# What ICC Leaders Should Do....



## CowboyRR (Sep 29, 2010)

...to restore trust amongst the membership and crawl out of the whole they have dug? What are your thoughts/ideas? My prior posts have outlined my opinion of a few things I believe are wrong with the ICC. The complaints beg this question - if it's broke how do they fix it? A simple bullet list for starters:

1) Full transparency of the BOD on all of their actions and meetings. Get a real note-taking secretary to generate useful minutes that explain what they are doing in detail. Send the minutes to the BOD Members by email to get them approved - then post the minutes on the front page of the ICC website and send them by email to all the members. 2) Relocate the ICC headquarters from DC to a central US location easily accessible by air - maybe a suburb of Dallas of Chicago (prefer Dallas only because of the year round weather). The cost of office space in DC is insane - and it would be better to get the current CEO and ICC leaders as far away from the Feds as possible.

3) Stop trying to "save the world" by a) introducing I-codes to 3rd world countries, b) sending local govt employees to disaster sites outside our borders, c) creating separate codes out of sections that are already in the books (e.g. Green codes, Swimming Pool Codes, etc) and d) grow a spine and push back the code publication cycle to 5 years - with only 1 code change cycles between publications.

4) Use the extra resources from 2 & 3 above to provide members with competent, quality training - for even the least wealthy members. News Flash! Those big honking code books are meaningless if the staff in local governments don't have access to adequate training to understand how they should be applied.

Those items are just barely on the tip of the iceberg.....didn't even touch that certification mess. I'm interested in reading your thoughts on this.


----------



## RJJ (Sep 29, 2010)

The way to fix it is put votes on the floor to bring real change. A national Building Code Officials Association to get back a share of what others have directed away from us. Of course we would have to stop the buying of votes to have success. 1500 real people can make the difference! Think about that! Also, What rights do we have to the foundation that now contains the property of ICC?


----------



## peach (Sep 29, 2010)

DC is right where ICC should have their HQ... just like every other not for profit that lobbies congress.. (trust me.. they are ALL here).  What better way to be in touch with the law makers than to go visit them when they are executing their official duties than here.

The regional offices are there for a reason.. to address issues of a more local nature; training is available - all a chapter has to do is ask for it.

Something that came up in Denver is the possibility of voting remotely during the code change webcasts.. Mr. Armstrong is well aware of budget constraints that keep some of us away from some of the code change hearings.  Baltimore was good for me.. Charlotte maybe not too bad... Reno.. probably not.


----------



## jpranch (Sep 29, 2010)

cowboy, love the thread. Ah, D.C. the state that is not a state. a.k.a. Dodge City. Given the current state of affairs I think the midwest is a better location. As far as the current "leadership"? Resignation would be a good start. Certifications??? Don't even get me started. I do beleive that rjj said it well. Parapharsed: the cow is on a crash and burn course.

View attachment 216


View attachment 216


/monthly_2010_09/cow-fire.jpg.3d4e95bd8476409da9f7b444065954ed.jpg


----------



## incognito (Sep 30, 2010)

The only real problem with ICC is that it is no longer a BUILDING OFFICIAL organization. We sold out to the fire service and we will only have in the building code what they allow us to have.


----------



## RJJ (Sep 30, 2010)

Peach: Remote voting has been an issue for at least 2 years. I have voiced this in every letter and every time code a hearings takes place. It is not new. They don't want it and have not figured out how to control it.


----------



## Builder Bob (Sep 30, 2010)

incognito said:
			
		

> The only real problem with ICC is that it is no longer a BUILDING OFFICIAL organization. We sold out to the fire service and we will only have in the building code what they allow us to have.


I have seen several BO that did not enforce the code per sec(politics, lack of enforcement powers, and good ole' boys). These BO's aren't the ones called at 0200 hrs when something goes wrong - Many BO's will tell you that they are  only concerned with the building until it is CO'ed.

People have got to realize that the building codes, fire codes, mechaincal codes, electrical codes, etc. all have the same minimum requirments for public safety, well being, etc.

This has to be a group effort without any personal grudges, self - serving interest, for the betterment of the codes for the safety and well being of the general public.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 30, 2010)

The beginning of the slide came when they moved to DC and got in bed with the Feds and the home builders/realtors.  Then came James Lee Witt and it has never been the same.  It is about time the fire service got smart and got involved.

I agree with CowboyRR, RJJ and Builder Bob.


