# New ICC Survey - Code Developement



## Alias (Dec 28, 2010)

In case you missed it or didn't get the email, Icc is requesting input on code developement hearings.

The International Code Council is requesting your input on a very important survey below on potential changes to the code development process. 

Please take the time to fill in this short survey:

http://s-32f5b2-i.sgizmo.com/s3/i-21827496-127250/

Thank you for participating in this process.

Have fun and play nice.   

Sue, brrrr........!


----------



## peach (Dec 28, 2010)

thanks .. hopefully we all vote for remote participation... I can't afford to attend every hearing every time.


----------



## Inspector Gift (Dec 28, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> ...hopefully we all vote for remote participation...


As if they will listen!   Sorry, Peach, but how many times must we be burned before we quit touching the stove?

Having said that, I admit that filled it out -- despite the sinking feeling in my gut that it was a total waste of my time.


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 28, 2010)

I concur.....and thanks for the link since being a member I didn't get the memo......glad they had a toggle for fire official


----------



## Yankee (Dec 28, 2010)

Just asking  . . .

With remote voting is there any chance that the voters will have listened to/read/considered the various opinions and perspectives?


----------



## Alias (Dec 28, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> thanks .. hopefully we all vote for remote participation... I can't afford to attend every hearing every time.


peach -

I can't even get to one.  My budget for training, etc. was cut to $1000 for the year, and this includes buying books.

Sue, on the frontier


----------



## jpranch (Dec 29, 2010)

Didn't get that one. I swear, this is not a shot at the fire service (or perhaps it is?) but many, many of us just have not gotton past Minneapolis and Baltimore. I was at Charlotte and voted against remote voting even though I very much believe in it. As proposed there it sucked!!! TOOOOOOOOOO many holes. The time will come but today is not that day.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 29, 2010)

Ya'll,

Keep in mind that the Fire Service was the culprit only because they won. We found and published on the old BB documents proving that the NAHB did the same thing; they just weren't as prepared that time. If I remember correctly, the NAHB had won that vote several times in the past. Actually, the NAHB had been loading the boat (vote) for some time.

As far as remote voting; all votes should be required to be from the official computer of the jurisdiction (office computer); and the municipalities member number should be the confimation number. The cost of attending hearings gives the special interests an overwhelming advantage. As it stands; they can give local code organizations and municipalities, the money to cover attendance costs.

The system is corrupted beyond repair. The codes are a facade that give the population a false impression that their homes and commercial structures are built to; at least mininum saftey and structural requrirements. The fact is that Building Officials are mostly government employees/appointees, that have no training and/or code knowledge, and the ones that are certified are controled by political pressures to ignore many of the requirements; and, they control the votes.

Inspectors and plans examiners can only vote the way the code official says they can. The code official sends them to vote the way they are told.

Most inspectors are not trained and/or certified; and, haven't a clue what is written in the codes; and if they were and insisted on enforcing the codes are forced out of their jobs; the same as certified, knowledgeable Building Officials who attempt to enforce the codes.

The members of this forum are not the norm; but, the exception. A small voice crying out in the wilderness; which I dearly love.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 29, 2010)

Uncle Bob, In the interest of fairness it should be pointed out that NAHB never did anything that closely resembled what the fire service did in Minneapolis and Baltimore. The fire service actually bought govermental memberships and then NFPA paid their way in order to stuff the ballot box. NAHB members can not become voting members by merely becoming a member of ICC. Regardless of how many building officials were sponsored by NAHB in the past, NAHB never had the potential to do anything as unethical like was done in Minneapolis and Baltimore.

And yes, I have been the recipient of NAHB sponsorship to an ICC code hearing. Of the 20 or so issues they identified, I voted in their favor on 6. I voted the way I voted based on MY opinions of the issues, not NAHB's position. I merely used their funding to enable myself to participate in the process.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Dec 29, 2010)

Amen Uncle Bob!!!!

I have personnally watched NAHB attack fire officials at the local level.  I was in Minneapolis and have attended many hearings in the past.  *NAHB has been buying votes for years.*  The NFPA stole a page from the NAHB play book.  So WHAT.

Political processes are just that... Corrupt.  Go back to my thread about replacing the voting process with something more scientific.

The code is built by a committee and just like anything built by a committee it is going to full of things that are about agendas, products, opinions, and votes purchased by some organization looking to make a buck.


