Page 64 - Green Builder May-June 2020 Issue

www.greenbuildermedia.com/code-arena

Is the electronic (i.e., online) voting process helpful

or harmful to the code development process? Why?

I have been in the code business are willing to follow a voter guide with instructions: “We expect it
a long time, and things certainly should only take you about an hour to get through them all!”? The
have changed over the years. pendulum has swung too far.
There are things that I really miss
about the old ways. You needed The online voting portion of
to be at the Code Development ICC’s cdpACCESS process is
Hearings in person; there was meant to allow every jurisdiction
no electronic voting. Back then, that adopts, uses and/or enforces
we debated changes in person, the model codes to participate in
SHARON BONESTEEL groups of people in the back of the development of the I-Codes.
Building Codes Program Manager, the room working out revisions Allocation of votes to each jurisdic-
Salt River Project to bring consensus from various tion, based on population, serves
parties. We worked things out together, right there. You could dis- DAVID S. COLLINS, FAIA is a valid means of measuring the
agree with someone on a code change, and still go out for a drink direction the jurisdictions wish to
together afterwards. Architect, The Preview Group, Inc. see the code changed.
The cdpAccess system at ICC was designed to allow for transition Online voting was viewed as important and necessary because of
into the next century, a time when we communicated more via email the dwindling number of voters able to attend the code change hear-
than in person. My transition has been fraught with frustration and ings. At times during last year’s IECC final hearings, only 29 members
discontent. I want to work a resolution out in person. voted on important changes to the code. Such small numbers voting
So, having reminisced about the old days, and moaned about the at the hearings is not seen as truly representative.
new days, where do I stand? Buckle up kids, it’s a new world out there. Unfortunately, most jurisdictions can’t afford to send all of their
We need to learn to work together with the new technology. You can voting members to the hearings to cast votes in person. Online voting
still PICK UP THE PHONE. CALL THE PERSON AND TALK. Yup, the was created as a means to afford the highest number of members
old way still works. We just need to use the new technology to do it. the ability to directly indicate their jurisdictions’ wishes regarding
the changes proposed to the I-Codes.
Today, both. The Online Although the online voting had start-up issues, after a full six
Governmental Consensus Vote years covering two cycles of code development, the system appears
(OGCV) is helpful when it works to work effectively and serves the purpose for which it was intended.
as intended; harmful when abused. Personally, I find it to be a superior effort.
The original intent was to ensure
those who are charged with adopt- By creating cdpACCESS, ICC is
ing, implementing, interpreting, maximizing the online voice of
and enforcing the I-codes are the the Governmental Members that
ones who vote, and to ensure those give legitimacy to ICC’s I-Codes.
JOE CAIN, P.E. with constrained travel budgets It’s been said that the universe of
Director of Codes & Standards can participate. During one criti- eligible ICC voters is 100,000—I
Solar Energy Industries cal IRC proposal, 117 votes were suspect it’s more. Prior to cdpAC-
Association (SEIA) cast at the PC Hearings to set the CESS, the last three updates to
agenda for OGCV; yet near the end of the IECC agenda, only 30 vot- America’s model energy code were
ers remained at the hearings. On Feb. 14, ICC reported “Over 240,000 BILL FAY determined by about 125, 450 and
votes were cast at the combined PCH and OGCV.” A vast majority of Executive Director, Energy 120 votes, respectively.
OGCV-eligible IECC voters were not present to observe live debate, Efficient Codes Coalition A jurisdiction’s building energy
and likely did not watch five days of video testimony. It appears consumption affects the success of as many as six departments or
many OGCV voters might have followed a voter guide without read- agencies. For a city of 75,000, that adds up to 48 eligible voters—but
ing the proposals. even though building efficiency is one of the most cost-effective steps
Has ICC allowed abuse of the OGCV by allowing one special inter- to sound energy policy, there’s no way a city can afford the time or
est group to recruit “qualified voters” who are not regulatory users expense to send that many employees out of town for over a week
of the IECC, have not read the proposals or viewed testimony, and of hearings.

58 GREEN BUILDER May/June 2020 www.greenbuildermedia.com

5/22/20 10:28 AM
57-59 GB 0520 Code Arena.indd 58 5/22/20 10:28 AM
57-59 GB 0520 Code Arena.indd 58