Page 28 - CodeWatcher Fall 2016 Issue
P. 28
Code Trends
CdpACCESS: The Good,
the Bad, and the Uncertain
An online portal built for the ICC plus a policy change
equals streamlined code voting, but is the technology ready
for prime time in Kansas City?
TBY MIKE COLLIGNON I-codes, and it was considered more manageable than the
HE ICC HAS OVER 20,000 governmental legacy codes, and it had yet to be widely adopted.
voting member representatives. However,
the ICC requires these officials to annually The combination of the electronic voting devices and
register in advance of a vote. Unfortunately, cdpACCESS didn’t go 100% smoothly, but everyone
not all take that step, so the number of understood that cdpACCESS was a new system, and it wasn’t
eligible voters will be quite a bit less than going to be perfect on the first go-around. The participants
20,000. But thanks to an online portal built were very civil and polite about any glitches that occurred.
for the International Code Council, and a policy change, all
eligible voters can cast their votes without incurring travel Redundancy to the Rescue
expenses and lengthy stays out of the office.
However, the stakes were much higher in the Group A cycle,
In 2014, the ICC unveiled cdpACCESS, their new online as some of the more notable codes (plumbing, mechanical,
code development platform. Designed as a way to increase building) were undergoing deliberations. This time, the
inclusiveness in the code development process, cdpACCESS technical difficulties weren’t tolerated as well. ICC staff
allows any registered user to submit and comment on code recognized that the in-person voters were losing trust in the
change proposals, collaborate with peers and (for ICC electronic voting devices, so before the hearing concluded,
governmental voting member reps) the opportunity to vote. they were scrapped in favor of hand/standing vote counts.
So Much Potential According to Dave Bowman, Manager of Codes at ICC, the
electronic voting devices won’t even make an appearance
The voting function is its best feature. at the upcoming Group B public comment hearings. Vote
For those who attended the final action hearings (as they tabulation will initially be done by a show of hands. “If we’re
not comfortable with that, then we’ll actually take a standing
were then called) in October 2014, they were able to use count,” Bowman says.
electronic voting devices to both cast their votes and have
those votes logged in cdpACCESS. When the vote was opened If you’re at all familiar with professional sports, you know
to the rest of the governmental voting member reps, the how easily teams request reviews of the officials’ calls. With
remote voters were able to see the in-person results. Those the significance of the proposals on the docket, it wouldn’t
who attended could also log in and change their vote, if they be surprising to see vote counting on a number of proposals.
chose to do so. This portal, along with the addition of Section This method of voting will probably lead to some long days
8.0 to Council Policy 28, was going to usher ICC into a new (and nights) in the hearing room.
era of code adoption.
Because technology won’t be used in the hearing room,
While cdpACCESS had undergone the expected beta it will cause a duplication of effort for those who attend in-
testing, the ICC wisely decided to roll it out during the person. The in-person vote will set the agenda for the online
Group C cycle, which was largely the International Green voting, but Bowman explained that “this year, because we’re
Construction Code (IgCC) development cycle. This gave ICC not using the electronic devices, the online governmental
a trial period of sorts, since the IgCC was one of the newest consensus vote will start at zero-zero. Those that are
28 CodeWatcher / Fall 2016 www.codewatcher.us
