Engineering Creep

[Mark K]

You said The standards for building officials and engineers are different.
I disagree, the standard is the same: PUBLIC SAFETY

You seem to believe engineers are the only people who can discern INTENT
Careful what you ask for, Especially with Ext'g Bldgs under the IEBC
I have determined what is technically feasible on a number of occasions, thus applying and not inflicting the Code.

Your approach would have me and those of us like me, who understand construction, not exercise our judgment.

Why do you continue to choose not to accept that simple truth?
You must have had trouble sharing in Kindergarten, Is that the problem?

While the goal is public safety the legal standards are different. In addition if the engineer screwed up he could be held personally liable while the building department personnel will claim governmental immunity.

Public safety is not clear cut and the code provisions are often compromises. Decerning the intent is often difficult. This is why I prefer to see what the commentary of standards say about their intent. I had an experience where another individual made the statement about the intent of a code change that I helped to author. Our understandings of the intent were not compatible. You might assume that the author of the code language had some idea as to the intent but apparently not if the author is an engineer.

The written code should be enforced and the intent should be used to guide us when the written code is not clear. When individuals ignore the written code and instead attempt to enforce their personal belief of the intent things get weird fast.

I did not say that only engineers can discern intent. I would appreciate it if my statements were not distorted.

While experience in trades gives one a certain perspective an engineering education provides another perspective. You might be surprised at the knowledge about construction that engineers acquire. There have also been failures when the trades substituted their understanding of how to do something in place of what the permit documents required. So before you criticize an engineer for not having some trade knowledge ask yourself if there is the possibility that the engineer may have some relevant knowledge that you do not have?

 

[Genduct]

While the goal is public safety the legal standards are different. In addition if the engineer screwed up he could be held personally liable while the building department personnel will claim governmental immunity.

Public safety is not clear cut and the code provisions are often compromises. Decerning the intent is often difficult. This is why I prefer to see what the commentary of standards say about their intent. I had an experience where another individual made the statement about the intent of a code change that I helped to author. Our understandings of the intent were not compatible. You might assume that the author of the code language had some idea as to the intent but apparently not if the author is an engineer.

The written code should be enforced and the intent should be used to guide us when the written code is not clear. When individuals ignore the written code and instead attempt to enforce their personal belief of the intent things get weird fast.

I did not say that only engineers can discern intent. I would appreciate it if my statements were not distorted.

While experience in trades gives one a certain perspective an engineering education provides another perspective. You might be surprised at the knowledge about construction that engineers acquire. There have also been failures when the trades substituted their understanding of how to do something in place of what the permit documents required. So before you criticize an engineer for not having some trade knowledge ask yourself if there is the possibility that the engineer may have some relevant knowledge that you do not have?

The written code should be enforced and the intent should be used to guide us when the written code is not clear. THAT IS WHAT I SAID, SO YOU AGREE

When individuals ignore the written code and instead attempt to enforce their personal belief of the intent things get weird fast. AT NO TIME DID I SAY OR IMPLY IGNORING THE WRITTEN CODE
TO USE YOUR STATEMENT, I WISH YOU WOULDN'T DISTORT WHAT I SAID

I did not say that only engineers can discern intent. YOU MAKE IT CLEAR YOU DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE "CHOPS" TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DO
I would appreciate it if my statements were not distorted. ME TOO

While experience in trades gives one a certain perspective an engineering education provides another perspective. THAT IS WHY I CONTINUALLY DO MY BEST TO LIVE IN BOTH WORLDS,
You might be surprised at the knowledge about construction that engineers acquire. IF YOU TAKE ME UP ON THAT PHONE CALL, YOU MIGHT BE THE ONE WHO IS SURPRISED

MARK, I THINK YOU ARE MAKING SOME PROGRESS HERE
JUST RE-READ WHAT I WROTE AND YOU'LL BE READY TO JUST AGREE AND STOP UNDERESTIMATING WHO MANY OF US ARE, WHAT WE KNOW, AND WHAT WE DO

COME ON BUDDY, YOU'RE ALMOST THERE, I CAN FEEL IT

 

[steveray]

Mark, if the designer had any responsibility for field execution, this would be less of an issue...As we do have at least some responsibility for field execution, that is where we try to get the information on the plans to aid with that compliance on plan review vs. Shooting from the hip in the field or making people rip it all apart and start over. It's way easier to fix it on paper and a good set of plans solves a lot of problems before they become such...

