• 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

New Thread - What to recommend to ICC re: Bulletin Board/Forum

How about some of ya'll bringing your camcorders. My daughter took mine. I'll bring a camera; and we can post pictures when we get back.

Oh, and be sure to bring your laptops. I'll put you onto a great place to play Holdem on line (free, play money). It's live; with real people. Lot's of fun.

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You need to understand that the outcome from this effort will still be a site that is owned, operated and managed by ICC - not the ICC members, and not the public. It will not be a "public" forum. So, the ICC will retain the right to jerk posts and ban or suspend people at their whim. This effort to regenerate the ICC forums is not about promoting public safety or providing a benefit to the members. ICC leaders demonstrated their opinion toward members with the way that they dumped the old bbs. Do ICC staff participate on this message board? I think that is telling of ICC's overall intent. Does anybody remember the IAPMO/PHCC fiasco where the ICC leaders agreed to abandon the governmental consensus process so they could gain market share in the Plumbing Code/Mechanical Code arena? These decisions are not about public safety. The leaders would not retract their position re: IAPMO - the members had to take action. How did the ICC leaders get so far removed from the fundamental expectations of their own membership?

I am convinced by these type of actions that there is a cancer at ICC that needs to be removed before anything good can be done. Issuing an apology for past transgressions is not enough to repair the damage (and good luck getting an apology from leaders that have behaved so arrogantly up to this point). The ICC leaders need to atone for their actions. With regard to the message board I do not know what form atonement should take - but I know it isn't in the form of a new ICC message board. Maybe a nice start would be for ICC to take down their "Communities of Interest" and post a direct link to this message board - then sit back and see how things unfold?

If you are inclined to return to the ICC forums I would urge you to not abandon this site. This is the closest you are going to get to a true "public" forum that does not have to cow-tow to a corporate entity. It has value far beyond anything the ICC - or any other code or standard org. - could ever provide. Keep up the good work!

Sorry if I offended anyone.
 
Cowboy,

Your post contained a lot of truths about what has happened in the past; and the ICC's track record is iffy at best. You can be sure that your input will be represented at the meeting. We need more input like yours.

Going to the meeting does not mean that we are going to capitulate. It means that we are going to present what we beleive an ICC Bulletin Board should look like and how it should be run. A lot of what you have stated will be presented at the meeting in Denver.

We need more input from those who have experience with the old BB and the new BB.

How about ya'll giving us examples of experiences they have had with the new BB.

Thanks,

Uncle Bob
 
Just from my knowledge of the quality of attendees from this board going to the meeting, I do not envision us being sweet-talked into submission.

Keep the posts coming because so far they have brought up many useful points for us to bring to Denver.
 
My little village - and I - aren't about to become an ICC Member. The local chapter of the state building officials group IS an ICC chapter.

Open the boards up to all. That was it's best feature, IMHO.
 
CowboyRR: My father used to say, "If the fish smells, the head is rotten." He generally used that phrase when discussions turned to politics. I think the same could be said for most large corporations.
 
I don't think a lot of you "nay sayers" understand the influence we have had on the old BB; and, fear that if we succeed; then this forum will be abandoned.

Nothing is further from the truth. This forum will benefit and flourish with an open ICC BB.

The new ICC Community Craper does delete posts that the moderator objects too.

The old BB did not. Even though we were extremely critical of the ICC in many of our threads; they were not deleted. I know, because I wrote many of the criticisms and they are still there in the archives.

The removal of the old ICC BB was a move by a few ICC leaders that had the power to do so. We offended a small new group of leaders; and they retaliated. It's not important who; so please do not start on that snipe hunt. It's just important that we are aware of what really happened.

Will it happen again, if we get the old ICC BB back like it was? Maybe, and maybe they have learned an important lesson. The old BB was an asset to the ICC.

The old ICC BB brought many people to the ICC website; including builders, contractors, architects, engineers, corporate reps, organizational reps and their technical advisors, building officials, inspectors, plans examiners; and people from other forums seeking answers to problems they face.