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 29, 2010)

I am increasingly of the mind that the consolidation of the building code into an international, or national code attracts too much of the wrong kind of attention to be a good idea. The concentration of power suggested by promulgating federal law is too great as to attract every manner of profiteer, politician, and scoundrel.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 29, 2010)

I don't disagree that the product people have an "agenda" to promote thier product into the code, but because many of their products are actually GOOD for their intended purpose I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Companys need to have a reason to do R&D and develop technology and having a voice in the code hearings is one of them.

How the balance is to be kept, I don't know the answer to that.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 29, 2010)

If the codes were legitimate; they would not be written by popular vote; but, by knowledgeable experts with a working background in that particular field; and be minimal requirements.

Structural requirements should be written by structural Engineers.

Plumbing installations by plumbing Engineers.

Electrical by electrical Engineers.

HVAC by HVAC Engineers.

Saftey requirements should be minimal and economically feasable for "all" structures; and requred for all existing buildings. Just as ADA requirements were applied over a period of time to all public buildings; safety requirements applying to "all" structures; should have a reasonable period of time to conform. The safety requirements of the codes should be for the protection of "all" the people of this country; not just for new buildings. This removal of limiting codes to new buildings would serve all the people.

But it is too late,

Uncle Bob


----------



## Yankee (Dec 29, 2010)

I don't believe it is too late. In a perfect world the "knowledgeable experts with a working background in that particular field" would include inspectors and code officials in conjunction with the engineers. Engineering is necessary and so is the perspective of the people who see the result of engineering in the field on a day to day basis (engineering is not perfect either!). 

On good days I am optimistic that we are actually in the mist and middle of what will be seen in hindsight as an improvement in the process of codification. Maybe right now, the trees are too thick to view the forest.

Don't give up. It is us that will make it happen.


----------



## north star (Dec 29, 2010)

** * * **



> The code is built by a committee and just like anything built by a committee it is going to
> 
> full of things that are about agendas, products, opinions, and votes purchased by some
> 
> organization looking to make a buck.


Kinda reminds me of one of Murphy's Laws [ Murphy was an optimist ya know! ]Murphy's Golden Rule:......"Those with the gold make the rules!"  

Uncle Bob, please do not give up!........Our industry needs professional, passionate people like

you to root for our side, and to work for improving the codes and their application........Yes, most

of the time it is a thankless, uphill battle, but take heart,...."you/we are making positive difference!"

** * * **


----------



## packsaddle (Dec 29, 2010)

Within our lifetimes, we will witness the entire building code industry hijacked by the federal government.

The governing agencies administering the codes will eventually be FEMA, DOE, EPA, USFA, and others.

You heard it here first.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 29, 2010)

packsaddle said:
			
		

> Within our lifetimes, we will witness the entire building code industry hijacked by the federal government.The governing agencies administering the codes will eventually be FEMA, DOE, EPA, USFA, and others.
> 
> You heard it here first.


And so, to extrapolate, may I assume that you'd prefer to see codes be promulgated then adopted regionally and/or locally? I'd like to understand particularly what it is that you'd like to see happen.


----------



## Inspector Gift (Dec 29, 2010)

Liking and agreeing with what Uncle Bob said, (And Northstar, too.)  You fellows said it better than I could.  So I'll just applaud with Passion!

:^ )


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 29, 2010)

*JP,*

Personally, I almost turned in my badge when I returned from MN after I attended the "special" closed door strategy meeting with the big shots and voiced my opinion amongst the group (who in my opinion) were obviously serving another cause. They were hand picking those who were going to speak. I argued the "compromise" and told them face to face how they forgot why they were in the PUBLIC fire service and without a compromise they will only see adoption in a few states and will see far more amendments and for the time it takes to see it to fruition the public and fire service will suffer but heck they didn’t care that they heard it there first. 

I was disrespected and told that they would not consider any compromise because it would be a failure. I may have been black balled for future endeavors but I had to speak my mind and heart and the professionals who I admire agree with my stance on that “hot bed” topic debated in those venues. The bit about fire official was an attempt at being humorous since I don’t think many fire code officials will be on the list for survey distributions.

*UB & FBG,*

From my point of view, observation, involvement/participation and attendance I can see validity in most of what you mentioned concerning the back and forth stone throwing. I was appalled seeing what happened in MN & MD as alluded to above. The only cure for the corruption may be through greater cooperation and grass root collaborations amongst design, contracting and code enforcement professionals to stand up to and end the grafting that has only gotten worse as evident presently in the code development processes. I also believe that manufacturing should be strictly limited to the opportunity to introduce products and unfortunately, ethics are always in play at the committee level and more screening may be necessary during those after meeting dinners usually paid for by someone’s interest.