If there are problems with the adoption of model codes the building officials can only blame themselves.

Respect is more likely when each party understands the process and plays by the rules. This applies equally to building department personnel. Focus on code compliance.

If the designer needs help that is not the job of the building department. Focus on whether the submission complies with the adopted regulations. If the designer is clueless he will not be able to show code compliance and thus will not get a permit.

 

[Genduct]

Mark, if the designer had any responsibility for field execution, this would be less of an issue...As we do have at least some responsibility for field execution, that is where we try to get the information on the plans to aid with that compliance on plan review vs. Shooting from the hip in the field or making people rip it all apart and start over. It's way easier to fix it on paper and a good set of plans solves a lot of problems before they become such

steveray, you got Mark to say the following
If the designer is clueless he will not be able to show code compliance and thus will not get a permit.

I think Mark is growing in his acceptance of the part we play in this process

Well Done

 

[Mark K]

Mark, if the designer had any responsibility for field execution, this would be less of an issue...As we do have at least some responsibility for field execution, that is where we try to get the information on the plans to aid with that compliance on plan review vs. Shooting from the hip in the field or making people rip it all apart and start over. It's way easier to fix it on paper and a good set of plans solves a lot of problems before they become such...

The building department personnel do not have any legal liability because of governmental immunity.

If you are responsible for field execution then I would expect that you step up and take responsibility when a worker gets hurt. But this does not happen.

Show us the statute or court ruling that makes you responsible for field execution. The role you are claiming is not compatible with the laws nor with the standard industry contracts. What is the basis for your belief?

 

[Genduct]

The building department personnel do not have any legal liability because of governmental immunity.

If you are responsible for field execution then I would expect that you step up and take responsibility when a worker gets hurt. But this does not happen.

Show us the statute or court ruling that makes you responsible for field execution. The role you are claiming is not compatible with the laws nor with the standard industry contracts. What is the basis for your belief?

You said:
The building department personnel do not have any legal liability because of governmental immunity.

To be clear, it is not that we don't have any legal liability, the fact is that we are covered by our Employer's Liability (The Municipality) if we did or didn't do what we were reasonably obligated to do. I am sure we would be named in a lawsuit if there was a serious loss

 

[Mark K]

You said:
The building department personnel do not have any legal liability because of governmental immunity.

To be clear, it is not that we don't have any legal liability, the fact is that we are covered by our Employer's Liability (The Municipality) if we did or didn't do what we were reasonably obligated to do. I am sure we would be named in a lawsuit if there was a serious loss

The municipality would also deny liability.

When there is a building failure the architects and engineers get sued but because of governmental immunity not the building department staff.

What you are obligated to do is enforce the building code. You are not obligated to protect the building owner from all possible problems.

Show me where in our system of laws where you are responsible for field execution. What do you believe you are obligated to do?

 

[Genduct]

The municipality would also deny liability.

When there is a building failure the architects and engineers get sued but because of governmental immunity not the building department staff.

What you are obligated to do is enforce the building code. You are not obligated to protect the building owner from all possible problems.

Show me where in our system of laws where you are responsible for field execution. What do you believe you are obligated to do?

After the 22nd and Market St Tragedy, the Salvation Army collapse, that Bldg Inspector was told to hire his own lawyer. He thought that the situation would compromise his family's financial life and he committed SUICIDE

How is that as an example of what happens when something goes sideways

 

[ICE]

You are not obligated to protect the building owner from all possible problems.

