• 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

Tea anyone?

Uncle Bob

Registered User
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
1,409
Location
Texas
I've moved this to our old unused topic; one (1), so it doesn't get buried in a sea of other "off post topics"; and two (2), because I am seriously interested in finding out whether there are enough fed-up professionals (inclusive of Fire Professionals, Builders, Code Compliance Professionals and Others) that are willing to set aside former prejudices and difference; to take on the establishment; and, trade lip-service for action:

Perhaps a small group of individuals, who; although they have come together from different environments of regulations, and who's upbringing in codes and code development are from different sources; have been forced aside and thrown together; by corrupt and inept organizations that have capitulated to self-serving special interests; may once again rise up in defense of the people who's homes and built environment are by regulation, being made unsafe for human habitation.

When such a group of diverse backgrounds, find cause to set aside their individual pasts and prejudices that once kept them apart; and put on the mantle of protector, to right the blatant disregard for the people's right to a safe and secure built environment; then perhaps, just perhaps; they may find and form the backbone, to support them in their effort to correct the wrong and make it right.

Do they dare? Have they the courage to organize together; to change the distructive course of their organizations; who have sold their integrity to the highest bidder?

Tea anyone?

Uncle Bob
 
Iced, lots of ice...please. Oh yeah, a three-corner hat if you have one. Thanks!
 
As stated in the other thread, I would be glad to rise to the opportunity and aid in whatever capacity needed. Since I believe it is well overdue.

My interest is not with industry or manufacturers but with the protection of the civilian population associated to fire............ period. I speak my mind based on experience, scientific evidence and substantiation and a commen sense application of the codes I am tasked to enforce all while assuring and grooming partnerships with all customers I serve.
 
RJJ said:
The post is a challenge to form an organizations to bring change! It is not about lemons or extra ice!!!!
Would the change be to take the politics out of Building and Fire Codes?
 
" Would the change be to take the politics out of Building and Fire Codes? "

Beating them at their own game is easier.

There is a story about former President Lyndon Johnson's college days; that he beat an opponent in a student government race for president by nominating his much more popular advisary for a lower position (the voting was in order of least important positions first), which his advisary was elected to; and Johnson won the race for president.

You don't have to change the system; just understand how to use it better than your advisaries.

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my spare time I've been reading selections from Carl Jung, who says, regarding any and every organization, that the larger it becomes, the more laden it is with problems associated with mass mentality and/or "collective mind". The mass mentality tends to crush individuals, encourage mediocrity, and work for what it assumes is its higher authority.

It is not new thinking, as he wrote this stuff in the 30's and 40's, (with the worst examples of such evident in the rise of German nationalism), but I think it still applies generally.

Codes agencies may have been better as regional entities, if only by virtue of having been smaller.

On the other hand, in the business world, the current mantra is that consolidation, agglomeration, etc, lead to increased efficiency (and more profits for shareholders, but profit should not be a factor in this corner of the world).

Maybe the ICC, in its efforts toward streamlining, has fallen off the cliff into the abyss of "too big to work well".
 
I posted this earlier :

What I believe we are seeing is the begining of the end of the ICC.
 
It does not have to be the end! However, it is certainly time for redirection. It will take code people with enough energy and foresight to turn the bus around. There are many good thing at ICC. Leadership and management have just plotted a course that is out side of the channel. They may believe they are on the right path. Problem is that the passengers are in the life boats. The captain is one of those blow up dolls you see in the trash now and then! Where is JP when you need him! I could use a cow carton now!
 
Member

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

Join Date:Oct 2010

Posts:27 Originally Posted by RJJ

NO not a revolution in the French perspective. The streets can and should remain free from blood, but a revolution in the hearts and minds of the officials who carry the mantle of protection. Not working to one up the other, but working and supporting good codes that protect and in the same breath do not infringe on peoples rights. A rather thin rope to walk!

The problem now is we are printing every darn thing some one feels is a good idea into the code book. All in the name of life safety. Behind the code book we have ambition and greed to print and sell more, coupled with and eye on Federal support, identification and empowerment which will galvanize the final and unchallengeable organization.

