• 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 collapsing

This might help a bit? As far as the code hearings go and especially the annual business meeting they are amazingly expensive. I know because I get to see the numbers. I will not release exact numbers but will tell you we are talking at least 6 digits to the left of the decimal point and depending on the location a little more. All of these events are planned a minimum of 3 years out as well as all the contracts. The convention centers are by no means cheap. Talk about costs, look around the hearing room at the electronics and the number of people that are needed to pull the whole thing off. Some are ICC employees and many others contracted vendors. Heck, it takes a minimum of 2 to 3 days just to get the whole thing up and running. ICC covers the cost of getting code official committee members, moderators, and staff to and from the hearings as well as hotel, meals, and other reasonable expenses. Industry has to pay their own way. You think the water coolers in the hearing room are free? Guess again. Then there is CDP Access. That software platform cost more than you can imagine as it was developed, maintained, and owned exclusively by ICC. Good Lord, I could go on and on about all the associated expenses but I'm sure you all get the picture.

Now the codes and the revenue they generate. So, are there profit in codes? Yes. Big profits??? Not on your life. The amount of revenue from codes in percentage relative to all the revenue that the code council takes in has been declining for years. Part of the reason is the cost of goods and services sold that always seems to rise. Another factor to consider is that the code council has diversified its revenue stream in order to support our core mission. Codes & Standards. This was done by senior staff and the board of directors in a well (well pretty well) made plan knowing that perhaps someday there might not be any profit at all from codes not to mention the internet pirates that steal intellectual property. Btw, the last statement, please don't go there as that's a whole other issue and a conservation that I cannot and will not get into. Thanks in advance.

So there is just a small view or sample from the world and view that I'm privileged to play a small part in. Last thought, is the code council perfect? Heck no! If it was I sure as heck would not be on the board! Lol! Are we core mission and membership focused. I can honestly say a resounding yes to that and sleep in good conscience every night. So there you have it folks. Please feel free to take me to task anytime and be sure to have fun at my expense!
 
Well for the code council reductions in operating expenses are a given. As far as costs for products & services I do not see any increases in the near future and if those costs would need to slightly go up the board would be made fully aware of any long before they would go into effect. Just not seeing it right now.

With the COVID-19 it has already affected ICC in some similar ways as other companies. We are in a very good position but still need to cut some operating expenses. My crystal ball might not be as clear as I want it to be but I would expect possible delays in code adoptions as building and fire prevention departments get their budgets cut. No travel impacts training and education. Right now there is no unnecessary travel for all of the code council. Even the board will be meeting virtually. As you may have already heard the code council has cancelled the annual business meeting that was going to be held in St. Louis in October. The up side of that is that I get to go elk hunting with my Grandson and son-in-law! WooHoo! Finally!!! The global slowdown in the economy could very well impact ICC-ES & ICC-IAS and in some cases decrease or increase revenues. One example would be laboratory calibration and certification could possibly increase for IAS given the current circumstances but could decrease for ES as products might be slower in development and slower in getting them to market. I see the software industry as big winners here as they relate to all kinds of things in the construction industry. Virtual meetings, electronic plan review, complete solutions for online permitting, virtual inspections, etc... Some jurisdictions have already geared up with all or part of this but many have not and are going to have to spend some pretty big bucks to get caught up. This is where the code council has been working with the federal government to try to get COVID relief monies dedicated for building and fire prevention departments from across the country to be able to fully develop or enhance their remote and online solutions so in the event of a whatever emergency the transition from the traditional office to remote is seamless.
 
It is a fantasy to believe the code is not bought. Materials interests and others hire individuals who monitor the code development process, developing code change proposals favoring their employer and objecting to proposals their employer doesn't like. These individuals are so effective that proposals that their employer do not like tend not to be adopted. If we were talking about legislatures these individuals would be called lobbyists.