Well I have to sleep at night. I might not have the obligation or authority to act but some situations call for a real man. It happens more than you know and depending if one has the balls to deal with it .... well then shlt happens. Guys like you embrace a stand back and watch the carnage attitude. Weak willed men have no place in my world.

 

[Genduct]

Well I have to sleep at night. I might not have the obligation or authority to act but some situations call for a real man. It happens more than you know and depending if one has the balls to deal with it .... well then shlt happens. Guys like you embrace a stand back and watch the carnage attitude. Weak willed men have no place in my world.

something about when Good People Stand By and SAY NOTHING.........................
Sins of Commission and SIns of Omission is how it is viewed in a Moral Sense

 

[Mark K]

When the inspector was told to hire his own attorney it sounds like the city decided to cut him loose. In California the only way a city inspector can be personally liable is if he exceeded his authority and even then there are few consequences.

Few engineers who design building can be called weak wiled. Contractors and clients play hardball and the engineers need to learn how to play that game.

Is it moral for the building departments to try to make engineers liable for things over which the engineer has no control? But the application of building regulations is not an issue of morality. Rather we are governed by a legal structure consisting of laws, contracts and the courts.. I have asked for a legal justification for what building departments do but all I have heard are moral arguments.

 

[ICE]

but all I have heard are moral arguments.

It is heartening that you know that there are moral arguments....but then of course you discount them.

 

[Genduct]

When the inspector was told to hire his own attorney it sounds like the city decided to cut him loose. In California the only way a city inspector can be personally liable is if he exceeded his authority and even then there are few consequences.

Few engineers who design building can be called weak wiled. Contractors and clients play hardball and the engineers need to learn how to play that game.

Is it moral for the building departments to try to make engineers liable for things over which the engineer has no control? But the application of building regulations is not an issue of morality. Rather we are governed by a legal structure consisting of laws, contracts and the courts.. I have asked for a legal justification for what building departments do but all I have heard are moral arguments.

Mark, you are correct, we are supposed to be governed by Laws

As I am sure you know, a lot of our Laws have evolved from other places like Common Law
For Instance, Let's remember that we also have an earlier list of regs called the 10 Commandments

As an Engineer, I am sure you welcome the fact that Hammurabi Laws have been superseded You know, If the building falls down and kills the owner the "Builders" (I am sure it includes the Design Professional as well) forfeit their life

I don't know, maybe we ought to bring that one back. You might get your wish and eliminate the need for Inspectors.

Just a thought.

 

[jar546]

When there is a building failure the architects and engineers get sued but because of governmental immunity not the building department staff.

That is an incorrect statement. This happens all the time, you just can't see it because it is outside your bubble.

The building department personnel do not have any legal liability because of governmental immunity.

Mark, there is a liability. Gross negligence, willful misconduct, performing duties outside the scope of your license.

There is one fundamental difference between design professionals, contractors, and the building department. Contractors, architects, and engineers are all profit-driven in our capitalistic society. Risk=Reward and if you want more reward in the form of monetary compensation, you take a liability risk. It is the architect and engineers/architects that are competing for the business of owners and developers. You are all in business to make a profit, line your wallets, and live a higher standard of living. Inspectors and Plans Examiners live in a different world.

The Building Department cannot have a profit. Under most state statutes, there is a limitation on how much excess money you can bring forward year to year. BDs must justify their permit fees and adjust them accordingly. Contractors and design professionals have no monetary restrictions. You are all a profit-driven machine for your own self-indulgence, which is why we go back to the risk/reward realm.

Most inspectors, plans examiners and building officials are former contractors, architects, or engineers that know they can go back to capitalism and make more money, however, we are here for a different reason. We are here to ensure that the rules are followed under state statutes and legally adopted local ordinances. We care about the industry. We care about educating the public. Your concern is the money you put into your pocket or the ego ***** from one of your designs or projects.