"The harshest tyranny is that which acts under the protection of legality and the banner of justice." Baron De Montesquieu

The ICC acts under the protection of legality and the banner of life safety. Edit Post Reply Reply With Quote Blog this Post .

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

45 Minutes Ago #22 RJJ

View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries View Articles Add as Contact Send Email

Administrator

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

Join Date:Oct 2009

Location:about 1' east of the white water

Posts:1,280IS there any difference between Montesquieu quote and yours? Are we any different then the peasants of France! All revolutions come full circle. Even the American Revolution! Not to digress on the anatomy of a Revolution the case at hand is to bring accountability back to the code. It is easy to forget that ICC is a business, in the business of printing books. I agree under the banner of life safety, but with a desire of all wearing the same rose colored glasses that they wear. I say to anyone is there not room for improvement? Is the system just fine? Are we fooled by private agendas? Reply Reply With Quote Blog this Post .

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

18 Minutes Ago #23 Jobsaver

View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries View Articles

Member

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

Join Date:Oct 2010

Posts:27I submit that there is no difference between the quotes. The ICC is a book and credentials selling monopoly subject to and sated in corruption and corporate politics, and corporate politics these days involves government, particularly at a federal level. The system is not fine.

If this system federalizes code compliance, watch how fast the insurance companies cease to pay claims on damaged structures . . . then the effect will be more felt by all, as with health insurance.

Still. A central component to any revolution is a willingness to break the law. UB started this thread, but historically, (reading his posts), still adheres to a very strict interpretation of the code and its enforcement. You can't have it both ways. But, that is easy for me to say as a ahj in a smal ahj . . . virtually no liability . . . consistant pay. The professional builders, architects, design professionals, and arbitrators in this forum have a great deal more immediate exposure if they choose to ignore provisions of the code. Hard to give up big $$.

I do think that organizing is a good idea. Make a better code, Sell it to enough AHJ's. Do it all before federalization occurs.
 
In a prior post, Chris asked, “Bob, what exactly are you purposing here?”

I'm also a little unclear on the specifics. Perhaps concrete details of the proposal are in order.

Maybe someone could list three action items that are being promoted to affect change.
 
RJJ said:
The post is a challenge to form an organizations to bring change! It is not about lemons or extra ice!!!!
To what specific purpose and intent? The term "tea anyone" would suggest that all willing professionals affected by the ICC throw every ICC book or creditial in the sea, of course, in order to form a more perfect union.
 
I'm all for life safety first, and then generally safety next, and the other part is basic quality of workmanship with methods and materials (products included). I hear some voices calling for what sounds like life safety "only". Don't we already have this in NFPA? What is the direction of this new group to be?
 
Maybe someone could list three action items that are being promoted to affect change.
1. Write a new code book in a U.S. Constitution-style format and make it available to the public for free.

2. Include a mission statement (intent) that reinforces individual freedoms and personal responsibility/accountability.

3. Omit all superfluous requirements not related to major life safety objectives.
 
75 percent of all NFPA requirements are the result of lobbying by special interest groups (i.e. sprinkler and alarm industries) and would be considered superfluous.

The allure of a new life safety code is brevity, objectivity, and availability to all for free.

NFPA doesn't meet any of those.
 
Jeffc,

Here are three things that could be done;

1. Organize a group of qualified voters; to vote against the NAHB's code changes that are weakening the IRC code requirements.

2. Organize a group to push for the expulsion of the NAHB from the IRC code committee (they have 8 guaranteed seats on those committees).

3. Organize a group to propose and bring to a vote; code changes that will strengthen and simplify code requirements.

That's just three; there are more.

Uncle Bob
 
I like what I'm seeing in the generated discussions to date. Much truth in the "special interest" examples and not just NFPA. In studying other countries I find we lack the common sense approach in standard/regulatory application on the population (Sweeden and Europe for example) we can learn much from them regarding "life safety"....... just my humble opinion. The IRC and NAHB association should at minimum, be criminal.
 
Top