The number of code change proposals and the complexity of these proposals are so great that no individual can be informed about each of the proposals. This plays into the hands of the special interests. From my perspective I believe the vast majority of the delegates defer to these "lobbyists". Thus the Code is largely bought by special interests.
 
JP

Do not bring up a topic and then ask individuals not to respond.

A recent Supreme Court ruling has made it clear that once laws are adopted, and building codes when adopted are laws, there can be no copyright. Yes you have a copyright on the model codes but once they are adopted by a state or jurisdiction there is no copyright on the law of that jurisdiction.

So an individual who makes available a copy of the adopted laws cannot be considered a pirate since the law belongs to us all. Thus it is inappropriate to infer that such an individual has violated a law.

ICC might have a claim of a 5th amendment taking when the model codes are adopted by a jurisdiction but that would only result in reimbursement for expenses. This might mean that the cost of a building permit might have to be increased to cover this cost.

In addition the intellectual property ICC claims as its own is almost exclusively developed by others who are required to sign over their copyright for the intellectual property they developed to ICC before ICC will consider the code change proposal. Then ICC claims they own the intellectual property.
 
Mark K said:
It is a fantasy to believe the code is not bought. Materials interests and others hire individuals who monitor the code development process, developing code change proposals favoring their employer and objecting to proposals their employer doesn't like. These individuals are so effective that proposals that their employer do not like tend not to be adopted. If we were talking about legislatures these individuals would be called lobbyists.

The number of code change proposals and the complexity of these proposals are so great that no individual can be informed about each of the proposals. This plays into the hands of the special interests. From my perspective I believe the vast majority of the delegates defer to these "lobbyists". Thus the Code is largely bought by special interests.
Click to expand...
Have you ever participated in the code development process, including attendance at both hearings (as they are significantly different)? If so, I am surprised by your comment. If not, I am not surprised by your comment. If you are ever able to participate, you may get a different perspective.

Disclaimer, so you know I'm "one of them": I have a client I represent in code development. I am effective. Very effective. I am effective at bringing a collective voice of an industry that is regulated by standards, because I am very knowledgeable in the codes of their industry. I applaud that the system allows the voices of these blue-collar working American men and women to be heard, because they are also knowledgeable in their industry. They can't individually contribute their voice, because they have work to do building America. They contribute to their non-profit organization collectively, so that they can pay someone like me to carry their experiences from the dirt and dust to the clean and shiny pedestal where the rules are made.

That matters. They matter. Their opinions matter.

Code development is not as corrupt as you make it sound. Yes, there are some there only for the dollar and will say anything. They are quickly sniffed out.

You learn a lot attending the hearings. You learn that the most amazing idea from one single perspective, isn't actually so perfect when other perspectives are included.
 
While I have not attended the formal hearings I have worked with those that do attend the hearings, I have been involved with developing code change proposals and responding to proposals for over a 30 year period. The point is that I know more about the ICC process than you give me credit.

The corruption is not one of violating any law but rather one that results from hiring high powered consultants to represent special interests.
 
I know many of those consultants but of course not all of them. Darn good, honest, hard working people that are good at what they do. Without mentioning any names they are also good friends of mine so I guess if they are corrupt I'm guilty by association. I'm good with that.
 
Mark K said:
While I have not attended the formal hearings I have worked with those that do attend the hearings, I have been involved with developing code change proposals and responding to proposals for over a 30 year period. The point is that I know more about the ICC process than you give me credit.

The corruption is not one of violating any law but rather one that results from hiring high powered consultants to represent special interests.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, Mark, I wasn't attempting to discredit you. I was asking if you attended. I think many people share your feelings until they attend. Thus my "surprised / not surprised" comment. My sincere apologies for my poor communication. I attended my first hearings when I was still a code official and it very much opened my eyes, surprised me, and changed my perspective. I was just trying to offer more perspective to your comment, not reduce yours.

I'm also attempting to convince you that there is much that can be positive about consultants representing special interest. Special interests are special. So often their interests aren't understood. So they come and share those interests. There is nothing wrong with that. I learn so much listening to the testimony from the experts in these specialties. Especially when you have two experts disagreeing with each other. You learn quickly there is little about code that is an "ultimate truth".

