, contribute, and learn.  It is brilliant indeed!

As a consultant, I had a client of a small manufacturing business ask if I would assist them in obtaining an es report.  Being familiar with reports, but not the process, I did some research.  I emailed ICC-es.  I was quite impressed by the very long, detailed, and continuous communications with me of how it's done, cost estimates, etc.   I didn't feel ignored in the least bit.


----------



## CodeWarrior

Glenn said:


> I respectfully disagree on all counts.
> 
> You mention conflict of interest, but then compensating those that contribute to developing the code...  Read that one more time and think about it.  The lack of compensation is why all ideas are welcome from anyone and everyone.  The code is developed honorably (yes, of course there are dishonorably players and stories, but that's the case in everything).  Those that vote on committees or as government members don't get paid either.  Thank the Lord!  If money was involved in the hearings, you would absolutely have a bought code.  That is the furthest from anything we should ever wish for.  The development process is an extremely expensive endeavor, yet costs nothing to anyone at any point to attend, contribute, and learn.  It is brilliant indeed!
> 
> As a consultant, I had a client of a small manufacturing business ask if I would assist them in obtaining an es report.  Being familiar with reports, but not the process, I did some research.  I emailed ICC-es.  I was quite impressed by the very long, detailed, and continuous communications with me of how it's done, cost estimates, etc.   I didn't feel ignored in the least bit.



Thanks for reading my post, maybe I wasn't clear about the point I was making. ICC is not much different from other SDOs where the code or standard is written by volunteers and the staff largely stays out of the way except to administer the proceedings. In Europe, the standards are written by a committee of experts and public input on the progress is not easy to offer. I don't like the EU way that much.  So, the ICC fits the US model more or less. The point I am making is volunteers write the code, and ICC offers the process by which these folks can group together. By not paying these people (not that they should) ICC has created a fairly profitable position. I don't get how you claim the process is "an extremely expensive endeavor" though. ICC gives away a lot of the codes to the paid members, but that might be their problem, they give a lot away and the rest of us aren't buying like they used to.

Sounds like you had a pleasant experience with ES, but while it apparently started well, you didn't mention how it ended up. Did your client achieve what they asked for?


----------



## Glenn

CodeWarrior said:


> Thanks for reading my post, maybe I wasn't clear about the point I was making. ICC is not much different from other SDOs where the code or standard is written by volunteers and the staff largely stays out of the way except to administer the proceedings. In Europe, the standards are written by a committee of experts and public input on the progress is not easy to offer. I don't like the EU way that much.  So, the ICC fits the US model more or less. The point I am making is volunteers write the code, and ICC offers the process by which these folks can group together. By not paying these people (not that they should) ICC has created a fairly profitable position. I don't get how you claim the process is "an extremely expensive endeavor" though. ICC gives away a lot of the codes to the paid members, but that might be their problem, they give a lot away and the rest of us aren't buying like they used to.
> 
> Sounds like you had a pleasant experience with ES, but while it apparently started well, you didn't mention how it ended up. Did your client achieve what they asked for?


Good conversation.  I attend the ICC code development hearings and participate in developing it.  Staff is definitely good at doing their job as mere hosts to the process.  I wear the volunteer hat as a code official, just helping create good code (though not employed as such currently), but for certain proposals I wear a paid consultant hat for the deck industry, also just seeking good code (like backyard decks).  So it's not all volunteers that develop the code, ha, ha!  In fact it is a lot of paid folks.  But that is OKAY, because they bring the collective voice of other professionals not poised to testify.  However the people who vote are not paid, so that's good.  By "extremely expensive" I mean hosting the hearings for so long for so many people.  The venues are huge and rented for a long while.  I'm not an event planner, but I can't imagine it is cheap to host.

I have also made attempts at contributing to the development of certain referenced standards from the I-codes, through other SDOs.  My experience was nothing like the opening and welcoming process with ICC where you can make a real difference.  It felt much like the EU experience you mention.  I won't mention names, but I was not impressed...

As for ES, that story is not complete yet.  COVID has messed up a lot of people's work that was underway or starting.  So, I can only say "so far" I found ES incredibly responsive and supportive.  Yes... I am sure it will still be a costly endeavor, but I feel most things are these days.

Glad we could disagree but still discuss and have civility.  It's lacking more and more in the online environment.


----------



## jpranch

This might help a bit? As far as the code hearings go and especially the annual business meeting they are amazingly expensive. I know because I get to see the numbers. I will not release exact numbers but will tell you we are talking at least 6 digits to the left of the decimal point and depending on the location a little more. All of these events are planned a minimum of 3 years out as well as all the contracts. The convention centers are by no means cheap. Talk about costs, look around the hearing room at the electronics and the number of people that are needed to pull the whole thing off. Some are ICC employees and many others contracted vendors. Heck, it takes a minimum of 2 to 3 days just to get the whole thing up and running. ICC covers the cost of getting code official committee members, moderators, and staff to and from the hearings as well as hotel, meals, and other reasonable expenses. Industry has to pay their own way. You think the water coolers in the hearing room are free? Guess again. Then there is CDP Access. That software platform cost more than you can imagine as it was developed, maintained, and owned exclusively by ICC. Good Lord, I could go on and on about all the associated expenses but I'm sure you all get the picture.

