• 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?

Darren Emery

Darren Emery

Registered User
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
504
Location
Manhattan, Ks
Food for thought and discussion: With the direction the ICC code library is heading, is it time for another group of concerned building officials to in essence "reinvent the wheel"? Do we really need a 904 page document to build a home? (my copy of the 2012 IRC)
 
I believe the undertaking would be extremely expensive, take an enormous amount of work and be cost prohibitive since the wheel would essentially be reinvented at multiple levels beyond the IRC. In my opinion, it would eventually evolve into a similar situation.

There is no shortage of people submitting code change proposals. Just look at the small percentage that is accepted.

Can it be done? Yes, absolutely. At this point I can only see a for profit company having the resources to undertake something of that magnitude.
 
Darren,

I will echo what "Jeff" has stated. IMO, we do not need to re-invent the "code wheel"!

As code officials, we can amend out or in, things that apply to our respective jurisdictions.

It appears as though we will need to do just that, so that we do not have a 904 page

elephant to manage. Essentially, some are already doing this (in each jurisdiction),

just not to a large degree.

The Cow will not do anything for free, and, also IMO, ..they will continue to prostitute

themselves out to the highest bidder, which will result in more and more pages being

added to all the code books. Various lobby groups regularly descend upon The

ICC Ivory Tower to woo & romance them in to inserting various "self interest" (i.e. -

mucho profito) requirements and systems in to the code books for adoption.

Editing the various code books to the best interest of our individual locations will be

a cost & time issue, but it will also benefit each jurisdiction with what applies to

that individual jurisdiction. This will however, be another trumpeting of the

statement "why isn't there a consistent set of codes for us to follow? XYZ city

( _________ = you fill in the blank ) doesn't require us to do this / that / the other,

...why isn't there a set of codes that applies uniformly in every jurisdiction?



If we (all) do not want a 904 page elephant, then it will be up to each of us to

place the elephant on a permanent diet and remove the various pages and sections

that we do not want.

The Cow has shown over and over and over and over again, that they are not

concerned with the content or size of their code books, ..only that we continue to

buy them!

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NFPA tried and expensively failed to create a new building code (NFPA 5000) and get it adopted

IF NFPA cannot get a new building code off the ground, it is highly unlikely that a new organization would be able to
 
well... since I might be perceived as the cow these days I just had to add my 2 cents. I'm a building official dealing with all the same stuff that everybody here on this board has to deal with. Am I concerned about the size, minutia of details, and complexity of the codes not to mention specific content? You bet I'am and I can tell you that I'm not alone here. Am I concerned about the revenue of the ICC? Absolutely. No revenue = no membership services. jar is correct about the costs to reinvent the wheel. My guess for the cost to replace IRC with another document is about 2 to 3 million. Now with all that said we all must understand that the codes are not developed in the board room, councils, etc... but are developed at the code development hearings. Votes can only be cast by governmental members. (Ya I already know what is coming) We desperately need code officials in the hearings to put a stop to the madness. But I'm willing to bet that you all already know all this. Here is the good news at least here in Wyoming: Our chapter membership just approved $6,000 in scholarships to get our people to the hearings. It get better: The International Association of Building Officials 2013 ICC Code Development Hearings Atlantic City | IABO has a the ability (funding) this year and will be offering scholarships for 100 building officials to attend to code hearings. Perhaps the best news is that CDP Access cdpACCESS is kicking into high gear and WILL be live this coming November. You want to talk about a game changer! So with all of this I realize that I have opened myself up for some criticism but what the hell, Let'er buck!
 
JP - I certainly don't see you as the cow. More like the rancher trying to teach the cow new tricks!

Hang in there - if ICC is to be successful (not just make money, but accomplish the task) it's gonna take guys like you living in the trenches and standing up for what's right.

Peace,

Darren
 
It's not ICC that's responsible for the volume of the codes. ICC was formed as one body by ICBO, BOCA and SBCCI by it's members. We are ICC. It's those that submit code changes and get them successfully passed are the ones responsible for the volume of the codes. If anyone has been at a code hearing lately it's predominately stacked with industry, special interest goups and consultants. We need more code officials at the hearing to testify and try to limit what goes into the codes. The International Association of Building Officials main goal right now is to try to get funding for scholarships for governmental members to attend the Atlantic City hearings. Because of budget cuts and declining revenues we have all faced the past 5-6 years it's becoming more difficult to have your jurisdiction fund us.

