• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Model Code Agency

CodeWarrior

Registered User
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
116
Location
Hong Kong
Wanna know how your favorite model code agency is doing? At least this is what they tell the IRS. As a tax exempt organization, these returns must be publicly available.

Here you go!

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/363999004/201913189349303001/IRS990

While the organization is growing so are costs. An interesting item is one of the outside expenditures. They paid their outside legal firm over $5.3 million dollars. Wow, no wonder they had to shrink staffing recently!

Also, some board members here rceive compensation, others are not. Not sure what to make of this. In the corporate world, directors often do get paid, but those serving non profits less often.
 
They seem to be doing it right for twenty plus years.

We could be under those other three letter codes,,

NFPA CIA NBCC BCA
 
Since the US Constitution does not specifically give the federal government the power to regulate building construction that authority is delegated to the States.
 
Or, left it up the the Feds to write it, and require all States adopt and enforce.:mad:

I wasn't involved in codes other than as a builder in '99-2000 so I don't know what kind of discussions were had, but I find it very hard to believe that no matter how the threats were worded nor who was issuing them, that a federal building code was going to make it through the House, the Senate, and then get signed by Slick Willy. I don't think that was in the realm of possible. And it sure as heck isn't possible to get it done today.
 
ICC board members do not receive compensation. The bylaws prohibit that. So take a look at my name on Part VII Section-A. You will see the amount of $1,254. That amount had to be reported to the IRS as the fed's have a pretty low threshold for spouses attending ICC functions such as the annual business meeting and any other meeting when they accompany the board member and ICC pays for it. As you can see if you are on the executive committee (President, Vice President, Secretary Treasurer & Past President) the numbers go up as their spouses may have attended many more ICC functions. So in accordance with the IRS laws / rules an IRS Form 990 is required to accountant for that and that amount and it is also taxed. I hope this might bring a little clarity to the numbers.
 
Jp,
Thanks for clearing that up, I was afraid you were gonna have to take those snakeskin cowboy boots back!:eek:
 
Lol! Heck, I wish I got paid for all the time away from family, all the work, hotels and airports! But folks, I love it and have a passion for the codes and service to our members. On the plus side I have seen more of this country then I would have ever imagined and have forged friendships with so many excellent people that I would not trade my experience for the world.
 
Can you say ADA, OSHA??

I see your point, but - I also think that's maybe apples to oranges, since you have special interest groups who lobbied hard for those. There isn't a special interest that's going to lobby for a national building code. And there isn't a single state that's going to willingly give up their "power" over the codes. Can you imagine California, New York, or even Colo. going along with the feds writing their codes? I just don't see it happening.

But like I said, I wasn't there then. Perhaps it was a valid threat. It's just hard to imagine it would've actually passed if it was introduced.
 
Since the US Constitution does not specifically give the federal government the power to regulate building construction that authority is delegated to the States.

The feds can do this by the back door. They just say that any state that doesn't adopt their one size fits none code with no amendments will lose funding for some program that has a tenuous relation to construction. Most states are all too dependent on federal (your) dollars to give up any money.

I believe the safety glass requirements in IBC chapter 24 come from the CPSC this way, and some auto safety regulations are tied to highway funding.
 
Since the US Constitution does not specifically give the federal government the power to regulate building construction that authority is delegated to the States.
This is the way it is in Canada. The federal government produces the code and the provinces either amend/adopt, or choose their own code at their expense.

It's a lot cheaper to amend and adopt than create your own. Then there is always the liability of making your own code...
 
There isn't a special interest that's going to lobby for a national building code.
I am a bit of a code historian, so there is more to this subject than I can write at this moment. However, the feds have long history of involvement with building codes in this country. In the 1920s it was from the Chamber of Commerce and was primarily concerned with the increased cost of construction due to local codes. It has been steady ever since. In recent time, it was threats from the DOE regarding energy code development. That is why you saw the big increase in energy codes in the 2012 edition. They also tied funding for the recession bail out to what edition of the IECC was adopted, but also provided funding to help jurisdictions update their energy code.

In the 1960's there was a special interest that wanted a national building code. It was the NAHB and the design community. They wanted to the four legacy codes to come together in one national code, and they got it (the code, that is). CABO was formed and the predecessor to the IRC was written in 1971. This was the response to a call for a national code, but to keep it out of the feds hands.

Now, I see history repeating itself. We have a "national code" (the I-codes) but we are back to where we were in the 1920's where individual, local codes are driving up the cost of construction. The local governments might like their unique code, but the people are growing weary of it. The lack of definitive rules is again chaos and makes the public less trusting of the importance of the code provisions.

Times are ripe for more big changes in the code industry. I don't know what they will be, but my lessons in history tell me change is inevitable.

