• 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

ICC collapsing

Virginia also adopts the International codes with state modifications and requires all jurisdictions to use it. It took about 18 months at first, but administrative procedures, publications, response periods, multiple hearings, etc. keep getting more complicated, which dragged the 2015 code adoption out to the fall of 2018!
 
I suggest that states have some statutes that deal with building code issues. Thus attempts to adopt the IBC without modification will create conflicts between the IBC and state statutes. Unless the state legislature adopted a specific version of the IBC directly these statutes will govern.

A legislature that adopts a specific version of the IBC directly is creating something that is almost impossible to modify. I hope that all states have delegated adoption of the building code to a state agency.
 
Oregon has statutes that is to create the state's building code division and the statutory language for establishing state adopted building codes (in this case, called "specialty codes"). However, the statutes defines the title and only a few statutory specific matters like what is and isn't exempt buildings under the architect & engineer's law which would be applicable to what plans requires a stamp or not as well as some others. Otherwise, most of the amendment and the adoption process is defined in the administrative codes of the state's building code division and the actual language of the amendments are in the adopted building code regulation (specialty codes). Basically, state legislature isn't needed for every little amendment to the code. They can be autonomous with the day to day matters without the rigid process of having things go through state representatives and state senators just to get changed. They can make necessary changes (albeit minor in quantity) but they do from HSW perspective so it isn't insignificant. While the code division should have oversight as a public agency and I think they are overseen by the state legislature (to who knows what level of effectiveness), they do need to be able to make code changes without as much administrative hoops with the state legislature which can take years to adopt or have amendments changed when there are other things that the legislature deems more important at the time.
 
Colorado has does not have a State adopted Building Code, it is up to local juridictions to adopt and amend as they see fit.

In my jurisdiction, all of our amendments create more restrictive requirements, we do not weaken the base code.
 
That's a valid point as well as scary. Not that I'm a huge fan of NFPA but i could have lived with the adoption of NFPA 5000 very easily.
You state that ICC is corrupt and how you are opposed to corruption and then indicate you approve of NFPA. My god, what planet are you from? ICC may not be perfect but it is head and shoulders above NFPA.
 
Here the state adopts the code with few or any amendments and local jurisdictions can amend as they see fit. Works very well and I would not change a thing.
 
You state that ICC is corrupt and how you are opposed to corruption and then indicate you approve of NFPA. My god, what planet are you from? ICC may not be perfect but it is head and shoulders above NFPA.
Well, neither follow a true consensus process for the codes development. Their memberships have the final say unlike ANSI, and other SDOs. Does ICC require a minimum number of votes from those eligible to pass a code?
 
If a state has authorized a state agency to adopt a state building code the Legislature is not directly involved in the adoption and modification of the building code.

I think corrupt is too strong a term. This is not an endorsement of ICC but corrupt is not the term.

The current process results in too much influence by industry interests. Given the volume of amendments I do not believe that a significant number of voting building officials are familiar with and knowledgeable about the provisions being voted on. This is even worse when local jurisdictions attempt to adopt a building code.
 
Our association once detected an error in the code and submitted a code change. We thought this submittal would be straightforward and be accepted. This change, however, if passed would not be coordinated with the source document. The publishers of the source document did not support the change and challenged it. They didn't want to be behind the code. The argument was that their group needed to study the issue first and if they agreed they would place it into their document and then submit it as a code reference. We felt the change was too important to wait that long and proceeded to pursue the change.

The publisher sent a code consultant to the ICC hearings to mount their challenge. This consultant was a familiar presence at the code hearings, and usually gave sound arguments in his presentations. We sent one of our association members to represent us, as most of us could not make the trip.

The ICC voting members were almost always persuaded by this consultant and he made his case to disapprove the proposal and wait for his group to handle it. Our rep pleaded that waiting may lead to flawed and unsafe designs, supporting his points with examples. It was as if he wasn't there. The code change was defeated.

I don't know whether to say the ICC membership was corrupt but they didn't give our proposal a fair treatment. They could be accused of ignoring the facts. And they obviously let the personalities involved rule the day.

After the item was concluded, this esteemed consultant admitted to our rep that he agreed with our change, but the parties paying his way could not allow themselves to be one-upped and thus sent him over to do his dirty work! Pretty sleazy, right?

