• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

ICC Board of Directors - geographical representation

ewenme

ewenme

Sawhorse
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
306
Location
Troy, ID
I went to the ICC website and read with some interest the press release on the newly elected Board of Directors. One fellow from California, one from Minnesota, one of Texas, and the rest from the eastern regions of the country. I spoke with John Darnall last year and he was keen to get someone from 'out west' to run for office on the ICC Board. Thanks to JPranch, we did have someone run. Where will the ABM be when there are open seats for which we can support a regional candidate? Baltimore? Charlotte? Miami? New York? Virginia? Georgia? or somewhere west of the Mississippi? Remote voting needs to be addressed sooner than later. We need to become active in our insistence and lobbying for this. IMHO. :popcorn

getting off the soapbox, for now.

Carol
 
I hate to say it...but there is a very strong eastern voting block that is more organized than the western states.
 
As a NYer, you guys are making me feel bad... we have two on. Although that may afford me the opportunity to speak with them about the subject of remote voting. Personally I like the idea, and the only downside I can see is that it may reduce attendance at the ABM (which I'm sure would be a major concern regarding revenues...). But you are correct that some States, like NY, are very well organized at the State level and also have a large number of voting members throughout the State.
 
The whole ICC board eligibility is messed up. They needed to do one of two things with the start of the Regions.

1). Reduce board members to 12--one for each Region, who is elected to the ICC board by the Region. Only elections at ICC ABM would be by the membership for pres., vice-pres., and sec./treas.

2). Since we insist on 18 board members there could/should be 18 Regions with format in option 1.

Wish I could take credit for above ideas but Min&Max actually threw these out during one of the meals at the ABM in Phoenix. Sure would cut down on the BS at the ABM's.
 
I've watched the elections at the ABM's since Detroit. JBI and High Desert hit the nail on the head - the more organized states are east of the Mississippi. There are some very active Chapters west of the Mississippi, but it is not at the local chapter level where the action is at. When ICC came up with the regional concept, it would have been nice if they would have put some thought behind it. I live in an area that supposedly has a regional chapter, but the local chapters I belong to never, ever hear anything from the regional chapter. When I try to get involved at the regional level, I'm ignored. So, the whole regional concept has left a very bad taste in my mouth. ICC has a long road ahead of them and it will be even longer if they don't figure it out sooner rather than later.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox now.
 
Codegeek, I would be interested in knowing exactly how you tried to get involved with your region and why you feel you were ignored.
 
Not sure chapter issues can be blamed on ICC. Chapters whether local or regional have the flavor of the local or regional members.
 
Min&Max said:
Codegeek, I would be interested in knowing exactly how you tried to get involved with your region and why you feel you were ignored.
Click to expand...
Got time for a drink? :cheers

Drop me a PM and I'll try to explain.
 
I know that Iaho and Washington each have very active State organizations. I am very active in the local and state level. The problem is not all jurisdictions can afford to send one or more people to the ABM to vote; or to the code change hearings to vote. Remote voting would level the playing field somewhat. Also, limits on how many from one state or region can be on the Board of Directors would help those regions which don't have huge populations. Which brings up the question: which is the controlling factor? Geography or Population? I'd say it's population, hands down. So, if I choose to live in the 'wilds of the west in Idaho' that means I won't have much voice in ICC. And this is a member-focused organization, right? :confused:

Carol
 
CO Chapter is very active, I have no idea what the regional chapter is like, who's the movers/shakers? Guess that could be my fault............
 
There need to be at large directors; I believe their terms should be longer than the regional directors (just like the Senate terms are longer than the House terms); the House (regional) directors should focus on their region needs; the Senate (at large) need to focus on the bigger picture (and therefore have longer to accomplish something).

Right now, the BOD elections are a popularity contest (who promises the most to the most special interests - maybe regions in this case).

My 2 cents
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top