• 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

Is it time for a new code organization?

ewenme: I don't believe that would be possible. ICC has become well entrenched and the codes are being used just about everyplace.

I one time member gene B. told me once when frustrated with ICC that I needed to learn how to work the system. That was sound advise. As members we need to improve the organization we have that take effort and being involved. Over the last several years ICC has begun to listen and now in some ways we have a voice through Jim Brown. We need to continue to fix what needs improvement.
 
Back in the "olden days" when Bill Tangye was in charge of SBCCI, the members of SBCCI were firmly entrenched about not participating in ICC - that's why most of the I Code provisions are from UBC or BOCA... SBCCI was late to the dance. There were some very good provisions the SBC had that should come back into the I Codes (ok.. not the 24/25 stair geometry)..

The special interests groups are the ones with the money to travel to the Code Development hearings, and usually equal the number of voting members at any one time.. they can easily overwhelm the process (not just with hospitality suites and give aways).

the reason the model code groups worked so well was partly that travel wasn't so extensive.. in SBCCI land it was Miami to Ashville.

Remote voting is a good first start.
 
I agree peach, but there must be control of who is voting and there must be information available. Many who can't go would take part, but so many it seems don't care. They have an attitude that give me my check and what ever is in the book I will try to enforce.
 
Greetings,

Here's a change for all that would help. Just limit the length of each code. You want to add something in there, then take something else out. Actually, it would help if all governmental entities would take on this philosophy. How bout the tax code. Limit it to 100 pages instead of 18,000.

Biggest problem is that attorneys have created their own profession centuries ago and it has only expanded since.

BS
 
RJJ, the only ones who can vote are jurisdictional code officials; (I don't believe that has changed). The industry advocates show up in big number, have big pockets and make sometimes very compelling presentations. If they only have to win over 2/3 of 10 voting members present, they only have to convince 7 that they have "the real deal".

Building departments don't have the budgets they used to have for travel and conferences.
 
Because the building code covers so much ground many building officials do not have the background to evaluate the proposals and thus are inclined to support a proposal if they see the proponent as knowledgeable. The problem is that many of these experts have an ax to grind.

Some of the most effective industry experts really do a lot to improve the code. This credibility is then used on those few items that are very important to their employer.
 
At the end of the day, building officials have the final say at the public comment hearings (final action). The e-vote will definitely help get a broader base of votes, down side, the lag time to tally the votes........
 
Peach: I agree! I was referring to governmental officials. However, in Baltimore there were more than a few Pipe fitters there just to vote. Someone paid their way and membership. This should never happen again. We need to assure not only by remote or on the floor that this does not happen again.
 
If the codes are decided by building officials; then that is where the problem lies. Who is the building official? Usually the Mayor, City Manager, Assitant City Manager, City Planner, or some other municipal employee who has little or no knowledge and code training. We have several building officials on this site; and they are very knowledgeable; however, they are in the minority of building officials in the United States. So the codes are decided on (voted on) by people who don't know much about them? I hope this is not considered a badge of honor. Uncle Bob
 
Bob: Very true! I currently work in 4 AHJ's. Listed to vote in only one. Now if I wanted I could have 15 other people at a hearing to vote. Not that I would! That being said, those listed on the membership have no idea about codes. Some are board members, some secretaries or managers. Go figure.
 
RJJ: I am shocked to hear that 'most' of the voting members are NOT true code-type people. I thought that being a 'code official' [i.e., acutally a person who knows and uses the codes] was the criteria to be a voting member. In our jurisdiction, we have four votes, and they all go to the people who know and use the code: building official, plans examiner, building/plumbing/HVAC inspector, and fire marshall. As a team we work very well together; which is an anomally as I understand it from other jurisdictions within 150 miles of here. I guess I've had rose colored glasses on. I thought the Minnesota Debacle was the exception, not the rule. Looking for change in Idaho. :)
 
RJJ said:
ewenme: I don't believe that would be possible. ICC has become well entrenched and the codes are being used just about everyplace.I one time member gene B. told me once when frustrated with ICC that I needed to learn how to work the system. That was sound advise. As members we need to improve the organization we have that take effort and being involved. Over the last several years ICC has begun to listen and now in some ways we have a voice through Jim Brown. We need to continue to fix what needs improvement.
Click to expand...
There is some very good discussion in this thread.

RJJ well said
 
My take on the volume size of the IRC is this - rather than have qualified tradesman who can understand things like - Spans in accordance with NFPna and fasteners per AITC the code hase bee and is heading to a volume of the AS Built for Dummies collection, steel studs and pretty pictures - 200 ways not to secure a ledger board, ICF lego block foundations and buildings, and page after page of "Name That TOWN in Alaska" There is very little in the code that was not always there, Load Path, wind, Quake, etc; that apprenticeship and education did not already address, what is next; what is a birdsmouth and why do we call it that with pictures for cut 1, cut 2, cut 3?
 
When I was the building official, I had money in my budget to go to the code hearings, enough for myself and one other staff member. Our department head felt it best that we only attend one annual event every other year. I only had two of my five staff interested in attending, so it made it difficult for us to use the every other year policy. No matter what we did or said, we couldn't convince our department head or those above him that it was important that we be involved. Until those in the position of "power" understand the importance of sending code officials to code hearings, it won't happen.