Now the codes and the revenue they generate. So, are there profit in codes? Yes. Big profits??? Not on your life. The amount of revenue from codes in percentage relative to all the revenue that the code council takes in has been declining for years. Part of the reason is the cost of goods and services sold that always seems to rise. Another factor to consider is that the code council has diversified its revenue stream in order to support our core mission. Codes & Standards. This was done by senior staff and the board of directors in a well (well pretty well) made plan knowing that perhaps someday there might not be any profit at all from codes not to mention the internet pirates that steal intellectual property. Btw, the last statement, please don't go there as that's a whole other issue and a conservation that I cannot and will not get into. Thanks in advance.

So there is just a small view or sample from the world and view that I'm privileged to play a small part in. Last thought, is the code council perfect? Heck no! If it was I sure as heck would not be on the board! Lol! Are we core mission and membership focused. I can honestly say a resounding yes to that and sleep in good conscience every night. So there you have it folks. Please feel free to take me to task anytime and be sure to have fun at my expense!


----------



## ADAguy

So, what impact to you expect the virus to have on these costs?


----------



## jpranch

Well for the code council reductions in operating expenses are a given. As far as costs for products & services I do not see any increases in the near future and if those costs would need to slightly go up the board would be made fully aware of any long before they would go into effect. Just not seeing it right now. 

With the COVID-19 it has already affected ICC in some similar ways as other companies. We are in a very good position but still need to cut some operating expenses. My crystal ball might not be as clear as I want it to be but I would expect possible delays in code adoptions as building and fire prevention departments get their budgets cut. No travel impacts training and education. Right now there is no unnecessary travel for all of the code council. Even the board will be meeting virtually. As you may have already heard the code council has cancelled the annual business meeting that was going to be held in St. Louis in October. The up side of that is that I get to go elk hunting with my Grandson and son-in-law! WooHoo! Finally!!! The global slowdown in the economy could very well impact ICC-ES & ICC-IAS and in some cases decrease or increase revenues. One example would be laboratory calibration and certification could possibly increase for IAS given the current circumstances but could decrease for ES as products might be slower in development and slower in getting them to market. I see the software industry as big winners here as they relate to all kinds of things in the construction industry. Virtual meetings, electronic plan review, complete solutions for online permitting, virtual inspections, etc... Some jurisdictions have already geared up with all or part of this but many have not and are going to have to spend some pretty big bucks to get caught up. This is where the code council has been working with the federal government to try to get COVID relief monies dedicated for building and fire prevention departments from across the country to be able to fully develop or enhance their remote and online solutions so in the event of a whatever emergency the transition from the traditional office to remote is seamless.


----------



## cda

cda said:


> Don’t worry
> 
> We are going to roll out “ The Interstellar Building Code Forum Code” !!!!
> 
> Good for use on any planet in the universe.




I told you the 

“ The Interstellar Building Code Forum Code” 


Is in play!!!


Check out the Required Exit Sign!!!!


----------



## Mark K

It is a fantasy to believe the code is not bought.  Materials interests and others hire individuals who monitor the code development process, developing code change proposals favoring their employer and objecting to proposals their employer doesn't like.  These individuals are so effective that proposals that their employer do not like tend not to be adopted.  If we were talking about legislatures these individuals would be called lobbyists.

The number of code change proposals and the complexity of these proposals are so great that no individual can be informed about each of the proposals.  This plays into the hands of the special interests.  From my perspective I believe the vast majority of the delegates  defer to these "lobbyists".   Thus the Code is largely bought by special interests.


----------



## Mark K

JP

Do not bring up a topic and then ask individuals not to respond.

A recent Supreme Court ruling has made it clear that once laws are adopted, and building codes when adopted are laws, there can be no copyright.  Yes you have a copyright on the model codes but once they are adopted by a state or jurisdiction there is no copyright on the law of that jurisdiction.  

So an individual who makes available a copy of the adopted laws cannot be considered a pirate since the law belongs to us all.  Thus it is inappropriate to infer that such an individual has violated a law.

ICC might have a claim of a 5th amendment taking when the model codes are adopted by a jurisdiction but that would only result in reimbursement for expenses.  This might mean that the cost of a building permit might have to be increased to cover this cost.

In addition the intellectual property ICC claims as its own is almost exclusively developed by others who are required to sign over their copyright for the intellectual property they developed to ICC before ICC will consider the code change proposal.  Then ICC claims they own the intellectual property.