Most of the ICC chapters have been notified of IABO's plan to try to fund as many voting members as possible for Atlantic City. ICC in itself does not write the codes, we do as ICC voting members. Get involved.
 
Great point High Desert. I find it odd that the current system was built in such a way that as you state "industry, special interest groups and consultants" can so greatly influence the code that we rely upon.

I learned to be an inspector under the UBC, but was not at all involved in the development process. Does anyone happen to recall - was the voting swayed by these same interests back the Boca / UBC days?
 
It sure was in BOCA land. I don't know about SBCCI and ICBO but would venture a guess it was the same? I'm quite convinced that NFPA faces the same challenges.
 
Darren Emery said:
Food for thought and discussion: With the direction the ICC code library is heading, is it time for another group of concerned building officials to in essence "reinvent the wheel"? Do we really need a 904 page document to build a home? (my copy of the 2012 IRC)
Click to expand...
One day, I intend to use all of my ICC codebooks to build my retirement home. I will use them as fill.
 
Darren Emery said:
Great point High Desert. I find it odd that the current system was built in such a way that as you state "industry, special interest groups and consultants" can so greatly influence the code that we rely upon. I learned to be an inspector under the UBC, but was not at all involved in the development process. Does anyone happen to recall - was the voting swayed by these same interests back the Boca / UBC days?
Click to expand...
Yes the same interests sent the same lobbyists, After the merger the manufacturers and industry groups saved mony by only having to lobby one set of code changes.
 
There are several posts above that echo my feelings........the building officials community are the ones that are ultimatelly responsible for approving or rejecting code proposals. I understand that not everyone can get there, but hopefully with CDP Access there will be an "on the street" vote. No, we can't recreate the code, it will end up in the same place. JMHO
 
Now here is something to think about: Lobbying by industry? Ladies & gents, the way they lobby is changing as we speak. CDP Access is changing that. I can see in the very near future direct lobbing to each and every voting member if they expect to be even marginally successful. So where will they get the contact information??? It sure as hell will not be from me. That's a promise!
 
Well I am not out spoken on many issues! I am and have been a member of IABO since the start. This group needs support and members. The idea is to represent the building official, keep them informed and present topic and positions for voting. The concept is to try and create a level playing field and to either support or oppose stakeholders. Will it work maybe! People need to get to the hearings. Blocks of votes are what it takes if you understand the game. Industry and Fire have figured this out. The building officials have watched the game from the back row. It is time for us to step up!!! Took a few years for us to get JP elected. Need votes to see him on the ICC board again. I believe IABO is there for us we need to support and we need to vote.

As some may recall I spoke out with vigor on remote voting. Not afraid to call a spade a spade. We must get in the game if we want our voices heard. ICC has started to listen but remember they sell ink. The more ink the more they can sell. We must provide the balance. End of rant!
 
High Desert said:
It's not ICC that's responsible for the volume of the codes. ICC was formed as one body by ICBO, BOCA and SBCCI by it's members. We are ICC. It's those that submit code changes and get them successfully passed are the ones responsible for the volume of the codes. If anyone has been at a code hearing lately it's predominately stacked with industry, special interest goups and consultants. We need more code officials at the hearing to testify and try to limit what goes into the codes. The International Association of Building Officials main goal right now is to try to get funding for scholarships for governmental members to attend the Atlantic City hearings. Because of budget cuts and declining revenues we have all faced the past 5-6 years it's becoming more difficult to have your jurisdiction fund us.Most of the ICC chapters have been notified of IABO's plan to try to fund as many voting members as possible for Atlantic City. ICC in itself does not write the codes, we do as ICC voting members. Get involved.
Click to expand...
I'm one of those consultants. However, I write code changes and speak on issues that make good code language, not because I'm trying to get something in the code for a client. While my code changes which have been approved will benefit my client and I did write them on behalf of a client, I wrote them because they cleaned up code language or made good code sense.

I've seen code changes get approved based on emotional issues rather than good code language.

