Page 29 - CodeWatcher Fall 2016 Issue
P. 29
“The ICC has expended significant resources to increase member
engagement in the code development process. Once the
technology is improved and the governmental voting member
representatives start using it, the development process will be
as robust as ever. Until then, expect some growing pains.”
voting at the public comment hearing, we’ll really need to is deemed inconsequential, it’s possible that fewer than
encourage them to remember to go and participate in the 60 people could be deciding the fate of a proposal. (If you
online consensus vote”. find that improbable, it happened on numerous occasions
in Group B online voting.) Given the size of the voting
Bowman said that ICC is working to remedy the problem membership, that is an alarming possibility.
with the electronic voting devices. They want to make sure
the technology is “airtight and absolutely no way there will (Note: On page 11 of the Group A results, it states:
be a problem” in the future. But in the short-term, the time “In accordance with published procedures, this will require
spent on hand/standing vote counts will create an extra a minimum of 30 Online Governmental Consensus Vote
burden on those voters who attend. (OGCV) votes cast for each code change proposal in order
for the OGCV to be considered a successful voting measure.
Extending the Debate If the vote total is less than 30 for an individual proposal, the
Final Action for that proposal will be the action taken at the
The other unintended consequence of online voting is that hearing/two-step process, as applicable.” However, this was
it opens a second lobbying period. The first lobbying period a one-time decision on a handful of votes. This approach is
occurs during the weeks leading up to the public comment also not 100% germane to the Group B cycle, since the in-
hearing. Special interest groups, from NAHB to regional person totals will not be reflected online.)
energy efficiency organizations, produce and distribute
voting guides. They encourage code officials to vote a certain Finally, videos of all testimony are viewable through
way, and usually include rationales or reason statements. cdpACCESS. Bowman said he “would be surprised if we didn’t
During the second lobbying period, which will span from know the number” of views a video receives. Conceivably, the
late October to mid-November, these same groups will be ICC could compare the number of views with the number
reacting to the online voting agenda, making the final push of votes, to get a sense of whether online voters are taking
for votes in their favor. testimony into consideration. However, Bowman confirmed
they are not able to correlate views to a specific voter.
And that’s where things get complicated. According to
Section 8.1 of Council Policy 28, the following scenario is The ICC has expended significant resources to increase
entirely plausible: member engagement in the code development process. Once
the technology is improved and the governmental voting
1. The code development committee votes to approve a member representatives start using it, the development
code change proposal as submitted. process will be as robust as ever. Until then, expect some
growing pains.
2. Voters in attendance at the public comment hearing
reverse the committee action and overwhelmingly vote to Feedback Solicited
disapprove the proposal.
ICC recently put out a “Call for Feedback” on the code
3. The online voters obtain a simple majority and reverse development process. They are accepting feedback between
the public comment hearing result, making the final action now and October 15, 2016, with additional rounds concluding
… approval of the proposal as submitted. on November 30, 2016 and February 15, 2017.
Worrisome Outcomes? For more information, go here. CW
Believe it or not, it could get worse. Mike Collignon is the executive director of the
Council Policy 28 does not declare a minimum number of
Green Builder Coalition.
votes for a proposal’s passage or disapproval. Because each
proposal will start with a zero-zero vote total, if a proposal
www.codewatcher.us Fall 2016 / CodeWatcher 29
