Code Compliance Association

[Uncle Bob]

I've been chewing on this for quite some time. I don't really see the majority of members of this forum just throwing in the towel and allowing the special interest groups to take over; but, I could be wrong.

The title (Code Compliance Association) could be any number of other names. I beleive there are enough members here; who are fed up with stake holders controlling the ICC; to form an organization that could make a difference.

I noticed from RJJ's posts that there are not that many people who are actually voting (up or down) at the code hearings on many of the proposed changes. This allows special interest groups to push through code changes that are detrimental to safe and structurally sound construction.

If we formed a group; using the internet to recruit members, and, for our meetings; we could become a force to deter bad code development; and, in time; could make major changes in the I-codes.

We have the leaders and the expertise. By forming an orgainzation of building officials, code officials, plans examiners and inspectors; we could become a voting block that would be insturmental in bring about postive code changes.

The fact is that the people who are charged with code compliance; really have no voice. You can give them that voice, if you want to.

There is a lot of complaining and finger pointing going on; but, no action.

Let's discuss the possibilities on this open forum; and if there are enough interested; we could start organizing in a closed internet forum.

My e-mail address is at the bottom of all my posts; for private discussions.

Personally, I have no desire for a position of authority. There are more than enough here who are more than qualified for that. My place is behind the scenes.

Think about it,

Uncle Bob

 

[FM William Burns]

Hummmmmm!

Hum a new special interest being that of a voice for real world code application and development. Interesting proposal UB!



Without going off the deep end, I recall my testimony in Las Vegas during the NFPA 1124 special assembly where I stated......... I speak for the little old lady consumer entering a mercantile occupancy wanting to buy milk or fill her prescription and being exposed to hazards limiting their ability to escape....... then went through my 5 minutes and needles to say, I was out numbered by industry.



I too would like to see a decline in some of the activity while understanding that there is a place and time for it and without going back to discussions on consensus. I’ll get back to you on this and any other interested parties after your adventure in Denver since I believe you’ll be inspired to deploy to the front lines after that consultation.

 

[packsaddle]

Why stop there?

Why not develop our own building code?

A simple outline of basic life safety standards.

You know, a modern-day version of the Code of Hammurabi.

 

[JBI]

pack I don't think that's the answer.

I agree that some recent changes are questionable (?), but I think positive change is possible. I too like what UB is saying, and am fortunate enough to live somewhere that a strong Code Enforcement/Code Compliance organization does exist, and is a strong voice in the process.

There was a time not so long ago that this type of grassroots organizing was necessarily only done at a very local level, with long hours of hard work needed to gain anything close to nationwide momentum. We are fortunate enough to have the technology available to us today to cause that nationwide momentum to occur simultaneously with a local effort.

Granted, this boards membership would scarcely, in and of itself, have the voice to cause major change on any given provision, but some of our regular members post elsewhere also, some have local code officials organizations that could be encouraged to be more active in the process. Our membership roster goes pretty much pillar to post around the country. Personally, I feel the Codes are best written by those who actually enforce(d) it. Letting special interests have too strong a voice in the process is like having the fox guard the henhouse.

 

[CowboyRR]

Nice idea UB - but the ICC leaders need to implement remote voting, and possibily ratification, before the impacts of this could really be felt. The big problem with the code development process is that only the affluent can afford to be present to vote - coupled with the number of changes that are being submitted. I have seen changes being passed less than 50 members because that was all that were left at the hearing. ICC leaders claim there are very vocal members objecting to remote voting - presumably because it would hamper their opportunity to attend conferences (e.g. local government execs won't pay the registration and travel expenses unless there are code hearings). At some point, the ICC leaders need to realize the integrity of the code is more important that a few members getting to party down at the conference. No doubt, there are challenges to the remote voting process - but those challenges can be resolved imo.

 

[RJJ]

I have been calling for remote voting since I left the twin city mess. In fact I now demand it. every member should have the right and opportunity to vote.

UB: We need an organization. Pack we don't need to write new codes. Just clean up the ones we have.

FM: It may be special interest yes! But all the others have changed the rules. In a street fight there are no rules!

 

[CowboyRR]

Well I just got informed that the ratification issue is on the table for Charlotte as a bylaw amendment. Most notable in this amendment - every member is not involved in ratification. Each government gets only 1 ratification vote. I suspect the argument for this relates to balancing out decisions between large and small localities - but I'm not sure that I really agree with that logic. Seems like they are trying to fix a broken wheel instead of building the one we actually need. I'm going to try to find more information about this on the Ima Cash Cow website - wish me luck.

 

[texasbo]

Well I just got informed that the ratification issue is on the table for Charlotte as a bylaw amendment. Most notable in this amendment - every member is not involved in ratification. Each government gets only 1 ratification vote. I suspect the argument for this relates to balancing out decisions between large and small localities - but I'm not sure that I really agree with that logic. Seems like they are trying to fix a broken wheel instead of building the one we actually need. I'm going to try to find more information about this on the Ima Cash Cow website - wish me luck.

Sorry, this is going to sound like a stupid question, but is there anything new about that voting/ratification process?

 

[FM William Burns]

Rjj,

I agree with a "new" special interest being that of a spokesperson for the enforcers/users and the affected public (all affected). I just wrote a paper on the RFS issue and the lack of forsight by my own profession to gain acceptance and adoptions. It may not go over well with those who have in my opinion lost their way and allowed the perception of alligning with "special interest" (A Matter of Loosing Trust). Allowing the establishment to continue on a course where corruption can exist is bad for business and I'm sure the establishment realize this but can't get out of bed with them for fear of collapse. I for one like to fight when necessary, including amongst my own when in my opinion, it's necessary.