If a "high powered" consultant is yielding results in the code, then their power is coming from those they are able to convince. Those convinced are the ones granting power and trust to the consultant. Wouldn't that be the goal of any professional? To know your subject so well, that people trust and believe you? That's not evil.

I'll lose friends for saying this next thing...but this is where I agree completely with you.

I do think the manner in which residential fire sprinklers got in the code was absolutely corrupt. I think the fear tactics I have witness ever since then against anyone that proposes removing them is absolutely unprofessional and unethical.

I do think the manner in which the energy alliance group got recent energy code provisions approved was absolutely corrupt and unethical.

These are two clear examples of gaming a system and using loopholes to win. A consultant giving convincing testimony is all good to me.
 
Mark, look through the archives here on the forum. I used to be the guy railing against many of the things that ICC is and does. Well... I was wrong on almost every point. I'm not at all saying that applies to you so please do not take offence. So what changed for me? Making a long story short I started by engaging with our state ICC chapter. Shortly after being elected to their board of directors I started attending the ICC annual business meetings and code hearings. That led to getting on ICC committees and that ultimately led to to being elected to the ICC board. Through that journey and experience I learned first hand how misguided I was back then. My only point here is that like Glenn was saying attending the ABM and code hearings can really change a persons perceptions. There is not going to be an annual business meeting this year because of all this COVID-19 stuff but I'm hopeful for 2021. I'm also hopeful for the spring code hearings and I personally invite you to attend and heck... I'll buy the first rounds at the end of the day. How about it? Glenn, your invited too. My dime!
 
jpranch said:
I'm also hopeful for the spring code hearings and I personally invite you to attend and hell... I'll buy the first rounds at the end of the day. How about it? Glenn, your invited too. My dime!
Click to expand...
I've already started my Group A proposals! I'll buy the second round! (but only if I get your vote in the Fall) HA, HA! Just kidding!!
 
jpranch said:
Well for the code council reductions in operating expenses are a given. As far as costs for products & services I do not see any increases in the near future and if those costs would need to slightly go up the board would be made fully aware of any long before they would go into effect. Just not seeing it right now.

With the COVID-19 it has already affected ICC in some similar ways as other companies. We are in a very good position but still need to cut some operating expenses. My crystal ball might not be as clear as I want it to be but I would expect possible delays in code adoptions as building and fire prevention departments get their budgets cut. No travel impacts training and education. Right now there is no unnecessary travel for all of the code council. Even the board will be meeting virtually. As you may have already heard the code council has cancelled the annual business meeting that was going to be held in St. Louis in October. The up side of that is that I get to go elk hunting with my Grandson and son-in-law! WooHoo! Finally!!! The global slowdown in the economy could very well impact ICC-ES & ICC-IAS and in some cases decrease or increase revenues. One example would be laboratory calibration and certification could possibly increase for IAS given the current circumstances but could decrease for ES as products might be slower in development and slower in getting them to market. I see the software industry as big winners here as they relate to all kinds of things in the construction industry. Virtual meetings, electronic plan review, complete solutions for online permitting, virtual inspections, etc... Some jurisdictions have already geared up with all or part of this but many have not and are going to have to spend some pretty big bucks to get caught up. This is where the code council has been working with the federal government to try to get COVID relief monies dedicated for building and fire prevention departments from across the country to be able to fully develop or enhance their remote and online solutions so in the event of a whatever emergency the transition from the traditional office to remote is seamless.
Click to expand...

Many of you in the forum are building dept. employees. ICC hardly hires anyone in this sector, pretty amazing unless they know something the rest of us don’t.

The furloughs are in effect until September so ICC does not appear to be that well positioned to ride through the challenges. At the ES meetings June 2-3, they actually cancelled an item because the engineer working on it had been furloughed and no one else could apparently step in. This never happened before and gives ES a Huge negative on it’s abilities to serve it’s Clients. Code changes may next on being on the cancellation list.
 