----------



## steveray

Just heard our regional rep got furloughed for 2 months....


----------



## jpranch

I would respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the recent supreme court ruling.


----------



## Glenn

Mark K said:


> It is a fantasy to believe the code is not bought.  Materials interests and others hire individuals who monitor the code development process, developing code change proposals favoring their employer and objecting to proposals their employer doesn't like.  These individuals are so effective that proposals that their employer do not like tend not to be adopted.  If we were talking about legislatures these individuals would be called lobbyists.
> 
> The number of code change proposals and the complexity of these proposals are so great that no individual can be informed about each of the proposals.  This plays into the hands of the special interests.  From my perspective I believe the vast majority of the delegates  defer to these "lobbyists".   Thus the Code is largely bought by special interests.


Have you ever participated in the code development process, including attendance at both hearings (as they are significantly different)?  If so, I am surprised by your comment.  If not, I am not surprised by your comment.  If you are ever able to participate, you may get a different perspective.

Disclaimer, so you know I'm "one of them":  I have a client I represent in code development.  I am effective.  Very effective.  I am effective at bringing a collective voice of an industry that is regulated by standards, because I am very knowledgeable in the codes of their industry.  I applaud that the system allows the voices of these blue-collar working American men and women to be heard, because they are also knowledgeable in their industry.  They can't individually contribute their voice, because they have work to do building America.  They contribute to their non-profit organization collectively, so that they can pay someone like me to carry their experiences from the dirt and dust to the clean and shiny pedestal where the rules are made.

That matters.  They matter.  Their opinions matter.

Code development is not as corrupt as you make it sound.  Yes, there are some there only for the dollar and will say anything.  They are quickly sniffed out.

You learn a lot attending the hearings.  You learn that the most amazing idea from one single perspective, isn't actually so perfect when other perspectives are included.


----------



## Mark K

While I have not attended the formal hearings I have worked with those that do attend the hearings,  I have been involved with developing code change proposals and responding to proposals for over a 30 year period.  The point is that I know more about the ICC process than you give me credit.

The corruption is not one of violating any law but rather one that results from hiring high powered consultants to represent special interests.


----------



## jpranch

I know many of those consultants but of course not all of them. Darn good, honest, hard working people that are good at what they do. Without mentioning any names they are also good friends of mine so I guess if they are corrupt I'm guilty by association. I'm good with that.


----------



## Glenn

Mark K said:


> While I have not attended the formal hearings I have worked with those that do attend the hearings,  I have been involved with developing code change proposals and responding to proposals for over a 30 year period.  The point is that I know more about the ICC process than you give me credit.
> 
> The corruption is not one of violating any law but rather one that results from hiring high powered consultants to represent special interests.


I'm sorry, Mark, I wasn't attempting to discredit you.  I was asking if you attended.  I think many people share your feelings until they attend.  Thus my "surprised / not surprised" comment.  My sincere apologies for my poor communication.  I attended my first hearings when I was still a code official and it very much opened my eyes, surprised me, and changed my perspective.  I was just trying to offer more perspective to your comment, not reduce yours.

I'm also attempting to convince you that there is much that can be positive about consultants representing special interest.  Special interests are special.  So often their interests aren't understood.  So they come and share those interests.  There is nothing wrong with that.  I learn so much listening to the testimony from the experts in these specialties.  Especially when you have two experts disagreeing with each other.  You learn quickly there is little about code that is an "ultimate truth".

If a "high powered" consultant is yielding results in the code, then their power is coming from those they are able to convince.  Those convinced are the ones granting power and trust to the consultant.  Wouldn't that be the goal of any professional?  To know your subject so well, that people trust and believe you?  That's not evil.

I'll lose friends for saying this next thing...but this is where I agree completely with you.

I do think the manner in which residential fire sprinklers got in the code was absolutely corrupt.  I think the fear tactics I have witness ever since then against anyone that proposes removing them is absolutely unprofessional and unethical.

I do think the manner in which the energy alliance group got recent energy code provisions approved was absolutely corrupt and unethical.

These are two clear examples of gaming a system and using loopholes to win.  A consultant giving convincing testimony is all good to me.


----------



## jpranch

Mark, look through the archives here on the forum. I used to be the guy railing against many of the things that ICC is and does. Well... I was wrong on almost every point. I'm not at all saying that applies to you so please do not take offence. So what changed for me? Making a long story short I started by engaging with our state ICC chapter. Shortly after being elected to their board of directors I started attending the ICC annual business meetings and code hearings. That led to getting on ICC committees and that ultimately led to to being elected to the ICC board. Through that journey and experience I learned first hand how misguided I was back then. My only point here is that like Glenn was saying attending the ABM and code hearings can really change a persons perceptions. There is not going to be an annual business meeting this year because of all this COVID-19 stuff but I'm hopeful for 2021. I'm also hopeful for the spring code hearings and I personally invite you to attend and heck... I'll buy the first rounds at the end of the day. How about it? Glenn, your invited too. My dime!