Now, on the private sector side perspective. I work for an architectural firm that does work in all 50 states. I can tell you that all 50 states have a different take on their codes, even if it's the IBC they're enforcing. Many of them have state codes which are based on the I codes, but are still greatly modified. From a designer's perspective, it's very challenging. We do some work where NFPA 101 gets involved and trumps a few things over the IBC, but for the most part, we like having at least one model code for which the state codes and local modifications are based, even if we get 50 different versions/interpretations.
 
Voting members during the committee hearings are all ICC members, not just governmental members. However, the only time non-governmental members can vote is during an assembly action. That's when someone makes a motion to reverse the action of the committee. This then automatically goes on the agenda of the final action hearings. What part of the problem is that not a lot of governmental members review the committee hearing results and don't submit public comments on some of the changes that occur at the committee hearings. If no one challenges the code changes they go into the codes. The only ones who can vote at the final action hearings are governmental members. That's why it's important that if we want to reduce the size of the codes we need to not only go to the final action hearings, we need to know what happens at the committee hearings as well and submit public comments to counter some of these. Just MHO.
 
Carol: The twin City was a mess. Baltimore was second to that and I would not say the majority of voter were not code officials. But the floor was full for the sprinkler vote and most had been bussed in. There are some on this BB that were there. The Last two hearings I did not witness those actions.
 
With regards to the bussing in of individuals for a specific vote I would suggest that all read Allied Tube & Conduit Corp v. Indian Head, Inc. 486 U.S. 492 (1988)

Google Scholar

This Supreme Court ruling had to do with a similar situation at an NFPA meeting. ICC's lawyers should be very familiar with this case, if they are not they should be fired.
 
You are absolutely right Mark. The sprinkler vote wasn't the first fiasco. I remember that one.
 
Mark K said:
With regards to the bussing in of individuals for a specific vote I would suggest that all read Allied Tube & Conduit Corp v. Indian Head, Inc. 486 U.S. 492 (1988)Google Scholar

This Supreme Court ruling had to do with a similar situation at an NFPA meeting. ICC's lawyers should be very familiar with this case, if they are not they should be fired.
Click to expand...
I quickly read through parts of it but still need a synopsis in commoner/layperson English.
 
Here is a synopsis:

New York Times said:
Antitrust Liability Set In Company's LobbyingThe Supreme Court ruled today, 7 to 2, that companies could be held liable under Federal antitrust laws for lobbying private organizations to draft model safety standards for governmental bodies in ways that unreasonably restrain competition .

The decision upheld an $11.4 million jury award against a producer of steel tubing conduit for electrical wires. The company, the Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation, was accused of conspiring with others to block approval of a competing plastic of the influential National Fire Protection Association.

The Court has held since 1961 that companies cannot be held liable under the antitrust laws for their actions in lobbying governmental officials, even if the purpose or effect is to restrain or monopolize trade or injure competitors. Today, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for the Court that this immunity did not extend to lobbying of private standard-setting organizations. Largest Maker of Steel Conduit

The suit was brought by Indian Head Inc., which began to offer plastic conduit made of polyvinyl chlroide in 1980 in competition with the steel conduit that had long been used as a raceway to carry electrical wires through the walls and floors of buildings. The defendant was Allied Tube, the nation's largest producer of steel conduit.
Click to expand...
 
RJJ said:
Carol: The twin City was a mess. Baltimore was second to that and I would not say the majority of voter were not code officials. But the floor was full for the sprinkler vote and most had been bussed in. There are some on this BB that were there. The Last two hearings I did not witness those actions.
Click to expand...
I was there in Baltimore. Not many years ago we had an "administrative assistant" that was a voting ICC member. We are a jurisdiction <50,000. Therefore we had 4 votes. That person was a designated ICC voter no more qualified than my horse. Once I was in a position to change that I did but it took time. All four votes are now in qualified hands. Perhaps it's just me but if we only had two that were qualified they would be the only ones registered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those who vote at the final action hearings are responsible for what the code is and what it will be in the future. I do not blame "special interests" for lobbying for what they perceive as important, but at the same time I expect them to have some semblance of ethics, which was completely and absolutely absent from the sprinkler cartel in Minneapolis and Baltimore. I for one will never trust anyone representing the fire service again. We have brought this mess on ourselves and have no one else to blame. To assume that ICC will be the only code writer in the future would be shortsighted. Whenever a market opportunity arises someone or group WILL act to fulfill that need. I would not be surprised if NAHB is toying with the idea.
 
The sort summary is:

A manufacturer of steel electrical conduit did not want the electrical code to allow plastic conduit so they paid for a number of people to join NFPA so they could vote against the proposal to allow plastic conduit. The plastic conduit manufacturer filed suit and the steel conduit manufacture was found guilty of antitrust violations.

While NFPA appears to have been a passive participant I suggest that organizations such as ICC who develop model codes should be sensitive to these issues. Even when these transgressions do not result in findings of antitrust violations they can tarnish the image of the model code developer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top