I may not be a voting member, but someone in my city is
cda, I believe the quantity of voters are based off your city's pop. You may find there's some open slots not being used.
You should check to see if there's a slot open and join the party.
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.
I may not be a voting member, but someone in my city is
cda, I believe the quantity of voters are based off your city's pop. You may find there's some open slots not being used.
You should check to see if there's a slot open and join the party.
JP Ranch said:One only has to look at the energy code hearings. (Or not) What’s the old saying? You can lead a horse to water?
The U.S. department of energy in my humble opinion has way to much to say about the content. I would also say that there should be another federal department more involved. That would be the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (CPSC) Someone correct me if I’m wrong but as I understand it the CPSC set the standards for energy efficiency for consumer appliances.
...the ICC is an NGO and is supposed to be independent of the federal government...
... an administration has been elected with the promise to reduce rules and regulations? is there any movement within the ICC to reduce codes?
All NGO’s or SDO’s are impacted by the federal government without exception. Example? Just look at healthcare and NFPA- 101? If you look at the 2018 I-Codes you will see reductions in the cost of construction across the board and I’m not talking that crap about over the life of the building what ever that really means. I’m talking up front before you ever stick a shovel in the ground savings. This is especially true for the INC and IRC. I will say that any organization has to be very careful dealing with the fed’s but one must also realize that you cannot and should not discount them. It is unavoidable. So that leaves you with managing it. Just the reality or nature of the beast. I think for the purposes of the discussion here I will steer clear of constitutional rights and just stick with the codes and content.
Jim:
It's good to hear that the latest codes are reducing costs, tell us what actually happens, do the Feds actually come into hearings and demand their agenda? Do you fight back? How can we as citizens fight back on code issues? It's become apparent that no matter who we elect the same "Deep State" government employees stay in from administration to administration, I'd like to be able to fire every government employee with every change in administration but since FDR that's impossible, what can we do to effect change? I'd like to get codes back to minimum health and safety standards and away from taking people's freedoms away.
tmurray is on target. The fed's will say right in the hearing room that if this does not go the way we want it to then we will not "certify" the latest edition of the IECC. By certify it is my understanding that they mean that the latest edition is more energy efficient than the previous edition. The best way to bring about change is to engage in the code development process. The place to start is to know the process or as I like to call it "The Rules of Engagement". That would be CP-28. Here is the link: https://www.iccsafe.org/icc-bylaws-and-council-policies/
But, is there a point at which political correctness becomes dangerous? Yes, decidedly so. It becomes dangerous when it becomes sanctimonious and aggressive – it then morphs into what I term “sanctimania.”
Sanctimania can be defined as the point at which personal opinion encroaches upon the personal liberty of others; when the other person’s rights are aggressed upon or removed in the name of the opinion being expressed.
Sanctimania is, by its very nature, the point at which anger overcomes reason and force is employed in order to achieve social change.¹
Even us inspectors that work for the government?
For government jobs how would they get anyone with experience?
Don't forget the military are government employees.
No one would want to work knowing they would be fired in a few years.
Would the government need to hire new people that do the hiring every 4 years?
The government would run out of citizens as new employees in a few administrations.
There were 21,995,000 employed by federal, state and local government in the United States
the federal government now employs 2,711,000people (excluding non-civilian military).
Just think about the costs for the firing and hiring process alone. Let alone the challenges for re training an entire workforce every 4 years... This is an HR nightmare.
Just think about the costs for the firing and hiring process alone. Let alone the challenges for re training an entire workforce every 4 years... This is an HR nightmare.
tmurray is on target. The fed's will say right in the hearing room that if this does not go the way we want it to then we will not "certify" the latest edition of the IECC. By certify it is my understanding that they mean that the latest edition is more energy efficient than the previous edition. The best way to bring about change is to engage in the code development process. The place to start is to know the process or as I like to call it "The Rules of Engagement". That would be CP-28. Here is the link: https://www.iccsafe.org/icc-bylaws-and-council-policies/
"I did not indicate that they run the show and If I did my bad. The last thing anybody needs is the fed's actually writing and publishing any codes or standards. Again the key is participation in the process by voting members."
They might not be now, but that was the out-and-out threat that they said out loud in MN, the first big go-round for the IECC.
"You all better be improving this code, or the DOE will just right it, and force adoption." Might not be word for word, but pretty dang close.