Stacking the Deck at ICC Hearings

[jar546]

The ICC code change process has come a long way. It's better organized, more transparent, and frankly, it's not as easy to push through changes as it used to be, which is a good thing. We need checks and balances, especially when we're talking about building safety and code enforcement that affects people’s lives and property.

But here’s something I’ve noticed lately, and it’s starting to bug me. There are people showing up at these hearings claiming to represent organizations, except when you look a little closer, those organizations don’t actually exist. I’m not talking about your usual trade groups or professional associations. I mean ghost groups. They have names that sound official, but there’s no website, no public records, no board, no membership, nothing. Just a handful of guys using a name to push a certain agenda, often backing or opposing a proposal in lockstep with a larger, legitimate organization.

To the panels sitting there listening, it looks like there’s broad support or opposition, when in reality, it's just the same small circle of people using different names to stack the deck. I did my own digging when one of these so-called groups showed up repeatedly. Tried to join it. Turns out, you can’t, because it’s not a real thing. Just a backchannel clique that meets in private and speaks with one voice under multiple banners.

If you’re going to stand up at a hearing and say you represent an organization, that organization should actually exist. It should be a registered entity with public contact info and a way for people to get involved or even just ask questions. Otherwise, you’re just manipulating the system and misrepresenting who’s really at the table.

 

[steveray]

The ICC code change process has come a long way. It's better organized, more transparent, and frankly, it's not as easy to push through changes as it used to be, which is a good thing. We need checks and balances, especially when we're talking about building safety and code enforcement that affects people’s lives and property.

But here’s something I’ve noticed lately, and it’s starting to bug me. There are people showing up at these hearings claiming to represent organizations, except when you look a little closer, those organizations don’t actually exist. I’m not talking about your usual trade groups or professional associations. I mean ghost groups. They have names that sound official, but there’s no website, no public records, no board, no membership, nothing. Just a handful of guys using a name to push a certain agenda, often backing or opposing a proposal in lockstep with a larger, legitimate organization.

To the panels sitting there listening, it looks like there’s broad support or opposition, when in reality, it's just the same small circle of people using different names to stack the deck. I did my own digging when one of these so-called groups showed up repeatedly. Tried to join it. Turns out, you can’t, because it’s not a real thing. Just a backchannel clique that meets in private and speaks with one voice under multiple banners.

If you’re going to stand up at a hearing and say you represent an organization, that organization should actually exist. It should be a registered entity with public contact info and a way for people to get involved or even just ask questions. Otherwise, you’re just manipulating the system and misrepresenting who’s really at the table.

Yeah.....There are too many people getting paid to speak that don't represent code officials or the customers.....We need to start throwing more stuff out a final governmental vote until people start paying attention....

 

[ICE]

Have you examined the makeup of the panels?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

People are gaming the system? Where's my shocked face?

 

[bill1952]

I'll take some exception to the premise. I have represented an organization of professional designers in building and fire code and standard development since 1987. I get reimbursed for some expenses but otherwise all volunteer. You can check out organization and members here:

Home - ASTC

theatreconsultants.org

I believe as a group we are involved with at least 150-200 theatres each year. No manufactured, vendors, or contractors - just design.

And if interested we have a group of proposals to be heard by the IBC-G committee. You can look for proposals in that group at cdpaccess.com or simply all but one of the proposals for changes to 410. Basically a rewrite to move from the 19th century theatre model the code is based on to the 21st century model we are building now.

I trust the committees to see through those "organizations" with employees just trying to help their bottom line and know who is there to improve the building codes.

 

[ICE]

I was on the standard making panel for UL2703. That was an eyeopener. The solar industry rules. I would be surprised to learn that other trade groups are any less impactful.

 

[bill1952]

I recall being at an NFPA meeting where things are voted on for final approval. I've only done a couple. There was a new standard iirc for streaming lightening protection. Again, best I can recall, someone circulated a paper that showed everyone on the technical committee except maybe 1 or 2 was related. Needless to say, it was not approved. I'd like to think the process worked.

 

[tbz]

This is my 9th 3-year code cycle on the national stage, 27 years now, the process has changed many times, but the one thing for sure is that those that actually attend more than a cycle are pretty much known, and those both on the floor and sitting on the Dias know who the groups are, and the one thing that I have never seen is any weight given to a new group just because the name sounds official.

It has always been about the proposals strength, may be some heart strings, but a group not known by the committee members, they are always seen as questionable.

 

[e hilton]

I'll take some exception to the premise. I have represented an organization of professional designers in building and fire code and standard development since 1987. I get reimbursed for some expenses but otherwise all volunteer. You can check out organization and members here:

You missed the point Bill, your org has real backup including a web site.

 

[bill1952]

You missed the point Bill, your org has real backup including a web site.

As I said "some exception". I felt the original post didn't really acknowledge there are legitimate organizations.

 

[jar546]

As I said "some exception". I felt the original post didn't really acknowledge there are legitimate organizations.

It was specific about shadow organizations and did reference legitimate ones.

 

[Gregg Harris]

One of the worst things that I have seen, is when the technical panel vetoes a proposal on technical merit, a floor vote can take place to get it past.