While you are involved in several projects a year, building department employees are involved in thousands with direct, on-the-scene involvement. What this means is that we have a lot more experience than you will ever have in your career. Experience matters, period. Your experience sitting at a desk, one project at a time, for a limited amount of projects in your career does not hold a candle to the thousands of permitted projects and thousands of revisions due to RFIs that cross our desks and get inspected in the field. Engineers like yourself are specialists that dive very deep into a few projects, but we are overseeing thousands of situations and discussing them on the phone and in person with both the contractors and engineers so we have a much better grip on the reality of construction than you ever will.

If you are jealous of the limited liability of building department employees, take a pay cut like the rest of us and make a difference by joining our ranks for the good of the industry. We gave up money to make a difference, maybe it is your turn to do the same. Or maybe you can just continue to whine.

 

[Genduct]

That is an incorrect statement. This happens all the time, you just can't see it because it is outside your bubble.


Mark, there is a liability. Gross negligence, willful misconduct, performing duties outside the scope of your license.

There is one fundamental difference between design professionals, contractors, and the building department. Contractors, architects, and engineers are all profit-driven in our capitalistic society. Risk=Reward and if you want more reward in the form of monetary compensation, you take a liability risk. It is the architect and engineers/architects that are competing for the business of owners and developers. You are all in business to make a profit, line your wallets, and live a higher standard of living. Inspectors and Plans Examiners live in a different world.

The Building Department cannot have a profit. Under most state statutes, there is a limitation on how much excess money you can bring forward year to year. BDs must justify their permit fees and adjust them accordingly. Contractors and design professionals have no monetary restrictions. You are all a profit-driven machine for your own self-indulgence, which is why we go back to the risk/reward realm.

Most inspectors, plans examiners and building officials are former contractors, architects, or engineers that know they can go back to capitalism and make more money, however, we are here for a different reason. We are here to ensure that the rules are followed under state statutes and legally adopted local ordinances. We care about the industry. We care about educating the public. Your concern is the money you put into your pocket or the ego ***** from one of your designs or projects.

While you are involved in several projects a year, building department employees are involved in thousands with direct, on-the-scene involvement. What this means is that we have a lot more experience than you will ever have in your career. Experience matters, period. Your experience sitting at a desk, one project at a time, for a limited amount of projects in your career does not hold a candle to the thousands of permitted projects and thousands of revisions due to RFIs that cross our desks and get inspected in the field. Engineers like yourself are specialists that dive very deep into a few projects, but we are overseeing thousands of situations and discussing them on the phone and in person with both the contractors and engineers so we have a much better grip on the reality of construction than you ever will.

If you are jealous of the limited liability of building department employees, take a pay cut like the rest of us and make a difference by joining our ranks for the good of the industry. We gave up money to make a difference, maybe it is your turn to do the same. Or maybe you can just continue to whine.

We all get in for different reasons.
I "joined the ranks" to avoid Boredom.
After starting as an Apprentice in 67' and 45 years as a contractor / Biz owner after Active Duty in the early 70's doing commercial building and then mechanical. Getting crushed in 09' I got bored and thought (at age 69) being a bldg inspector sounded like fun
I describe it as the most educational and entertaining 4 years (til covid 2020) second only to the US Army. I enjoyed every day I was there. I came to the job with plenty of experience. I even understand what holds what up, And keeps it from falling down

Learning what lead up to what was on the plans was a real eye-opener.
Am still in good shape and would probably still be there, were it not for the Plague

 

[Mark K]

There is one fundamental difference between design professionals, contractors, and the building department. Contractors, architects, and engineers are all profit-driven in our capitalistic society. Risk=Reward and if you want more reward in the form of monetary compensation, you take a liability risk. It is the architect and engineers/architects that are competing for the business of owners and developers. You are all in business to make a profit, line your wallets, and live a higher standard of living. Inspectors and Plans Examiners live in a different world.

Because I am licensed, I get these postcards from various jurisdiction that are trying to higher plan checkers. What is interesting is that the salaries they are offering are larger than what design firms pay for similar employees. According to your logic it is the plan checkers and building officials who are profit driven.