We were the place to go for answers; and, free exchange of ideas; and, I beleive the ICC has seen a link between the loss of the open BB and lose of interest and revenue.

We are going to give it a shot; and, we ask for your help. We will do our best; with, or without your support. If we fail; then at least we tried.

If you want to just give up; go ahead. It's so dam easy; and you don't have to do anything.

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MLC,

Great idea. we did help each other with pictures. I sent a lot of members to photobucket and it worked well.

But, a help menu is an excellent idea.

Thanks,

Uncle Bob
 
\ said:
The new ICC Community Craper does delete posts that the moderator objects too.The old BB did not.
Uncle Bob:

That is true, I went there when it was relatively new and posted a simple thread asking where I could find ICBO Legacy reports, specifically I was interested in DuPont's original ICBO Report approving Tyvek as an air barrier and not a WRB, the thread was not only not addressed it was immediately taken down. That tells that they were protecting their manufacturers with a heavy hand, I think the main reason the old Board was taken down was that they had lost control, and in the new world order of codes they wanted complete control.

\ said:
Will it happen again; if we get the old ICC BB back like it was? Maybe, and maybe they have learned an important lesson. The old BB was an asset to the ICC.
The old software was (is) very outmoded, for some reason lots of fora owners seem to think that they have to use the latest and greatest software, but usually to make room for advertising, the problem there was that was not the reason since their new format doesn't accept advertising (particularly Google AdSense), so additional income was not their motivation. I think it's going to be very hard to convince them to just bring the old board back, I think the main reason I wasn't invited to Denver was that in my response to their E-mail I emphasized just bringing the old format back.

MLC:

I think it is actually easier to post images in UBB Code in the older software, these new HTML/UBB hybrid formats just make it more difficult for anyone who knows what he is doing.
 
Uncle Bob said:
I don't think a lot of you "nay sayers" understand the influence we have had on the old BB; and, fear that if we succeed; then this forum will be abandoned.I am not a "nay sayer" - I just know that the bbs issue is merely a symptom of a larger problem.

Nothing is further from the truth. This forum will benefit and flourish with an open ICC BB.

Glad to hear this forum will remain as it will be the only means of fair, open discussion.

The removal of the old ICC BB was a move by a few ICC leaders that had the power to do so. We offended a small new group of leaders; and they retaliated. It's not important who; so please do not start on that snipe hunt. It's just important that we are aware of what really happened.

I can read this to say that ICC leadership already addressed this matter - or not? Who ordered the unannounced elimination of the old bbs is extremely important because this is not just an issue of the old bbs - it is about the overall leadership of the organization and where they are driving it - IAPMO/PHCC....new code books (a swimming pool code? really? gimme a break)....new certifications.....jumping into Federal politics, etc. At some point we need to realize this can only get fixed if we get to the source.

If you want to just give up; go ahead. It's so dam easy; and you don't have to do anything.

I applaud for working to right the ship. I don't see this as an issue of "giving up". I do see it as an issue of focus. This is a great board - the only thing gained by having this type of medium under ICC is access to their resources. (Why not have ICC contribute their resources into this site instead?) ICC needs to focus on re-connecting with core principles - it needs to do so with humility, appreciation for the membership and their needs and expectations, listening and atonement for their past mistakes. They need to willingly embrace the changes needed to fix the mess they have created - and these would be big changes. I see the meeting in Denver as an opportunity to express these opinions and expose to "leaders" that members see this BBS subject as just a small piece of a much deeper problem. I am hopeful that you will succeed in getting some portion of this message across. I suspect there will be no real concern for these issues and you will quickly be re-directed to stay on task with ideas to improve the "Communities of Interest".

A final example - I listened to part of the President's Fireside Chat from the last conference. A member asked the ICC CEO if ICC had any plans to help those members that had lost jobs due to the economic downturn. The CEO replied that those members need to pay to keep their certifications current. I can think of no better example of the root problem at ICC. The arrogance and complete disrespect of that statement was both appalling and shameful. I appreciate that ICC has little ability to help laid off code officials but could you ever imagine that the CEO would turn it into a commercial to ask those that have lost their jobs to write a check to the ICC? I was totally disgusted. In fact, my first thought was maybe ICC could renew certs at no charge for these folks - at least for a limited time. I'm just not that interested in contributing to the org. when I see this type of behavior coming from the top - and I used to be a very active contributor.

btw, I do like some of the ideas others have shared for forum improvements.
 