----------



## RJJ (Sep 30, 2010)

It has to be a joint effort!


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Sep 30, 2010)

The ICC fell apart right in the middle of the Code Wars with NFPA. The NFPA hired staff right out of the ICC.

Hiring James Lee Witt was just an effort to make the ICC look like it was important. They could have hired someone that knew something about business and construction. And I agree that moving to DC was stepping away from the people who make the ICC work and getting into bed with politicians and other scoundrels.

The Fire Service was torn apart during the Code Wars. And only lately has a significant body of fire service people started back into the I Codes. Thats because they finally realized that NFPA will never give them control of the Uniform Fire Code. It is the same lesson learned by other groups that tried to get control of part of the NFPA.


----------



## smeismer (Sep 30, 2010)

I believe that the ICC has lost its focus.  The tail wagging the dog these days is the concentration on public policy issues and "best construction practices" to the detriment of minimum standards of life safety and health.  It is wonderful that people are concerned about access, energy conservation, "green technology", but I believe that the purpose of building codes is and should be life safety and health.  In addition, there has been far too much complication introduced into the codes, as far as I can tell, mainly because computers make it possible.  The design chapters are mostly by reference now.  In most cases, the answers come out within a few percent of what they did 20 years ago, but the process takes many more calculations.  That is not all bad, as we certainly can allow sound design using complicated methods (as we always have), but wouldn't it be nice to have an easily verifiable bottom or approximation of a bottom as we did at one time?  I understand that the driving force of all of this is money, it seems that there is an unlimited supply for some popular issues, but TANSTAAFL.


----------



## V767 (Oct 1, 2010)

This is a great thread guys. Thanks for all the opinions and points of views.

V767


----------



## CowboyRR (Oct 1, 2010)

V767 said:
			
		

> This is a great thread guys. Thanks for all the opinions and points of views. V767


Again - it is worthless unless ICC leaders or ICC members do something about it. Are you going to tell them about this? or, Can you advise whether they are reading it themselves? or better, Do the ICC leaders intend to chime in and tell us what they recommend is needed to fix things?

If they don't get their act together soon I suspect the members are going to start doing something tangible about it - or at least that is what I hope happens.


----------



## CowboyRR (Oct 1, 2010)

Keep the ideas coming! Here is another one:

The BOD members are not individually accountable for their performance because they have created an election process that is really a political sham. Each BOD member, including the officers, should be required to publish both quarterly and annual reports of their activities. The report should include explanations of their voting record on issues (not just what their votes were, but why they cast a yea or nay vote) and what their role was in developing and/or implementing ICC policies, etc.; and any expenses related to ICC activity and a synopsis of any travel (i.e. tell us what they delivered as BOD members vs. what they cost the org.). If they are running for an officer seat they need to explain their leadership agenda for the org. and tell us every quarter what they have done to fulfill that agenda - all the way thru their Presidency.

We need REMOTE VOTING!!!!


----------



## peach (Oct 3, 2010)

The board actions are open to the public (except for the executive sessions - city council executive sessions are also not open to the public, so there's nothing wrong with that).  Since I don't work for a jurisdiction anymore (and hence, not a voting member), I haven't paid too much attention to the officers;  HOWEVER, in the past, they have all published their vision and agenda.. I assume they still do.

ICC is more open to remote voting than you think; figuring out how to prevent fraud on the part of the voting members is the challenge.


----------



## V767 (Oct 4, 2010)

Cowboy RR, I completely agree with you and these things are being said I am relaying up the chain.

Per the leaders commenting on this board, as I know right now, it is still just me. But, I would be surprised if some of these concerns and opinions are not addressed at Conference. I know I will be hosting a cracker barrel session on ICC's social media, which includes the discussion board. And likewise, our CIO will be hosting another cracker barrel session on the website and all the updates that have and will continue to happen.

So, I know for certain that some of the questions are already being acted upon. I will be sure to follow through with the any other comments that may slip through the cracks.

Thanks CowboyRR.

V767


----------



## CowboyRR (Oct 4, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> The board actions are open to the public (except for the executive sessions - city council executive sessions are also not open to the public, so there's nothing wrong with that).  Since I don't work for a jurisdiction anymore (and hence, not a voting member), I haven't paid too much attention to the officers;  HOWEVER, in the past, they have all published their vision and agenda.. I assume they still do.ICC is more open to remote voting than you think; figuring out how to prevent fraud on the part of the voting members is the challenge.