----------



## pyrguy (Dec 29, 2010)

I've been on a couple of committees. I must of missed the after meeting party.  

One of the committees passed on an amendment because there was only one manufacture of the product. It passed on a floor vote at the next hearing.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 29, 2010)

North Star,

Thanks for the encouragement. I haven't really given up. Two months ago I addressed the new Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission. They are working on adopting a State-wide set of Codes and requiring all municipalities to adopt them.

I passed out a copy of my presentation to each commissioner; and then read it to them; to be sure it was on the record. I hadn't planned on posting it here; but, I have sent copies to several of our memebers.

I won't know if my presentation had any effect until they finish their adoption process; and, that may not be for several months. My hope is that the presentation will put some pressure on them; or better yet instill some feeling of responsibility, in the hearts and minds of the commissioners.

There are many on this forum who stand by their ethics; and pay dearly for it.

FM, I know what you have done was extremely difficult; you and others here like you are what keeps the flame of hope alive (pun intended)    .

Terre, so happy you are home again, my friend.  

Uncle Bob


----------



## incognito (Dec 30, 2010)

I tend to agree with Min&Max. FMWB, I have nothing but respect for you and the efforts you made to come up with a workable compromise in Minneapolis. Obviously your prediction concerning code adoption was right on the mark. Only the overregulated coasts are embracing this mess. I am quite thankful to live in a "fly-over" state and only hope the "government can fix all things" fanatics continue to fly-over.

In order to clean up the ICC mess how about not allowing anyone who is a member of any other construction related organization to vote at ICC code hearings? No NAHB members. No NFPA members. No NFSA members. No AIA members. No IEIA members. ICC members would basically be declaring their aliegence to ICC and forsaking all other organizations. You are a ICC code official and that is all you are. All the previously mentioned organizations could attend code hearings and testify but would have no voting priviledges. I would even be in favor of allowing them to sponser the attendance of an unlimited number of code officials. The only restriction being that there is absolutely no screening process. And each jurisdiction only gets one vote on each code change that is voted upon.

OK let the beating commence.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Dec 30, 2010)

incognito,

While I tend to agree with much of what you said, I am a member of ICC, NFPA, SFPE, and I used to belong to the ICBO, BOCA, the Boy Scouts, and the Police Athelitic League.  I am from Colorado but live in the Western Disney State (for the moment).  Associations provide a context for information.  I am a member of some organizations because it is required for my profession.  That does not mean I support their agenda.  In my support of ICC I have been the subject of a targeted attack by NFPA, but I still need to have an NFPA membership.  If for nothing else then to give it right back to them in every forum possible.

For the most part I am apalled by the actions of some code officials fire, building, plumbing, mechanical, etc. based on actions that are not supported by science, economy and specifically safety.  NFPA 5000 for example is nothing more than a modified Disney World Building Code.  Its a place where plastic castles are considered safe.  Ever wonder why NFPA holds annual conferences at Disney World in Orlandao?  My question is why does ICC hold meetings there too?

I have presented information at Code Hearings just to hear the code committee take all of a couple of minutes to then vote contrary to science.  I do not know how code committee members are really chosen but it can't be based on their knowledge of science and economy.  Even though I have friends on some of the code committees, I can not agree that they were good choices for making significant decisions.

If they want a popular vote then have the committee members elected.  That would at least eliminate some of the farce associated with ICC's selection of committee members and how they vote on specific items.  Even though the ICC trys to suggest that the code process is driven by the code officials... it is not!  Those that selectic the committees select the outcome.  Floor voting is rare and then when a big vote does occur it is because of vote stuffing by an organized group.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 30, 2010)

FryBldgGuy,

And the choir said "Amen"

Uncle Bob


----------



## permitguy (Dec 30, 2010)

I agree the current committee system needs a major overhaul, including removal of their ability to hold changes hostage by forcing a super-majority floor vote.  I'm in favor of having them elected, but that requires work to learn about the candidates.  Most won't bother with that work (I'm not talking about those who participate here).

I disagree that affiliations with other organizations should disqualify an otherwise qualified governmental representative from voting, but would be in favor of requiring certification for voting on the subject matter at hand.

I also disagree on giving each jurisdiction only one vote, regardless of size.  I wouldn't be opposed to balancing this with some sort of a two-house system, but that could also add to the bureaucracy (not always a good thing).

I would be in favor of extending the code development process.  Once every three years is too often, in my opinion.

I know this; it doesn't matter if or how it changes, there is no way to make everyone happy.  No matter what is done, someone will be unhappy, and unhappy people are vocal . . .


----------