My observation is that the individuals who move from the design firms to working for a building department are not better qualified than those engineers who did not make the transition.

While the limits of governmental immunity may vary some from state to state the feedback that I get from lawyers is that because of the immunity of government employees they are not sued. And where the building department is sued those suits are regularly squashed because of claims of immunity. In addition, I suspect that when the litigation is not squashed it is because the individual exceeded his authority and thus lost his immunity.

Claims of moral superiority of building department employees are not supported by my interactions with building departments. I still have not heard a legal justification for building departments going beyond the adopted regulations and imposing requirements based on moral beliefs. Is it moral for building department personnel to impose requirements in conflict with the laws?

 

[ICE]

Claims of moral superiority of building department employees are not supported by my interactions with building departments.

I haven’t seen anyone here claim superiority. Well there is you but not a “moral” superiority. I suspect that your interactions are influenced by a profound dislike for the people in front of you. While I concur with the assessment that there are plenty of folks working in government that should not be anywhere near authority….. just as it is with engineers, we are not all the same.

Is it moral for building department personnel to impose requirements in conflict with the laws?

Is it always conflicting? Is it never just a good idea based on experience? How about something that is wrong but there is no code that addresses that thing; can I bring it up? If we are confined to just what is written code there is room for the new AI to take over…..but hold on, AI is a mechanical thinker and might get outside of the box.

 

[bill1952]

In a 40 plus year career as a designer working on over 100 projects, I've never experienced this kind of rancor between designers and enforcers. Also no litigation I was ever aware of, though Chicago Public Schools would rattle that sabre whenever there was a change order if any size.

 

[jar546]

Because I am licensed, I get these postcards from various jurisdiction that are trying to higher plan checkers. What is interesting is that the salaries they are offering are larger than what design firms pay for similar employees. According to your logic it is the plan checkers and building officials who are profit driven.

Better pay=better qualified candidates. You are a for-profit entity. We are not by law. Pay and profit are two different things.

 

[jar546]

In a 40 plus year career as a designer working on over 100 projects, I've never experienced this kind of rancor between designers and enforcers. Also no litigation I was ever aware of, though Chicago Public Schools would rattle that sabre whenever there was a change order if any size.

In the real world and my experience, there has always been a good working relationship between the building department and the design professionals. Pre-construction meetings, Zoom calls, phone calls and in-person meetings always bring better results and a common bond between the BD and RDPs.

It is only here that the constant trolling from engineer Mark k continues to rear its ugly head as he always casts the first stone. Reality does not match his perception of the world.

 

[classicT]

In the real world and my experience, there has always been a good working relationship between the building department and the design professionals. Pre-construction meetings, Zoom calls, phone calls and in-person meetings always bring better results and a common bond between the BD and RDPs.

It is only here that the constant trolling from engineer Mark k continues to rear its ugly head as he always casts the first stone. Reality does not match his perception of the world.

AMEN!!

 

[Mark K]

In a 40 plus year career as a designer working on over 100 projects, I've never experienced this kind of rancor between designers and enforcers. Also no litigation I was ever aware of, though Chicago Public Schools would rattle that sabre whenever there was a change order if any size.

Most plan checkers are professional. If there were disagreements, they typically were resolved by looking at the code language and what the commentaries of the standard said.

One reason that the plan checkers may not be aware of the differences of opinion is that in many cases the designer will make changes so as not to delay the project. Such changes were not an admission that the original design was flawed.

 

[ICE]

in many cases the designer will make changes so as not to delay the project.

Well there ya go...you have found the culprit. Take your dog and dead pony show to a designer's forum. They're more likely to be onboard with crapping on building departments and ....they are the problem.

 

[bill1952]

Most plan checkers are professional. If there were disagreements, they typically were resolved by looking at the code language and what the commentaries of the standard said.

One reason that the plan checkers may not be aware of the differences of opinion is that in many cases the designer will make changes so as not to delay the project. Such changes were not an admission that the original design was flawed.

What's my post have to do with plan Checkers? You post makes no sense.