ICC is very well positioned to ride "ride through the challenges". This is a fact and not BS or wishful thinking. I see the financials. Will it be seamless? No. Does it affect peoples lives? Sure. Does if affect goods and services? Yes, but only in a very minor way as all of us adjust to this new reality and get back to what ever normal will be. I will be getting updates on financials, legal, investments, presentations from NFPA, NAHB, NIST, as well as many action items today and tomorrow during out virtual board meeting. Btw, I get financials to review every month. Gotta keep your eye on the ball folks. Hey Ladies & Gent's, I'm giving you the straight poop here. Did I drink the Coolaid? Heck yes and I went back for 2nd's. Does that mean I'm a liar and blowing smoke up your collective backsides? Never! I'm just not wired that way.
 
jpranch said:
ICC is very well positioned to ride "ride through the challenges". This is a fact and not BS or wishful thinking. I see the financials. Will it be seamless? No. Does it affect peoples lives? Sure. Does if affect goods and services? Yes but only in a very minor way as all of us adjust to this new reality and get back to what ever normal will be. I will be getting updates on financials, legal, investments, presentations from NFPA, NAHB, NIST, as well as many action items today and tomorrow during out virtual board meeting. Btw, I get financials to review every month. Gotta keep your eye on the ball folks. Hey Ladies & Gent's, I'm giving you the straight poop here. Did I drink the Coolaid? Heck yes and I went back for 2nd's. Does that mean I'm a liar and blowing smoke up your collective backsides? Never! I'm just not wired that way.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing and for being open and honest.
 
Its certainly easy to tell who is in favor of ICC and who is not but here's my two cents, I've been involved with government for over thirty years, the codes since 1997, and the ICC is without a doubt the single most corrupt agency I've ever seen. Not very long after our state adopted the ICC codes the hierarchy of our State Department started retiring in droves. Guess where they all went for their second career? The ICC. We were told once you adopt the ICC code and get familiar with it you will be able to get a job anywhere in the country as this will be a standardized code across the board. I guess they never heard the term "local or state enhancements". I could go on but there is absolutely no doubt the ICC is the worst thing that could had happened to our industry.
 
Village Inspector, it's actually the second worst. There was a serious threat of the feds writing a one-size-fits-none national building code in the 1990s and withholding federal funds from any state that didn't adopt it. Can you imagine what would happen if the same ones who gave us OSHA and ADA also gave us a building code, with no amendments allowed.
 
Last edited:
Paul Sweet said:
Village Inspector, it's actually the second worst. There was a serious threat of the feds writing a one-size-fits-none national building code in the 1990s and withholding federal funds from any state that didn't adopt it. Can you imagine what would happen if the same ones who gave us OSHA and ADA also gave us a building code, with no amendments allowed.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Mark K said:
While I have not attended the formal hearings I have worked with those that do attend the hearings, I have been involved with developing code change proposals and responding to proposals for over a 30 year period. The point is that I know more about the ICC process than you give me credit.

The corruption is not one of violating any law but rather one that results from hiring high powered consultants to represent special interests.
Click to expand...

Well spoken MH, the result of our constitutional freedoms and the often unforseen/unexpected results that come from it.
 
Paul Sweet said:
Village Inspector, it's actually the second worst. There was a serious threat of the feds writing a one-size-fits-none national building code in the 1990s and withholding federal funds from any state that didn't adopt it. Can you imagine what would happen if the same ones who gave us OSHA and ADA also gave us a building code, with no amendments allowed.
Click to expand...
We have a national code here in Canada. However, it is a model code designed to be adapted by the local jurisdictions. Representation on the code committee is provided throughout the country and has a specific makeup of building/fire officials, members of the public, RDPs, and contractors/developers. Also, no federal funding is tied to its adoption.

I don't have many complaints with our code. Approached properly, it can be done. Now, would it be approached properly? Apparently not.
 