Of course our proposal ended up in the code one edition later than it should have. So much power in the hands of so few . . .

There are likely other stories like this out there, but here is my personal experience. What a shock.
 
Our association once detected an error in the code and submitted a code change. We thought this submittal would be straightforward and be accepted. This change, however, if passed would not be coordinated with the source document. The publishers of the source document did not support the change and challenged it. They didn't want to be behind the code. The argument was that their group needed to study the issue first and if they agreed they would place it into their document and then submit it as a code reference. We felt the change was too important to wait that long and proceeded to pursue the change.

The publisher sent a code consultant to the ICC hearings to mount their challenge. This consultant was a familiar presence at the code hearings, and usually gave sound arguments in his presentations. We sent one of our association members to represent us, as most of us could not make the trip.

The ICC voting members were almost always persuaded by this consultant and he made his case to disapprove the proposal and wait for his group to handle it. Our rep pleaded that waiting may lead to flawed and unsafe designs, supporting his points with examples. It was as if he wasn't there. The code change was defeated.

I don't know whether to say the ICC membership was corrupt but they didn't give our proposal a fair treatment. They could be accused of ignoring the facts. And they obviously let the personalities involved rule the day.

After the item was concluded, this esteemed consultant admitted to our rep that he agreed with our change, but the parties paying his way could not allow themselves to be one-upped and thus sent him over to do his dirty work! Pretty sleazy, right?

Of course our proposal ended up in the code one edition later than it should have. So much power in the hands of so few . . .

There are likely other stories like this out there, but here is my personal experience. What a shock.
"it's not what you know, it's who you know".

As much as I stand by the ICC system for developing codes, I admit that popular sentiment definitely appears at times in code development.

However, as I also stand by, the flaws that at times come from the hearings are the flaws of the humans involved, not the system itself. That statement applies well beyond code development.

We must start being critical of ourselves (collectively) and not seeking blame in some inhuman process or procedure.
 
I don't know whether to say the ICC membership was corrupt but they didn't give our proposal a fair treatment. They could be accused of ignoring the facts. And they obviously let the personalities involved rule the day.

I always like the word "fair". It exposes a lot about the person and their underlying beliefs. In your story, the membership should have viewed your evidence on the same level as the one from this code consultant. A code consultant that the voting members have heard from and relied on, presumably successfully, in the past. Your belief that your code official, that had presumably never petitioned the membership before, would be looked at the same way as this consultant is flawed.

Ultimately, we all believe we are logical, reasonable people, despite the overwhelming evidence from psychologists that decision making takes place in the emotion center of our brain. We have sound logic for the things we should have. Based on this it is only "fair" that we get those things. But in this case, you did not get the outcome you wanted. The process must be unfair, because otherwise you would have gotten what you wanted. After all, you just want to be treated fairly at the hearing. In reality the situation was not controlled to engineer the desired outcome. The ego will not allow accountability for the failure, so it must be someone else's fault.

If we want to do better, we have to get better. We need to look at our presentations, the way we present ourselves, and our information from the viewpoint of our audience. We need to understand and prepare for challenges to our proposals. In proposing a change, you are fighting an uphill battle. No one likes change. This consultant just needs to give people the slightest excuse and people will jump right on it, even if it just to delay it for 3 years. If our credentials are not established, we need to establish them. Give people a reason to trust you. Now for the change, as much as you want to respect their "choice" in voting, you want to make it so there is no choice. People should be left thinking that there is no other option but to support your proposal.

I would also recommend against making character judgement against a person for doing a job (unless it is outright illegal). Is someone "sleazy" for wanting to make sure they can pay a mortgage and afford groceries? I don't feel it's my place to place judgement on how someone else lives their life. But, if you understand a person's motivation, you now know how to leverage them. We use this all the time for contractors. Yes, I can just take them to court and waste a lot of money, but I can also just relate how fixing that code violation is going to save them money in the long term (call backs, lawsuits, etc.). I don't talk about it being the "right" thing to do, because pride in workmanship is not a motivator for this class of contractor.

Always, always, always, tailor your message to your audience by viewing things from their perspective. You will be more successful in everything you do.
 
Our association once detected an error in the code and submitted a code change. We thought this submittal would be straightforward and be accepted. This change, however, if passed would not be coordinated with the source document. The publishers of the source document did not support the change and challenged it. They didn't want to be behind the code. The argument was that their group needed to study the issue first and if they agreed they would place it into their document and then submit it as a code reference. We felt the change was too important to wait that long and proceeded to pursue the change.