I recently sat through the building envelope portion of the IECC hearings in Dallas this past April. Most of the time, there were less than 10 code officials in the room listening to code changes. As a former code official, I spoke up on several items as it either made good code language or was going to make poor code language or something that would be difficult to enforce. Very seldom will I speak on an issue where I am at odds with my fellow code officials unless we just disagree on how something is interpreted, which will happen anyway. Bottom line, if it's good code language then I'm all for it. If it's benefiting a small percentage then it's not good code language and has no business being in the code.
 
This is a great topic and associated discussion!

I agree that the manufacturers and fire code officials HAVE figured the game out and

are in it to the hilt. One major problem that I see for the building officials is the lack

of funding, and in some instances, ..the actual time to attend any hearings. The

CDP Access should help greatly in this effort!

Much Thanks to "jpranch" for being one of our own on the ICC board! He is doing a

GREAT job!

.
 
Thanks Globe. I would agree that the fire guys have it figured out along with others. Now this is not any kind of shot at them at all. The fact is that they are very organized and that is to their credit. I see it also in the councils as I attend as many meetings as possible. Let me tell you that the ICC Fire Service Membership Council chaired by Fulton Cochran and his governing committee have it going on! They are very organized, focused, and most importantly very active. Again this is to their credit.

Now I would like to say something that I have been meaning to for quite some time and this REALLY needs to be said: There are NO "fire guys" and "building guys" in the board room. The focus is on the membership and the ICC as an organization. That has been my experience to date. ​
 
There is a long history of special interests trying to influence the building codes. They like the model codes such as ICC since it saves them from trying to influence multiple states, counties, or cities.

There was one anti-trust case where a group was found guilty of trying to stack the voting on a particular issue.

A little perspective. It was stated that “…the building officials community are the ones that are ultimatelly responsible for approving or rejecting code proposals.” The building code, as opposed to model codes such as the IBC, is adopted by a governmental body, not the building official. While building officials have a role in the process they are in one sense just another special interest group, admittedly with different interests and biases.

While I believe there are major problems with the directions our codes have gone I believe that the complaints about the total volume of the code are generally over stated. The reality is that unless you have to deal with special cases much of the code can be ignored because it does not apply to your project. The trick here is to know when you need to refer to the other portions of the code.
 
What about buying the rights to the 1997 Uniform Building Code; using it as the base document [it was a very good code, IMHO] and a 'new organization' forming with the goal of Uniform Simplified Codes? Don't everyone pop my dream bubble at once. :)
 
ewenme said:
What about buying the rights to the 1997 Uniform Building Code; using it as the base document [it was a very good code, IMHO] and a 'new organization' forming with the goal of Uniform Simplified Codes? Don't everyone pop my dream bubble at once. :)
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm not sure if the ICC has the exclusive rights to the 97 UBC but I'm thinking if they (we) do what....... price would we put on that? As a sidebar the codes are currently under copyright attack. So if the copyrights disappear you will be giving it away for free.

Post script: This is not only the I-codes but NFPA, ANSI, IAPMO, etc... are all facing the same issue.
 
In one of the Federal Court Districts it is established case law that there cannot be copyright on laws and regulation as adopted by the government. Building codes are governmental regulations. Thus while the ICC can have a copyright on the IBC as a model code when the document is adopted by a jurisdiction there cannot be a copyright on the adopted building code.

I believe that there will still be an opportunity for ICC to sell a lot of code documents but the prices will drop because they will have competition. ICC will have to find other revenue sources.

In the other federal court districts the courts have not rendered an opinion thus leaving the legal question unresolved although other legal precedents strongly support the existing court ruling. It will probably continue in this state of uncertainty until either other courts adopt similar rulings or the Supreme Court considers the matter. I doubt that ICC is eager to litigate this matter.
 
The start of the ICC goes way back to about 1994. It took almost 6 years to get the three code bodies to the table and agree on the 2000 codes. There was a late 1990's edition (IIRC) but... (I was in Georgia then and the state stayed on the 1994 SBCCI Code until about 2001)

And this was after they had agreed on the CABO IRC codes for a couple of editions. There was also an undercurrent that the Architects and PE's were looking for a uniform code across the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top