Paul Sweet said:
Village Inspector, it's actually the second worst. There was a serious threat of the feds writing a one-size-fits-none national building code in the 1990s and withholding federal funds from any state that didn't adopt it. Can you imagine what would happen if the same ones who gave us OSHA and ADA also gave us a building code, with no amendments allowed.
Click to expand...

Paul, this is a generic post, not directed at you but to everyone in general. I am just using your post due to the context.

There is no reason why every state can't do what Florida does with the ICC. They use it as a base and then modify it to work for the state. I don't have any I-Codes in my office but modified versions of the FBC. The same basic setup with chapters and some verbatim language, but, for the most part, very specific changes that reflect the needs of this state. We are on the 6th edition of the FBC and soon going to the 7th edition. Even the NFPA 1 has been modified specifically for Florida. The only major code that is not amended is the NEC. Everything else, Building, Residential, Accessibility, Mechanical, Fuel Gas, Plumbing, Existing Building, Energy Conservation, etc. is essentially an ICC code that has been customized for our state. In order to do that, it takes a commission and lots of committees but it is doable and there is no reason why each state can't do that themselves. This way you have what you need, not what you are forced to have. This is way better than adopting the ICC codes then having a pile of state statutes to keep track of.
Yes, I am a fan of the ICC and have been since my first IRC book in 2000 which I found significantly better than my BOCA book. Get involved in your state and make the changes you need and be happy you have a base code available that already did a lot of the hard work. This way the system and the way the codes are put together are consistent no matter what state you go in and just some of the code requirements may vary. Think forward and if you are going to bash, then how about coming up with a solution.
 
jar546 said:
Paul, this is a generic post, not directed at you but to everyone in general. I am just using your post due to the context.

There is no reason why every state can't do what Florida does with the ICC. They use it as a base and then modify it to work for the state. I don't have any I-Codes in my office but modified versions of the FBC. The same basic setup with chapters and some verbatim language, but, for the most part, very specific changes that reflect the needs of this state. We are on the 6th edition of the FBC and soon going to the 7th edition. Even the NFPA 1 has been modified specifically for Florida. The only major code that is not amended is the NEC. Everything else, Building, Residential, Accessibility, Mechanical, Fuel Gas, Plumbing, Existing Building, Energy Conservation, etc. is essentially an ICC code that has been customized for our state. In order to do that, it takes a commission and lots of committees but it is doable and there is no reason why each state can't do that themselves. This way you have what you need, not what you are forced to have. This is way better than adopting the ICC codes then having a pile of state statutes to keep track of.
Yes, I am a fan of the ICC and have been since my first IRC book in 2000 which I found significantly better than my BOCA book. Get involved in your state and make the changes you need and be happy you have a base code available that already did a lot of the hard work. This way the system and the way the codes are put together are consistent no matter what state you go in and just some of the code requirements may vary. Think forward and if you are going to bash, then how about coming up with a solution.
Click to expand...
I used to work in a state that does the same as Florida. There was a time, I am told, when they considered doing away with their own and going straight ICC, mostly do to the financial burden of running their own state program. That didn't end up happening, not sure if it is still on the table. I can say it was a great system, obviously it was tailored to the state, but it was also way more responsive. I still refer to that code often, to see what they do, to help me be more informed. ICC isn't perfect, nor are the other model state codes I turn to. I have been to the hearings, but I don't see "corruption". I do see mostly well-intentioned people advocating things from a personal perspective without regard for how it affects the broader public. I see people using the code to advance an agenda outside the scope of the missions of the codes (sometimes just to be able to see their names on things). Mostly I see a bunch of people not exercising enough critical thinking.

I once heard a presenter say to the voting members "I know it's not perfect, but let's get it into the code and we can work on it later" (maybe not an exact quote but darn close.) That is not the way it should work. I don't call that corruption as much as stupidity. Stupidity can usually be fixed, not sure corruption can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top