The publisher sent a code consultant to the ICC hearings to mount their challenge. This consultant was a familiar presence at the code hearings, and usually gave sound arguments in his presentations. We sent one of our association members to represent us, as most of us could not make the trip.

The ICC voting members were almost always persuaded by this consultant and he made his case to disapprove the proposal and wait for his group to handle it. Our rep pleaded that waiting may lead to flawed and unsafe designs, supporting his points with examples. It was as if he wasn't there. The code change was defeated.

I don't know whether to say the ICC membership was corrupt but they didn't give our proposal a fair treatment. They could be accused of ignoring the facts. And they obviously let the personalities involved rule the day.

After the item was concluded, this esteemed consultant admitted to our rep that he agreed with our change, but the parties paying his way could not allow themselves to be one-upped and thus sent him over to do his dirty work! Pretty sleazy, right?

Of course our proposal ended up in the code one edition later than it should have. So much power in the hands of so few . . .

There are likely other stories like this out there, but here is my personal experience. What a shock.

Okay so I will withdraw the word "corrupt" and go with "sleazy" which in my book is essentially one and the same.
 
I always like the word "fair". It exposes a lot about the person and their underlying beliefs. In your story, the membership should have viewed your evidence on the same level as the one from this code consultant. A code consultant that the voting members have heard from and relied on, presumably successfully, in the past. Your belief that your code official, that had presumably never petitioned the membership before, would be looked at the same way as this consultant is flawed.

Anyone can submit a code change proposal to a code. No filing fees required. However this breaks down the groupins who have been participating.

  • Competing material groups, including but not limited to: concrete, masonry, steel, wood, and plastic, pursuing market share gains may propose revisions to the code. These groups not only directly petition changes but publish reference standards.
  • Builders and developers pursuing avenues of least initial cost, often proposing, encouraging, or supporting the development of code provisions that are favorable for alternatives to traditional products and methods and providing the builder or developer with increased profitability.
  • Systems manufacturers, such as those producing automatic sprinkler systems, may propose, encourage, and support code revisions that reduce the requirements for the use of passive fire protection to justify the additional costs for their systems and gain support from builders and developers.
  • Government agencies may propose code changes that reflect the results of research and development; support their issues and views; or satisfy their obligations to comply with mandates from legislative bodies.
  • Building code officials and administrators may propose changes to enhance life safety or to simplify the code or the inspection process.
  • General public and legal counsel may submit changes with the intent of increasing consumer protection.

Ultimately, we all believe we are logical, reasonable people, despite the overwhelming evidence from psychologists that decision making takes place in the emotion center of our brain. We have sound logic for the things we should have. Based on this it is only "fair" that we get those things. But in this case, you did not get the outcome you wanted. The process must be unfair, because otherwise you would have gotten what you wanted. After all, you just want to be treated fairly at the hearing. In reality the situation was not controlled to engineer the desired outcome. The ego will not allow accountability for the failure, so it must be someone else's fault.

If we want to do better, we have to get better. We need to look at our presentations, the way we present ourselves, and our information from the viewpoint of our audience. We need to understand and prepare for challenges to our proposals. In proposing a change, you are fighting an uphill battle. No one likes change. This consultant just needs to give people the slightest excuse and people will jump right on it, even if it just to delay it for 3 years. If our credentials are not established, we need to establish them. Give people a reason to trust you. Now for the change, as much as you want to respect their "choice" in voting, you want to make it so there is no choice. People should be left thinking that there is no other option but to support your proposal.

I would also recommend against making character judgement against a person for doing a job (unless it is outright illegal). Is someone "sleazy" for wanting to make sure they can pay a mortgage and afford groceries? I don't feel it's my place to place judgement on how someone else lives their life. But, if you understand a person's motivation, you now know how to leverage them. We use this all the time for contractors. Yes, I can just take them to court and waste a lot of money, but I can also just relate how fixing that code violation is going to save them money in the long term (call backs, lawsuits, etc.). I don't talk about it being the "right" thing to do, because pride in workmanship is not a motivator for this class of contractor.

Always, always, always, tailor your message to your audience by viewing things from their perspective. You will be more successful in everything you do.
 
Top