Sign me up!

 

[Uncle Bob]

Ok,

We have some interest; along with some understandable skepticism.

1. Members (how to reach them): I beleive there are thousands of interested officials, plans reviewers, and inspectors; who would join us.

(a) Many "guests" came to the old forum and now this forum; that did/do not post.

(b) A membership committee; would use the internet, by researching the municipal websites and e-mailing individuals, informing them about our organization and inviting them to join us. Single page handouts; passed out at seminars, CEU and other courses, local ICC chapter meetings; and word of mouth networking.

2. First (#2 is first, cute huh?), we would need an organization with a "Mission Statement and "Goals Plan" (not hostile, but, positive). We have to tone down the hot heads like Uncle Bob and RJJ.

3. We need a website that has; not only a place to share ideas and code knowledge; but, keeps members informed. (webhosting is relatively cheap)

Provide education information on;

Approved CEU courses both local and internet,

Training to help them obtain certifications,

Proposed code changes at next ICC hearing,

Propsed code changes from "our" organization,

Specialty training (usually internet), provided by organizations on the installation of their products; like Truss manufacturers association, gypsum association, and many others.

These will bring thousands of members to join us. Remember this; "There is no organization at ICC Hearings, that represent us as a group; the voting block of code officials, plans reviewers, and inspectors."

4. How do we get financing for members to attend the ICC hearings? Your going to need a little faith in Uncle Bob; I know but ain't saying here.

So, we need Backbone, Positive Attitude, Leadership, Organization, Mission Statement, and a closed (not open to the public) internet meeting room; to get started.

Of course, only after more discussion here,

Uncle Bob

 

[cboboggs]

I'm game. Let's get it going.

 

[Alias]

As an AHJ of 1, I can't afford to go to the big ICC conventions on the other side of the country.

Organizing, being informed, and remote voting is necessary to remove the power from special interest groups and have your voice heard, IMHO.

So, let's get the process started!

Sue, in the 'other' CA.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Remote Voting,

Ain't going to happen. Limiting the number of eligable voters at the hearings is one of the keys that keeps the majority of officials, inspectors, and plans reviewers, out of the decision making process. Some of the stake holder organizations know that and use it to their advantage.

We can get you and others like you to that hearing. Each State has it's own laws conserning.... No, I'm not going to let the "cash cow" into the corn crib. Ya'll have to trust me on this one. We can't discuss this part in an open forum. It's above board, within the ICC regulations, and meets all State laws. We can get our members to the hearings; in sufficient numbers to get the majority of the votes.

Having to be at the hearing to vote; will be one of our strengths and advantages,

Uncle Bob

 

[CowboyRR]

Sorry, this is going to sound like a stupid question, but is there anything new about that voting/ratification process?

The proposed bylaw amendments would require that all changes approved in the code development process be ratified. Ratification would be voting to "approve all", or "approve all, expect disapprove item(s) #" by the one person that is designated to cast this vote for each jurisdiction.

 

[RJJ]

OK UB: I am Not Hot! You just poured salt on wounds I had put to the side with a few of your charming posts! Now I am willing to die on this hill. It is what is right! Believe me I pray quite often for the blinders on others to be lifted and see what is going on. The northwest is not happy and are arguing the same types of issues. They are also getting the same results back from ICC. Not many on a BB that I know of but able to be contacted through the WABO web site. This will take work, energy and time.

FM: You were already signed up I just didn't let you know yet!

 

[ewenme]

Remote voting is essential in order to have a fair playing field. One of the Board members of the Idaho Association of Building Officials [iDABO] went to the last hearings and came away with horror stories: there were less than 50 people in the room voting on code revisions. He was discouraged as IDABO could only afford to send one person this year, and none of the local jurisdictions could afford to send anyone. What a disgrace on ICC. ELectronic voting should be the standard.

UB: organizing a new group is huge undertaking. And after the organizing, then comes the credibility. The Northwest is still grumbling about ICC, primarily because we were tuned in to the UBC of the old ICBO. I still think the 1997 UBC was one of the better-written and easy to use code books. IMHO. When ICBO, CABO and BOCA began talks to merge, it was laborious process because everyone brought a personal opinion to the table. Ask ten inspectors and you'll get ten different opinions, right?

So, you have a great idea. You have willing people to participate. Where will it go? When do we start? Grass roots is good...and sweat equity is worth more.

 

[peach]

we can form a not for profit lobbying 501 © .. whatever it is.. group... that's exactly what ICC, NFPA, NAHB, etc are...

 

[conarb]

The Northwest is still grumbling about ICC, primarily because we were tuned in to the UBC of the old ICBO. I still think the 1997 UBC was one of the better-written and easy to use code books.

Not only the Northwest but the West too, the I Codes have been downhill for us, we should have stayed right where we were and continued to upgrade the old UBC every three years.

 

[Mac]

"National Organization for Intentional Code Compliance"

The N.O.I.C.C.

 

[FM William Burns]

Cut my teeth on SBCCI and NFPA. Came to BOCA land and learned about their attitude which in my opinion drives ICC present day. I like sweat equity and know that the establishment can be taken down a few pegs, heck I'm still employed Looking forward to hitting the air waves in due/prudent time. BTW...agree with you westerners, the UBC was a true workable document!