My lesson from society (at the moment) is to expect history to repeat itself.
 
This is a great book from 1969 that provides insight from the mind of a building code professional at that time. I very much enjoyed reading it and I refer to it often. In all things, not just code, the "truths" that modern people hold to dearly are often not supported by recorded history.

The best way to learn history, is from history written in history. A modern explanation of history is good, but still a copy of a copy. I'm not sure how much I trust today's society to properly provide me history. Too many folks want to rewrite it.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Codes_and_code_administration.html?id=qXVAAAAAIAAJ
 
I am a bit of a code historian, so there is more to this subject than I can write at this moment. However, the feds have long history of involvement with building codes in this country. In the 1920s it was from the Chamber of Commerce and was primarily concerned with the increased cost of construction due to local codes. It has been steady ever since. In recent time, it was threats from the DOE regarding energy code development. That is why you saw the big increase in energy codes in the 2012 edition. They also tied funding for the recession bail out to what edition of the IECC was adopted, but also provided funding to help jurisdictions update their energy code.

In the 1960's there was a special interest that wanted a national building code. It was the NAHB and the design community. They wanted to the four legacy codes to come together in one national code, and they got it (the code, that is). CABO was formed and the predecessor to the IRC was written in 1971. This was the response to a call for a national code, but to keep it out of the feds hands.

Now, I see history repeating itself. We have a "national code" (the I-codes) but we are back to where we were in the 1920's where individual, local codes are driving up the cost of construction. The local governments might like their unique code, but the people are growing weary of it. The lack of definitive rules is again chaos and makes the public less trusting of the importance of the code provisions.

Times are ripe for more big changes in the code industry. I don't know what they will be, but my lessons in history tell me change is inevitable.

My lesson from society (at the moment) is to expect history to repeat itself.

This is a great book from 1969 that provides insight from the mind of a building code professional at that time. I very much enjoyed reading it and I refer to it often. In all things, not just code, the "truths" that modern people hold to dearly are often not supported by recorded history.

The best way to learn history, is from history written in history. A modern explanation of history is good, but still a copy of a copy. I'm not sure how much I trust today's society to properly provide me history. Too many folks want to rewrite it.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Codes_and_code_administration.html?id=qXVAAAAAIAAJ


Thanks, for both of those.
 
This is a great book from 1969 that provides insight from the mind of a building code professional at that time. I very much enjoyed reading it and I refer to it often. In all things, not just code, the "truths" that modern people hold to dearly are often not supported by recorded history.

The best way to learn history, is from history written in history. A modern explanation of history is good, but still a copy of a copy. I'm not sure how much I trust today's society to properly provide me history. Too many folks want to rewrite it.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Codes_and_code_administration.html?id=qXVAAAAAIAAJ
I have read the Sanderson book, too. I agree, it's a great book and well written. Wow, 51 years old. I haven't found another publication quite like it out there.
 
I have read the Sanderson book, too. I agree, it's a great book and well written. Wow, 51 years old. I haven't found another publication quite like it out there.
Here are three others I have from the 70's that offer perspective of the time and of our code history.

"Readings in Code Administration" This is also by Sanderson, but its a compilation of papers from code officials across the country. I have volume 2 about fire protection. I have yet to find a volume 1 or 3 for my collection. A line is the preface is so very cool:

"Many of the papers are old. They were selected because their message is timeless. They were relevant when they were written. They are relevant today, and they will be tomorrow."

Now is "tomorrow" and I do find them relevant. I love it!

"Men against fire" by Percy Bugbee. It is the story of the NFPA from 1896 to 1971 (when it was written). It is awesome. Yep. I think you can read this one online if you google it.

"Preservation and Building Codes" by the national trust for historic preservation in 1974. I honestly have not read this one yet. I bet it will be great insight into Uniform Code for Building Conservation, first edition, 1985
 
If there is a problem with different jurisdictions enforcing different code provisions, which I believe there is, then I suggest that each state should adopt a state building code and limit the local modifications. Then the local jurisdictions should minimize their local modifications.

The vast majority of local code provisions really do little to provide better outcomes, rather they reflect the idiosyncratic preferences of the local building official. If the local provisions had a real value then I would expect that there would be compelling data showing a difference in outcomes between different jurisdictions and if that were the case I would hope that the model codes would be modified to reflect the lesson learned. Antidotal evidence is of questionable value.

If your jurisdiction has a unique local requirement then submit it to ICC or other model code organization as a code change proposal. If the model code does not adopt the change then the local code should be modified to make it compatible with the model code. You could also attempt to have the state codes modified to reflect your preference and if not successful it is suggested that your local modifications were not needed.
 
Top