# why I hate "policies"



## peach (May 24, 2011)

They aren't codified, for one thing..

We failed an inspection yesterday because they didn't have AFCI's for all bedroom "outlets" which does not mean receptacles.

Jurisdiction doesn't agree since "you can't plug anything into the smoke detector or light fixture".. not what the code says.

Jurisdiction policy.  Not code.. not local amendment.

Quit writing technical "policy".. bad medicine.

Thanks


----------



## cda (May 24, 2011)

I kinda agree

but thought code allowed it, at least the fire code  sorry do not have the books

also if you are in a place that allows the city to admend the code, and yyou stick the policies in admendments, you wind up with another admendment code book thick as the base code


----------



## jim baird (May 25, 2011)

Peach is correct, in that "outlet" includes more than just a receptacle.  I have not seen much written "policy", just word of mouth about what the local AHJ looks for or notices.  It leads to the modern myth among trades that "every county's codes are different".  In our state building, fire, and accessiblity are statewide.  Localities are required to cobble their own admin procedures, which get state review.


----------



## Jobsaver (May 25, 2011)

Administrative policies often serve as a more formal definition or interpretation to "everybody having their own interpretation", and can help the code enforcement process serve the public. It depends more on the quality of the policy, requiring careful consideration and drafting, than it does simply having them. Bad policies are a negative. Good policies are a positive.


----------



## Forest (May 25, 2011)

Sounds like the wonderful government in action, But yes I agree with peach.


----------



## peach (May 25, 2011)

made them spell it out in an e=mail... save it for a rainy day.  Need to include "policies" the next time you codify code amendments; make it law that everyone can read.. not just available once you start asking them.


----------



## fatboy (May 26, 2011)

Actually, that is exactly what I do. If I feel the need to commit an interpretation to policy, then at the next opportunity, I will codify it via ordinance, so it is out there. Unless it is more of an administrative nature, that just doesn't fit in a code, policies are really amendments to the code, waiting to happen. (and I really don't like having a bunch of amendments)


----------



## brudgers (May 26, 2011)

The change from receptacle to outlet occurred  between the  1999 NEC where the AFCI requirement was introduced and the 2002 NEC - so yes, different jurisdictions can enforce the code differently.


----------



## TJacobs (May 26, 2011)

It can be enlightening to READ the DEFINITIONS (outlet)...just sayin'...agree with peach.  Thanks also to brudgers for pointing out the NEC language change.

From 2006 IBC:

104.1 General.

The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official *shall have the authority* to render interpretations of this code and *to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its* *provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.*

If your going to create a policy it's not supposed to make things worse.


----------



## beach (May 26, 2011)

We write "Guidelines" to help the public and staff follow our interpretation of the code....we also reference our guidelines in our amendments. Probably not the best way, but it works for us.


----------