----------



## Glenn

jpranch said:


> I'm also hopeful for the spring code hearings and I personally invite you to attend and hell... I'll buy the first rounds at the end of the day. How about it? Glenn, your invited too. My dime!


I've already started my Group A proposals!  I'll buy the second round! (but only if I get your vote in the Fall)  HA, HA!  Just kidding!!


----------



## CodeWarrior

jpranch said:


> Well for the code council reductions in operating expenses are a given. As far as costs for products & services I do not see any increases in the near future and if those costs would need to slightly go up the board would be made fully aware of any long before they would go into effect. Just not seeing it right now.
> 
> With the COVID-19 it has already affected ICC in some similar ways as other companies. We are in a very good position but still need to cut some operating expenses. My crystal ball might not be as clear as I want it to be but I would expect possible delays in code adoptions as building and fire prevention departments get their budgets cut. No travel impacts training and education. Right now there is no unnecessary travel for all of the code council. Even the board will be meeting virtually. As you may have already heard the code council has cancelled the annual business meeting that was going to be held in St. Louis in October. The up side of that is that I get to go elk hunting with my Grandson and son-in-law! WooHoo! Finally!!! The global slowdown in the economy could very well impact ICC-ES & ICC-IAS and in some cases decrease or increase revenues. One example would be laboratory calibration and certification could possibly increase for IAS given the current circumstances but could decrease for ES as products might be slower in development and slower in getting them to market. I see the software industry as big winners here as they relate to all kinds of things in the construction industry. Virtual meetings, electronic plan review, complete solutions for online permitting, virtual inspections, etc... Some jurisdictions have already geared up with all or part of this but many have not and are going to have to spend some pretty big bucks to get caught up. This is where the code council has been working with the federal government to try to get COVID relief monies dedicated for building and fire prevention departments from across the country to be able to fully develop or enhance their remote and online solutions so in the event of a whatever emergency the transition from the traditional office to remote is seamless.



Many of you in the forum are building dept. employees. ICC hardly hires anyone in this sector, pretty amazing unless they know something the rest of us don’t.

The furloughs are in effect until September so ICC does not appear to be that well positioned to ride through the challenges. At the ES meetings June 2-3, they actually cancelled an item because the engineer working on it had been furloughed and no one else could apparently step in. This never happened before and gives ES a Huge negative on it’s abilities to serve it’s Clients. Code changes may next on being on the cancellation list.


----------



## jpranch

ICC is very well positioned to ride "ride through the challenges". This is a fact and not BS or wishful thinking. I see the financials. Will it be seamless? No. Does it affect peoples lives? Sure. Does if affect goods and services? Yes, but only in a very minor way as all of us adjust to this new reality and get back to what ever normal will be. I will be getting updates on financials, legal, investments, presentations from NFPA, NAHB, NIST, as well as many action items today and tomorrow during out virtual board meeting. Btw, I get financials to review every month. Gotta keep your eye on the ball folks. Hey Ladies & Gent's, I'm giving you the straight poop here. Did I drink the Coolaid? Heck yes and I went back for 2nd's. Does that mean I'm a liar and blowing smoke up your collective backsides? Never!  I'm just not wired that way.


----------



## jar546

jpranch said:


> ICC is very well positioned to ride "ride through the challenges". This is a fact and not BS or wishful thinking. I see the financials. Will it be seamless? No. Does it affect peoples lives? Sure. Does if affect goods and services? Yes but only in a very minor way as all of us adjust to this new reality and get back to what ever normal will be. I will be getting updates on financials, legal, investments, presentations from NFPA, NAHB, NIST, as well as many action items today and tomorrow during out virtual board meeting. Btw, I get financials to review every month. Gotta keep your eye on the ball folks. Hey Ladies & Gent's, I'm giving you the straight poop here. Did I drink the Coolaid? Heck yes and I went back for 2nd's. Does that mean I'm a liar and blowing smoke up your collective backsides? Never!  I'm just not wired that way.



Thank you for sharing and for being open and honest.


----------



## VillageInspector

Its certainly easy to tell who is in favor of ICC and who is not but here's my two cents, I've been involved with government for over thirty years, the codes since 1997,  and the ICC is without a doubt the single most corrupt agency I've ever seen. Not very long after our state adopted the ICC codes the hierarchy of our State Department started retiring in droves. Guess where they all went for their second career? The ICC. We were told once you adopt the ICC code and get familiar with it you will be able to get a job anywhere in the country as this will be a standardized code across the board. I guess they never heard the term "local or state enhancements". I could go on but there is absolutely no doubt the ICC is the worst thing that could had happened to our industry.