You are missing an important concept here - I want to know what each BOD member is doing and why. I want to vote against those BOD members that are not voting and reasoning decisions based on my expectations - and I want to vote for BOD members who's decisions and reasoning meet my expectations. I want remote voting so I can cast these votes wihtout attending a conference - because my jurisdictoin is tight on funds and we cannot travel lie in hte past. If you know where to find this information from a public domain then please let us know.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 5, 2010)

CowboyRR: I understand your concept and agree! Thus the question remains is to bring change and order to a system and an organization that has lost touch. The only way is to get involved. The first step is to bring other like minded people to the table. We will never all agree on all issues, however, we must find common ground and work from that point. The voting and code process are the first step. If the ICC Board doesn't agree then we need to vote them out. If management tries to block such actions we need to fire them. They work at our discretion. We pay the money the eat off of, and it comes from the bottom up.


----------



## Mule (Oct 5, 2010)

Cowboy, there are requested letters of support for ICC Board Candidates. Go in there and write a letter of support for whichever candidate you support. Here is a link for each candidate.

Guy Tomberlin

Doug Murdock

Alex Olszowy

Dwayne Garris


----------



## CowboyRR (Oct 5, 2010)

Mule said:
			
		

> Cowboy, there are requested letters of support for ICC Board Candidates. Go in there and write a letter of support for whichever candidate you support. Here is a link for each candidate.Guy Tomberlin
> 
> Doug Murdock
> 
> ...


On what basis would you suggest I support any one of them? Have you read my previous posts?


----------



## Mule (Oct 5, 2010)

I'm just saying that if you feel like one of the candidates tickles your fancy...support them. If not...don't. It would be a way of voicing your opinion.


----------



## CowboyRR (Oct 5, 2010)

Mule said:
			
		

> I'm just saying that if you feel like one of the candidates tickles your fancy...support them. If not...don't. It would be a way of voicing your opinion.


A quick review of my prior posts will reveal that there is no way to tell whether they tickle anything - much less my fancy.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 5, 2010)

Mule,

No need to vote.  I'm waiting for Obama to appoint a Czar over the codes.  Then we will have "sustainable" consistent inconsistences.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Mule (Oct 5, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> "sustainable" consistent inconsistences.


I like that!


----------



## Yankee (Oct 5, 2010)

This isn't the place for a board member or rep to comment or discourse on ICC issues. Responding to anything in any detail on a public forum is simply bad practice. There are channels of communication with these people , , , , write a letter. Or even an email. Maybe even make a phone call. Say something specific.


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 5, 2010)

At least Dwayne *(yea....... the fire guy)* mentions a couple of the issues facing ICC and points out necessary measures (membership) needed to improve their standing (Pg.3).  I happen to know him and the fire representation he is trying to replace.  He would give *all* of us "members" a good service since he shares the "team" concept of code development and application approach and knows the need to *all* work together in this business *protection of the civilian population*.


----------



## CowboyRR (Oct 5, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> This isn't the place for a board member or rep to comment or discourse on ICC issues. Responding to anything in any detail on a public forum is simply bad practice. There are channels of communication with these people , , , , write a letter. Or even an email. Maybe even make a phone call. Say something specific.


I have given specific ideas for the lack of transparency within the BOD and holding the individual BOD members accountable

for their actions. I have also used all the communications mechanisms you noted above. Those experiences resulted in the ideas I have listed. I'd like to hear others ideas about improving the relationship between the BOD and the membership as a whole (not individual members).


----------



## conarb (Oct 5, 2010)

Marshal Burns said:
			
		

> and knows the need to *all* work together in this business *protection of the civilian population*.


I thought all of us were civilians:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> _n._A person following the  pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of  the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
> 
> 
> A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
> ...


Since all of us are pursuing a civil life and none of us are members of the active military or the police, some of us must be members of a belligerent group?

¹ http://www.answers.com/topic/civilian


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 5, 2010)

Conarb,

" some of us must be members of a belligerent group? "

Unfotunately my friend; I think you have it in a nut shell (pun intended).  We do meet the qualifications of and definition of a belligerent group.  

Uncle Bob


----------



## peach (Oct 5, 2010)

Frankly, none of them go into ICC leadership roles with much of an agenda other than the recognition... getting the ticket punched, etc.  (Or so I believe)..

you may as well ask them to solve the theory of relativity as to ask them what their plan is.