UB:

I don't think there are many nay-sayers in the group here, but we do have some skeptics. Once bitten, twice wary. I really like the old ICC BB, and the webmaster there was one of the best. I gave him kudos whenever I could, and he appreciated it. I imagine his was a pretty thankless job. I won't abandon this outlet because I like it. Whether or not I use the 'new and improved ICC BB' will depend on how improved it becomes. Right now it is just useless and not worth the time. I find answers here to questions, and get insights on most topics that I read, whether or not I make comments. That is this beauty of this site: easy to use; timely; non-judgmental [for the most part]; and full of camraderie and consolation and encouragement. Those would be the things I would suggest for the ICC BB. Free use promotes free discussion. They had it all and now they want it back. I remember when ICC BB hit 10,000 posts and it was a big deal to those participating. Look at far this BB has come in a short period of time. For all the right reasons this BB is here because it works. I would love to be a fly on the wall at your confab with ICC. I do hope you'll share insights and experiences for the rest of us who can't be there.
 
It would be nice to know the terms of settlement of the NFPA/ICBO litigation, it's probably confidential, yet they may be laboring under those terms.
 
I know this meeting is only about the discussion board, but tell ICC these are my terms if they want me to return:

1. get out of bed with the federal government (or you'll wake up with fleas)

2. abandon the advancement of "green" codes and "energy" codes (and replace them with basic life safety principles)

3. reduce the word count of each code book by 1/2 (eliminate all superfluous regulatory requirements)

4. hire employees and elect leaders with actual private sector experience (former FEMA employees need not apply)

5. drop the "non-profit" status and get out here and mix it up with the competition (consumers receive better products in a free market)

6. distance yourselves from special interest groups (they only care about their own wants and needs)

7. provide a discussion board that encourages fellowship and collaboration (less complaining, more solutions)

8. require ICC leadership to participate in periodic discussions on the forum (include it in their job descriptions)

9. limit the amount of cencorship on the discussion board (yes, ICC will be bashed, but often necessarily so)

I have many more but my fingers are tired of typing.
 
I think it would be nice if the ICC would help answer the questions that are posted or if they would mark the correct answer somehow, rather than possibly let the question go unanswered or even worse - answered incorrectly.

I'd love to read a transcript or hear a recording of the discussions. Do you think they would do streaming audio and/or video for those who did not get invited or could not attend? I didn't think so either.
 
Well, I was wrong about one thing;

I stated: "This is not a Baltimore meeting; it's different folks with different agendas."

This is the Gentleman who invited us to Denver. Note the date: March 27, 2007.

------------------------------------------------------------

Industry News

Posted: March 27, 2007

ICC Hires New Head of Member Services Team, Prepares for Codes Forum in May

As part of an organizational restructuring to provide enhanced services to members, the International Code Council (ICC) named Michael Armstrong Senior Vice President of its Member Services Division. The division includes membership, training and education, certification, and meeting and travel services.

"The new Member Services Division, by incorporating training, certification, member support and meetings, will have customer service as its primary mission," said Armstrong. "Our division plans to leverage our skills and relationships across the ICC family to provide support that is responsive and relevant to the needs of our customers."

----------------------------------------------------

Opps,

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a great post Bob; I'm glad you found that. Michael Armstrong should be fired. Should have been fired a long time ago. If he was hired to "provide enhanced services to members", he is a miserable failure. How in the world is he still employed?

And yes, I am a naysayer regarding this issue, and I'm not ashamed of it. And yes, I understand the impact this site has had on the ICC BB.