----------



## Paul Sweet

Village Inspector, it's actually the second worst.  There was a serious threat of the feds writing a one-size-fits-none national building code in the 1990s and withholding federal funds from any state that didn't adopt it.  Can you imagine what would happen if the same ones who gave us OSHA and ADA also gave us a building code, with no amendments allowed.


----------



## VillageInspector

Paul Sweet said:


> Village Inspector, it's actually the second worst.  There was a serious threat of the feds writing a one-size-fits-none national building code in the 1990s and withholding federal funds from any state that didn't adopt it.  Can you imagine what would happen if the same ones who gave us OSHA and ADA also gave us a building code, with no amendments allowed.




That's a valid point as well as scary. Not that I'm a huge fan of NFPA but i could have lived with the adoption of NFPA 5000 very easily.


----------



## ADAguy

Mark K said:


> While I have not attended the formal hearings I have worked with those that do attend the hearings,  I have been involved with developing code change proposals and responding to proposals for over a 30 year period.  The point is that I know more about the ICC process than you give me credit.
> 
> The corruption is not one of violating any law but rather one that results from hiring high powered consultants to represent special interests.



Well spoken MH, the result of our constitutional freedoms and the often unforseen/unexpected results that come from it.


----------



## tmurray

Paul Sweet said:


> Village Inspector, it's actually the second worst.  There was a serious threat of the feds writing a one-size-fits-none national building code in the 1990s and withholding federal funds from any state that didn't adopt it.  Can you imagine what would happen if the same ones who gave us OSHA and ADA also gave us a building code, with no amendments allowed.


We have a national code here in Canada. However, it is a model code designed to be adapted by the local jurisdictions. Representation on the code committee is provided throughout the country and has a specific makeup of building/fire officials, members of the public, RDPs, and contractors/developers. Also, no federal funding is tied to its adoption.

 I don't have many complaints with our code. Approached properly, it can be done. Now, would it be approached properly? Apparently not.


----------



## jar546

Paul Sweet said:


> Village Inspector, it's actually the second worst.  There was a serious threat of the feds writing a one-size-fits-none national building code in the 1990s and withholding federal funds from any state that didn't adopt it.  Can you imagine what would happen if the same ones who gave us OSHA and ADA also gave us a building code, with no amendments allowed.



Paul, this is a generic post, not directed at you but to everyone in general.  I am just using your post due to the context.

There is no reason why every state can't do what Florida does with the ICC.  They use it as a base and then modify it to work for the state.  I don't have any I-Codes in my office but modified versions of the FBC.  The same basic setup with chapters and some verbatim language, but, for the most part, very specific changes that reflect the needs of this state.  We are on the 6th edition of the FBC and soon going to the 7th edition.  Even the NFPA 1 has been modified specifically for Florida.  The only major code that is not amended is the NEC.  Everything else, Building, Residential, Accessibility, Mechanical, Fuel Gas, Plumbing, Existing Building, Energy Conservation, etc. is essentially an ICC code that has been customized for our state.  In order to do that, it takes a commission and lots of committees but it is doable and there is no reason why each state can't do that themselves.  This way you have what you need, not what you are forced to have.  This is way better than adopting the ICC codes then having a pile of state statutes to keep track of.
Yes, I am a fan of the ICC and have been since my first IRC book in 2000 which I found significantly better than my BOCA book.  Get involved in your state and make the changes you need and be happy you have a base code available that already did a lot of the hard work.  This way the system and the way the codes are put together are consistent no matter what state you go in and just some of the code requirements may vary.  Think forward and if you are going to bash, then how about coming up with a solution.


----------



## Sifu

jar546 said:


> Paul, this is a generic post, not directed at you but to everyone in general.  I am just using your post due to the context.
> 
> There is no reason why every state can't do what Florida does with the ICC.  They use it as a base and then modify it to work for the state.  I don't have any I-Codes in my office but modified versions of the FBC.  The same basic setup with chapters and some verbatim language, but, for the most part, very specific changes that reflect the needs of this state.  We are on the 6th edition of the FBC and soon going to the 7th edition.  Even the NFPA 1 has been modified specifically for Florida.  The only major code that is not amended is the NEC.  Everything else, Building, Residential, Accessibility, Mechanical, Fuel Gas, Plumbing, Existing Building, Energy Conservation, etc. is essentially an ICC code that has been customized for our state.  In order to do that, it takes a commission and lots of committees but it is doable and there is no reason why each state can't do that themselves.  This way you have what you need, not what you are forced to have.  This is way better than adopting the ICC codes then having a pile of state statutes to keep track of.
> Yes, I am a fan of the ICC and have been since my first IRC book in 2000 which I found significantly better than my BOCA book.  Get involved in your state and make the changes you need and be happy you have a base code available that already did a lot of the hard work.  This way the system and the way the codes are put together are consistent no matter what state you go in and just some of the code requirements may vary.  Think forward and if you are going to bash, then how about coming up with a solution.