Only after they find themselves in the frying pan do they begin to form what they'd like to accomplish.  I've read some of the candidates agendas.. always fluff.


----------



## peach (Oct 5, 2010)

I know Doug Murdock.. since I don't know any of the others, and Doug is a good Code guy, that would be one for me.


----------



## Mule (Oct 6, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> always fluff.


Don't tell me they are politicians.....


----------



## texas transplant (Oct 6, 2010)

The last time I went to the Annual conference it seemed that the best way to get elected to the ICC board was to give away the best t-shirts and have your state organization sponsor the best hospitality suite.


----------



## CowboyRR (Oct 8, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Frankly, none of them go into ICC leadership roles with much of an agenda other than the recognition... getting the ticket punched, etc.  (Or so I believe)..you may as well ask them to solve the theory of relativity as to ask them what their plan is.
> 
> Only after they find themselves in the frying pan do they begin to form what they'd like to accomplish.  I've read some of the candidates agendas.. always fluff.


Exactly, ICC leaders and BOD members don't reveal what the job entails - so how does anybody know if they are competent for the job?


----------



## CowboyRR (Oct 8, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> I know Doug Murdock.. since I don't know any of the others, and Doug is a good Code guy, that would be one for me.


You have no knowledge of whether the job requires the candidate to be a good code guy so how can you say with any certainy that he should be elected to perform the job. I suspect it requires a whole different skill set - but we'll never know until the BOD members and ICC leaders tell us what is involved. To that end we should be electing people that stipulate their agreement with our expectations on turning things around. All existing BOD members need to be removed at the earliest possible opportunity (i.e. throw the bums out).


----------



## Yankee (Oct 8, 2010)

CowboyRR said:
			
		

> You have no knowledge of whether the job requires the candidate to be a good code guy so how can you say with any certainy that he should be elected to perform the job. I suspect it requires a whole different skill set - but we'll never know until the BOD members and ICC leaders tell us what is involved. To that end we should be electing people that stipulate their agreement with our expectations on turning things around. All existing BOD members need to be removed at the earliest possible opportunity (i.e. throw the bums out).


I am getting a mixed message from your post  . . . which is it, that the ICC leaders should "tell us what is involved", or that we should have "stipulated expectations"? I agree that there is some fixin' to do, but having been on boards I'd say get yourself on one or two so that you have some perspective as to what these people face.


----------



## CowboyRR (Oct 8, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> I am getting a mixed message from your post  . . . which is it, that the ICC leaders should "tell us what is involved", or that we should have "stipulated expectations"? I agree that there is some fixin' to do, but having been on boards I'd say get yourself on one or two so that you have some perspective as to what these people face.


I have advocated that the BOD should be much more transparent in their activities and I have specified how I would prefer they inform the membership about their personal involvement. There are several great "code guys" that are currently on the ICC BOD that obviously lack adequate leadership skills to serve on the BOD.  I have served on boards - and that point is not relevant to the purpose of this thread. I was hoping this thread could be a resource Kyle could use to provide ICC Leaders with tangible ideas that they could use to start turning things around. Hopefully, future posts will provide some more of these ideas.


----------



## ewenme (Oct 8, 2010)

Having served on a number of "boards" I think the duties of the board members should be explained to the membership: the Board is a policy-making body, not the day-to-day operational entity overseer. The CEO is the person responsible for the day-to-day operations and business. If the Board does not like the direction the CEO is taking, it's up to the Board to say whether or not he stays, whether or not he changes direction according to their policies. The Board is directly accountable to the membership. I have, on several occasions, written to every member of the Board of ICC. Mr. Zubia was the ONLY one who replied, and he was president at the time. What the Board members do on their own time is often not relevant to their position on the Board. In the case of the ICC Board, I would think that some broad spectrum of backgrounds would lend itself to a better board: Should all Board members be business men? Inspectors? building officials? Fire Chiefs? I don't think so. It's the real-world mix of backgrounds that would lend intself to setting policies that are sound.

OK. I'm off the soapbox for now. Except to say that if you want ICC to change, you need to address Operations and Policy.