It's just that I have the opinion that members of the group will go to Denver for this little lovefest, and get paid lip service that all will be well. Then everybody returns to the ICC BB and over time it will spiral into the same mess that it is now. I'm not concerned that this site will be abandoned; I'm afraid that we will get suckered by ICC, again.

We have bloodied their nose, but we haven't won the fight, and I'm not through fighting, and I'm not willing to shake hands and pretend everything will be fine just yet.

CowboyRR and some others have made some of the most profound comments I've ever seen in the codes forum. The BB is just a symptom of a much greater disease. I for one am not going to be seduced by empty promises, and I'm not willing to embrace ICC until there is a change in the organizational culture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Armstrong

Michael Armstrong is the Senior Vice President for Member Services at the International

Code Council (ICC), and is a Visiting Professor at The George Washington University,

Washington, D.C., instructing in the Crisis, Emergency and Risk Management

Concentration in the Graduate Program of the School of Engineering Management and

Systems Engineering. At the Code Council, he oversees 70 staff in seven departments

that support the functions of training, certification and testing, member support,

communication, marketing and meetings. The ICC is a non-profit organization with a

customer base that includes state and local code officials, building contractors, federal

agencies, architects, and strategic partner organizations working in various facets of the

building safety community.

Mr. Armstrong has a diverse career background spanning the fields of journalism, law,

politics, government management, and consulting. His past work includes: four years as

a reporter and editor for several Colorado newspapers; 10 years as an Assistant City

Attorney in Aurora, Colorado, with an emphasize on code enforcement, land use and

human resources; seven years as an appointee of President Clinton at the Federal

Emergency Management Agency, as the Region VIII Director in Denver and the Senateconfirmed

Associate Director for Mitigation; and over five years as a management

consultant specializing in homeland security strategic planning for ICF International. He

also served as Executive Director of the Colorado Democratic Party, and as the Deputy

Director of the Colorado Governor’s Office of Energy Conservation.

Mr. Armstrong holds a Bachelor of Arts in English and a Bachelor of Science in

Journalism from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and a Juris Doctorate from the

Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, California where he served on the Law

Review.

During his tenure as a consultant at ICF International, his clients included the Governor

of Louisiana (post-Katrina rebuilding); the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (food

safety preparedness); the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (critical infrastructure

protection, capabilities planning); and the metropolitan areas of Seattle, Los Angeles and

Washington, D.C. (homeland security strategic planning, exercises, and public/private

partnerships). While at FEMA, he managed national programs addressing risk reduction

ranging from grant programs to partnerships with the scientific community and private

sector. He also provided oversight for FEMA response, recovery, mitigation and

preparedness activities in a six-state region, and headed efforts to reinvent the agency’s

community outreach and employee performance activities.

Mr. Armstrong has been published in a variety of periodicals and journals, and

participated in numerous media interviews, Congressional testimony, and guest lectures.

He is admitted to the practice of law in Colorado and before the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
A bio like that, and yet he is responsible for the abortion that passes as member services at ICC. A couple of things come to mind, and neither are good. Is it possible that he is either spending most of his time professoring, lawyering, publishing, or "networking", or could he have risen through the ranks for reasons other than competence...?

In my opinion he should have been fired a long time ago.
 
I applaud the effort of those that are going to make the trip. I miss the old BB it had some fine moments, lots of knowledge and for a time served a purpose. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to put the tooth paste back in the tube. Under that thought I have no real suggestions and I believe those from this site will be smart enough to see through any ponzi scheme put forth.

I believe the follow up posts may have great expectations, but the cash cow is on a inexorable path of ego, prestige and fill my personal pockets with gold in the name of life safety, preface with save the planet. Their direction dovetails many of the agendas on the national landscape today. It will take nothing short of a major effort on all code people to bring change.
 
He is not the only ICC "leader" that has this background. Read the bios off the web site - the problem is at the top layer. I don't care so much about having a private sector background - but I do care about being connected to the members. The ICC execs are not connected to the members and the elected ICC leaders are either too intimidated or incompetent to address the problem. While you're over on the ICC site looking up bios - take a glance at the BOD meeting minutes - very sad.
 
Top