I used to work in a state that does the same as Florida.  There was a time, I am told, when they considered doing away with their own and going straight ICC, mostly do to the financial burden of running their own state program.  That didn't end up happening, not sure if it is still on the table.  I can say it was a great system, obviously it was tailored to the state, but it was also way more responsive.  I still refer to that code often, to see what they do, to help me be more informed.  ICC isn't perfect, nor are the other model state codes I turn to.  I have been to the hearings, but I don't see "corruption".  I do see mostly well-intentioned people advocating things from a personal perspective without regard for how it affects the broader public.  I see people using the code to advance an agenda outside the scope of the missions of the codes (sometimes just to be able to see their names on things).  Mostly I see a bunch of people not exercising enough critical thinking.  

I once heard a presenter say to the voting members "I know it's not perfect, but let's get it into the code and we can work on it later" (maybe not an exact quote but darn close.)  That is not the way it should work.  I don't call that corruption as much as stupidity.  Stupidity can usually be fixed, not sure corruption can.


----------



## Paul Sweet

Virginia also adopts the International codes with state modifications and requires all jurisdictions to use it.  It took about 18 months at first, but administrative procedures, publications, response periods, multiple hearings, etc. keep getting more complicated, which dragged the 2015 code adoption out to the fall of 2018!


----------



## Mark K

I suggest that states have some statutes that deal with building code issues.  Thus attempts to adopt the IBC without modification will create conflicts between the IBC and state statutes.  Unless the state legislature adopted a specific version of the IBC directly these statutes will govern.

A legislature that adopts a specific version of the IBC directly is creating something that is almost impossible to modify.  I hope  that all states have delegated adoption of the building code to a state agency.


----------



## RickAstoria

Oregon has statutes that is to create the state's building code division and the statutory language for establishing state adopted building codes (in this case, called "specialty codes"). However, the statutes defines the title and only a few statutory specific matters like what is and isn't exempt buildings under the architect & engineer's law which would be applicable to what plans requires a stamp or not as well as some others. Otherwise, most of the amendment and the adoption process is defined in the administrative codes of the state's building code division and the actual language of the amendments are in the adopted building code regulation (specialty codes). Basically, state legislature isn't needed for every little amendment to the code. They can be autonomous with the day to day matters without the rigid process of having things go through state representatives and state senators just to get changed. They can make necessary changes (albeit minor in quantity) but they do from HSW perspective so it isn't insignificant. While the code division should have oversight as a public agency and I think they are overseen by the state legislature (to who knows what level of effectiveness), they do need to be able to make code changes without as much administrative hoops with the state legislature which can take years to adopt or have amendments changed when there are other things that the legislature deems more important at the time.


----------



## fatboy

Colorado has does not have a State adopted Building Code, it is up to local juridictions to adopt and amend as they see fit. 

In my jurisdiction, all of our amendments create more restrictive requirements, we do not weaken the base code.


----------



## Min&Max

VillageInspector said:


> That's a valid point as well as scary. Not that I'm a huge fan of NFPA but i could have lived with the adoption of NFPA 5000 very easily.


You state that ICC is corrupt and how you are opposed to corruption and then indicate you approve of NFPA. My god, what planet are you from? ICC may not be perfect but it is head and shoulders above NFPA.


----------



## Min&Max

Here the state adopts the code with few or any amendments and local jurisdictions can amend as they see fit. Works very well and I would not change a thing.


----------



## CodeWarrior

Min&Max said:


> You state that ICC is corrupt and how you are opposed to corruption and then indicate you approve of NFPA. My god, what planet are you from? ICC may not be perfect but it is head and shoulders above NFPA.


Well, neither follow a true consensus process for the codes development. Their memberships have the final say unlike ANSI, and other SDOs. Does ICC require a minimum number of votes from those eligible to pass a code?


----------



## Mark K

If a state has authorized a state agency to adopt a state building code the Legislature is not directly involved in the adoption and modification of the building code.

I think corrupt is too strong a term.  This is not an endorsement of ICC but corrupt is not the term.

The current process results in too much influence by industry interests.  Given the volume of amendments I do not believe that a significant number of voting building officials are familiar with and knowledgeable about the provisions being voted on.  This is even worse when local jurisdictions attempt to adopt a building code.


----------



## CodeWarrior

Our association once detected an error in the code and submitted a code change. We thought this submittal would be straightforward and be accepted. This change, however, if passed would not be coordinated with the source document. The publishers of the source document did not support the change and challenged it. They didn't want to be behind the code. The argument was that their group needed to study the issue first and if they agreed they would place it into their document and then submit it as a code reference. We felt the change was too important to wait that long and proceeded to pursue the change.

The publisher sent a code consultant to the ICC hearings to mount their challenge. This consultant was a familiar presence at the code hearings, and usually gave sound arguments in his presentations. We sent one of our association members to represent us, as most of us could not make the trip.