----------



## ggmarch (Oct 8, 2010)

rant......"when the ICC stops being a publishing company lobbying the government to require everyone to purchase their product every three years." done....no need to read further, just an architect's anecdote from the transition.

story....." PA has the UCC that went through phases of changes and ever expanding codes but they wised up and streamlined their life safety code down to a very useable 5"x8" 80+/- page code book that cost anyone 8 dollars from the government. this code was around since the twenties with mods plus the ADA was all we needed across the state except Philly and Pittsburgh(chose their own codes since they needed more specific stuff) up until the state decided it didn't want the responsibility. so,  back in the 90's they adopted the international code. the reviewers at the time were having trouble learning and many were just under the retirement age.(some were my friends who were stalling) it wasn't until 2004 i think, the state actually said enough is enough we're going ahead and implementing the newest code(03). townships were to opt in or out of reviewing their own projects to this code. with this, the third party review system began,  along with it, the confusion. and here we are today, still trying to learn the new code. with every new version of the code, we make the previous code obsolete and a legal nightmare for these review agencies not to mention us designers who need to own the codes. PA law states that the code must me accessible to everyone, but as of today, the 2009 code in unavailable in any public library. the 06 codes are spread out all over the county and with all the cross referencing, it's truly a nightmare to feel comfortable that one IS actually following the code. this has placed even more stress on the review agencies.

 the ability of the BO to use his judgement that is totally legal in the code went out the window when the state started springing pop reviews of the reviewers. the fear of liability and doing anything that isn't exactly stated in the code rarely happen and understandably. all the reviewers i know are scared to lose their job if the use their judgement on a case by case basis. their fear of job security put pressure on the DPs to over draw where things were not necessary prior. this led to outrageous fees and many times the work load to both justify a fee and CYA information. the AIA lobby is partly to blame too(idiots). anyhow, the trend in building reviews with the new code seems to have gone from "life safety" , where it should be, to the "Protection from Offending Civil Liberties" and "i can't authorize that because i could lose my job" and at times, "it's about protecting the future owner/occupant so we require it now since it doesn't matter what you want, it's what the code says."

a few weeks back i was asked to attend a town meeting with  a state senator three local councilmen and give a presentation with the local BO about the impact of the code upon small river towns. every building has at least an 8 inch step inside with 2 -3 stories wood stud tin ceilings with amazing amounts of charm. some with no rear entrances capable of the strictness of accessibility.......no water in the street capable of supporting sprinklers and if there was it was in the middle of the street through prized brick sidewalks($$$$).... or no fire separation between floors and some buildings sharing structural party walls. the local businesspeople put on this event to express their frustration to the government officials pointing out how the new code actually prevents them from upgrading their buildings since they are so far out of whack with the current code and that the Existing Buildings Code isn't much help. many businesses that would like to be in the town center go out to the burbs since they can't afford to do what is required of them. the building owners complaint is that the building's been there since 1850, where's it going?...they can't sell, they can't get renters, they can't afford to front the change of occupancy, their possible renters don't want to be required to pay for the change of occupancy or to have to try and start a new business on limited funds plus buy a building-upgrade their bathrooms-close off two upper rentable floor since they can't afford sprinklers ...and on and on what's happening? the worst thing that can happen to a building......they go vacant!   and all they hear from the government is that, "well, that's just the cost of doing business." well that was a t first, now the local government is seeing the light. but what i found interesting is that the state senator told me this was the first "complain about the imposition of the code"  session hesever been to, but he constantly is attending seesions for those who want more restrictive codes. that was an eye opener for me.

does any of this sound familiar? the people get mad at me for what i have to tell them, they get mad at the BOs because of what they tell them but mostly they know we're only doing the job that the code tells us to do. so i like to tell them that the code is an entity that was designed with good intentions but was unleashed upon us by ignorant politicians who didn't understand the self-promoting aspect of the the code and it's life's blood is the sale of their product. it's here to stay and the only way to fix it is to get rid of it, i won't hold my breath.........story over, sorry it's just i'm sick-tired-and have nothing better to do.


----------



## peach (Oct 9, 2010)

ICC has a mission and a vision; the BOD isn't going to waiver from that very much.  How they achieve success is for the membership to decide.  Ewenme hit the nail on the head.  No one person on the Board is going to make radical changes; each of them has a vision of what they want to achieve.  In the real world, budgets, etc are going to dictate what is actually accomplished.

I could throw my name into the ring on the platform that "EVERY jurisdiction will adopt the 2009 I codes without amendments within 12 months"... sounds like a plan, but the jurisdictions won't buy into it.


----------



## Yankee (Oct 9, 2010)

very good points ggmarch


----------

