jar546
CBO
Over the years, I've had a front-row seat watching the International Code Council (ICC) and its code adoption process evolve—progress that has been instrumental in shaping a fair, rigorous system reflective of our diverse industry. I remember the pre-ICC days, when code development felt fragmented, lacking the unification the ICC has since brought to the table. Formed in 1994, the ICC has continually refined its processes, making adjustments that prioritize transparency, inclusiveness, and accuracy, building confidence in the codes we rely on to keep communities safe.
The ICC's approach to code development today is a well-thought-out machine, balancing diverse voices and ensuring that any code change must withstand multiple levels of scrutiny. From the Committee Action Hearings to Public Comment Hearings, the ICC structures its processes to bring industry professionals, regulators, and stakeholders to the table. This inclusion creates a consensus-driven outcome, rather than one swayed by individual interests, which is critical to building codes we can trust. I've also seen the ICC adapt to curtail excessive influence from manufacturers, creating checks that ensure code changes genuinely benefit the public rather than serving narrow interests.
In the 2024 cycle, the ICC introduced even more procedural changes, reinforcing the integrity of the code adoption process. From what I see, getting a code change approved and adopted today is no small feat, with stringent requirements that guard against unqualified or biased changes slipping through. The committees themselves are composed of members from across the country and from various backgrounds, be it government or private industry. This diversity is not just a feature; it's a backbone that ensures codes represent a broad spectrum of needs and expertise.
One of the standout aspects of the ICC's structure is that it remains grounded in the industry. We, as ICC members, are the ones who elect board members, vote on bylaw changes, and essentially steer the organization's direction. This participative governance model reinforces that the ICC isn’t just an organization creating rules; it’s a body that genuinely represents us and reflects our collective expertise. It's not a perfect system—no system is—but I’ve watched it transform into a highly organized, effective framework with a focus on public safety.
In my opinion, the ICC has become a trusted institution, one that has rightly earned its place by constantly adapting, refining, and working to better serve both the industry and the public. The ICC and its processes are us, a collaborative effort by industry members and stakeholders committed to maintaining building standards that are fair, safe, and forward-looking. If you don't participate in the process, you have no real reason to complain.
The ICC's approach to code development today is a well-thought-out machine, balancing diverse voices and ensuring that any code change must withstand multiple levels of scrutiny. From the Committee Action Hearings to Public Comment Hearings, the ICC structures its processes to bring industry professionals, regulators, and stakeholders to the table. This inclusion creates a consensus-driven outcome, rather than one swayed by individual interests, which is critical to building codes we can trust. I've also seen the ICC adapt to curtail excessive influence from manufacturers, creating checks that ensure code changes genuinely benefit the public rather than serving narrow interests.
In the 2024 cycle, the ICC introduced even more procedural changes, reinforcing the integrity of the code adoption process. From what I see, getting a code change approved and adopted today is no small feat, with stringent requirements that guard against unqualified or biased changes slipping through. The committees themselves are composed of members from across the country and from various backgrounds, be it government or private industry. This diversity is not just a feature; it's a backbone that ensures codes represent a broad spectrum of needs and expertise.
One of the standout aspects of the ICC's structure is that it remains grounded in the industry. We, as ICC members, are the ones who elect board members, vote on bylaw changes, and essentially steer the organization's direction. This participative governance model reinforces that the ICC isn’t just an organization creating rules; it’s a body that genuinely represents us and reflects our collective expertise. It's not a perfect system—no system is—but I’ve watched it transform into a highly organized, effective framework with a focus on public safety.
In my opinion, the ICC has become a trusted institution, one that has rightly earned its place by constantly adapting, refining, and working to better serve both the industry and the public. The ICC and its processes are us, a collaborative effort by industry members and stakeholders committed to maintaining building standards that are fair, safe, and forward-looking. If you don't participate in the process, you have no real reason to complain.