The ICC voting members were almost always persuaded by this consultant and he made his case to disapprove the proposal and wait for his group to handle it. Our rep pleaded that waiting may lead to flawed and unsafe designs, supporting his points with examples. It was as if he wasn't there. The code change was defeated.

I don't know whether to say the ICC membership was corrupt but they didn't give our proposal a fair treatment. They could be accused of ignoring the facts. And they obviously let the personalities involved rule the day. 

After the item was concluded, this esteemed consultant admitted to our rep that he agreed with our change, but the parties paying his way could not allow themselves to be one-upped and thus sent him over to do his dirty work! Pretty sleazy, right?

Of course our proposal ended up in the code one edition later than it should have. So much power in the hands of so few . . . 

There are likely other stories like this out there, but here is my personal experience. What a shock.


----------



## Glenn

CodeWarrior said:


> Our association once detected an error in the code and submitted a code change. We thought this submittal would be straightforward and be accepted. This change, however, if passed would not be coordinated with the source document. The publishers of the source document did not support the change and challenged it. They didn't want to be behind the code. The argument was that their group needed to study the issue first and if they agreed they would place it into their document and then submit it as a code reference. We felt the change was too important to wait that long and proceeded to pursue the change.
> 
> The publisher sent a code consultant to the ICC hearings to mount their challenge. This consultant was a familiar presence at the code hearings, and usually gave sound arguments in his presentations. We sent one of our association members to represent us, as most of us could not make the trip.
> 
> The ICC voting members were almost always persuaded by this consultant and he made his case to disapprove the proposal and wait for his group to handle it. Our rep pleaded that waiting may lead to flawed and unsafe designs, supporting his points with examples. It was as if he wasn't there. The code change was defeated.
> 
> I don't know whether to say the ICC membership was corrupt but they didn't give our proposal a fair treatment. They could be accused of ignoring the facts. And they obviously let the personalities involved rule the day.
> 
> After the item was concluded, this esteemed consultant admitted to our rep that he agreed with our change, but the parties paying his way could not allow themselves to be one-upped and thus sent him over to do his dirty work! Pretty sleazy, right?
> 
> Of course our proposal ended up in the code one edition later than it should have. So much power in the hands of so few . . .
> 
> There are likely other stories like this out there, but here is my personal experience. What a shock.


"it's not what you know, it's who you know".

As much as I stand by the ICC system for developing codes, I admit that popular sentiment definitely appears at times in code development.

However, as I also stand by, the flaws that at times come from the hearings are the flaws of the humans involved, not the system itself.  That statement applies well beyond code development.

We must start being critical of ourselves (collectively) and not seeking blame in some inhuman process or procedure.


----------



## tmurray

CodeWarrior said:


> I don't know whether to say the ICC membership was corrupt but they didn't give our proposal a fair treatment. They could be accused of ignoring the facts. And they obviously let the personalities involved rule the day.



I always like the word "fair". It exposes a lot about the person and their underlying beliefs. In your story, the membership should have viewed your evidence on the same level as the one from this code consultant. A code consultant that the voting members have heard from and relied on, presumably successfully, in the past. Your belief that your code official, that had presumably never petitioned the membership before, would be looked at the same way as this consultant is flawed. 

Ultimately, we all believe we are logical, reasonable people, despite the overwhelming evidence from psychologists that decision making takes place in the emotion center of our brain. We have sound logic for the things we should have. Based on this it is only "fair" that we get those things. But in this case, you did not get the outcome you wanted. The process must be unfair, because otherwise you would have gotten what you wanted. After all, you just want to be treated fairly at the hearing. In reality the situation was not controlled to engineer the desired outcome. The ego will not allow accountability for the failure, so it must be someone else's fault. 

If we want to do better, we have to get better. We need to look at our presentations, the way we present ourselves, and our information from the viewpoint of our audience. We need to understand and prepare for challenges to our proposals. In proposing a change, you are fighting an uphill battle. No one likes change. This consultant just needs to give people the slightest excuse and people will jump right on it, even if it just to delay it for 3 years. If our credentials are not established, we need to establish them. Give people a reason to trust you. Now for the change, as much as you want to respect their "choice" in voting, you want to make it so there is no choice. People should be left thinking that there is no other option but to support your proposal. 

I would also recommend against making character judgement against a person for doing a job (unless it is outright illegal). Is someone "sleazy" for wanting to make sure they can pay a mortgage and afford groceries? I don't feel it's my place to place judgement on how someone else lives their life. But, if you understand a person's motivation, you now know how to leverage them. We use this all the time for contractors. Yes, I can just take them to court and waste a lot of money, but I can also just relate how fixing that code violation is going to save them money in the long term (call backs, lawsuits, etc.). I don't talk about it being the "right" thing to do, because pride in workmanship is not a motivator for this class of contractor.

Always, always, always, tailor your message to your audience by viewing things from their perspective. You will be more successful in everything you do.


----------



## VillageInspector

CodeWarrior said:


> Our association once detected an error in the code and submitted a code change. We thought this submittal would be straightforward and be accepted. This change, however, if passed would not be coordinated with the source document. The publishers of the source document did not support the change and challenged it. They didn't want to be behind the code. The argument was that their group needed to study the issue first and if they agreed they would place it into their document and then submit it as a code reference. We felt the change was too important to wait that long and proceeded to pursue the change.
> 
> The publisher sent a code consultant to the ICC hearings to mount their challenge. This consultant was a familiar presence at the code hearings, and usually gave sound arguments in his presentations. We sent one of our association members to represent us, as most of us could not make the trip.
> 
> The ICC voting members were almost always persuaded by this consultant and he made his case to disapprove the proposal and wait for his group to handle it. Our rep pleaded that waiting may lead to flawed and unsafe designs, supporting his points with examples. It was as if he wasn't there. The code change was defeated.
> 
> I don't know whether to say the ICC membership was corrupt but they didn't give our proposal a fair treatment. They could be accused of ignoring the facts. And they obviously let the personalities involved rule the day.
> 
> After the item was concluded, this esteemed consultant admitted to our rep that he agreed with our change, but the parties paying his way could not allow themselves to be one-upped and thus sent him over to do his dirty work! Pretty sleazy, right?
> 
> Of course our proposal ended up in the code one edition later than it should have. So much power in the hands of so few . . .
> 
> There are likely other stories like this out there, but here is my personal experience. What a shock.



Okay so I will withdraw the word "corrupt" and go with "sleazy" which in my book is essentially one and the same.


----------



## CodeWarrior

tmurray said:


> I always like the word "fair". It exposes a lot about the person and their underlying beliefs. In your story, the membership should have viewed your evidence on the same level as the one from this code consultant. A code consultant that the voting members have heard from and relied on, presumably successfully, in the past. Your belief that your code official, that had presumably never petitioned the membership before, would be looked at the same way as this consultant is flawed.
> 
> Anyone can submit a code change proposal to a code. No filing fees required. However this breaks down the groupins who have been participating.
> 
> 
> Competing material groups, including but not limited to: concrete, masonry, steel, wood, and plastic, pursuing market share gains may propose revisions to the code. These groups not only directly petition changes but publish reference standards.
> 
> 
> Builders and developers pursuing avenues of least initial cost, often proposing, encouraging, or supporting the development of code provisions  that are favorable for alternatives to traditional products and methods and providing the builder or developer with increased profitability.
> 
> Systems manufacturers, such as those producing automatic sprinkler systems, may propose, encourage, and support code revisions that reduce the requirements for the use of passive fire protection to justify the additional costs for their systems and gain support from builders and developers.
> 
> 
> Government agencies may propose code changes that reflect the results of research and development; support their issues and views; or satisfy their obligations to comply with mandates from legislative bodies.
> 
> 
> Building code officials and administrators may propose changes to enhance life safety or to simplify the code or the inspection process.
> 
> 
> General public and legal counsel may submit changes with the intent of increasing consumer protection.
> 
> 
> Ultimately, we all believe we are logical, reasonable people, despite the overwhelming evidence from psychologists that decision making takes place in the emotion center of our brain. We have sound logic for the things we should have. Based on this it is only "fair" that we get those things. But in this case, you did not get the outcome you wanted. The process must be unfair, because otherwise you would have gotten what you wanted. After all, you just want to be treated fairly at the hearing. In reality the situation was not controlled to engineer the desired outcome. The ego will not allow accountability for the failure, so it must be someone else's fault.
> 
> If we want to do better, we have to get better. We need to look at our presentations, the way we present ourselves, and our information from the viewpoint of our audience. We need to understand and prepare for challenges to our proposals. In proposing a change, you are fighting an uphill battle. No one likes change. This consultant just needs to give people the slightest excuse and people will jump right on it, even if it just to delay it for 3 years. If our credentials are not established, we need to establish them. Give people a reason to trust you. Now for the change, as much as you want to respect their "choice" in voting, you want to make it so there is no choice. People should be left thinking that there is no other option but to support your proposal.
> 
> I would also recommend against making character judgement against a person for doing a job (unless it is outright illegal). Is someone "sleazy" for wanting to make sure they can pay a mortgage and afford groceries? I don't feel it's my place to place judgement on how someone else lives their life. But, if you understand a person's motivation, you now know how to leverage them. We use this all the time for contractors. Yes, I can just take them to court and waste a lot of money, but I can also just relate how fixing that code violation is going to save them money in the long term (call backs, lawsuits, etc.). I don't talk about it being the "right" thing to do, because pride in workmanship is not a motivator for this class of contractor.
> 
> Always, always, always, tailor your message to your audience by viewing things from their perspective. You will be more successful in everything you do.


----------

