This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Codes and Standards and Committee on the Environment .
-------------------------------------------
Tim, I disagree with your conclusions regarding the ICC and its ability to manage the process of code development. ICC's committee that drafted Public Version 1.0 and the first review committee that reviewed the 1,500 comments for Public Version 2.0 involved a broad mix of individuals representing various interests, the vast majority of which are architects. The distinct minority of persons on these committees is the code enforcement official. All the architects on these two committees had a vote on what would be included as part of these draft versions of the new code.
There are four primary nongovernmental "code" development processes in the US; ICC, NPFA, IAPMO and ASHRAE. ASHRAE and NFPA primarily develop standards. When the ICC was attempting to finalize the development of its first version of the International Building Code (IBC) in the late 1990's, NFPA announced its intent to develop a model building code in conjunction with ASHRAE and IAPMO. AIA created a study group that investigated the need for a second model building code and held hearings to gain input from various interests familiar with codes as well as practicing architects. I was fortunate to be asked to chair that group. In addition to our hearings we also met with many groups involved in the code development process, including NFPA. AIA concluded that the ICC codes and its development process was the best way to achieve what was characterized as the "comprehensive, coordinated, contemporary" codes that was part of AIA's policy on codes. That remains AIA's position today.
ICC is the convener of the process, not the author of the codes. I believe that the range of participation in the development of codes in the ICC process remains the best mix of designers, industry representatives and regulators. Any document developed without that kind of open, balanced participation will not be adopted for use at the local and state levels.
Code development can indeed be seen as equivalent to sausage making, but still offers the best opportunity for development of uniform criteria for safety that communities can rely upon. Efforts by local communities to establish their own "green codes" was an outgrowth of AIA's 2030 Challenge calling for carbon neutral buildings. As you note, volunteer efforts to begin the process to achieve that goal has been inadequate. To that end AIA joined with ICC to develop the new IGCC, and while the process may not be fun or attractive, it offers us the best hope for evolving the design and construction of buildings in a way that responds to the environmental needs in this country and for the health of the world. A final question on your comment: If not ICC then who should run this code development process? There is no tradition or mechanism for federal code development and the other processes have the same industry/regulator cross currents as the ICC, just in different proportions.
ICC's consensus process allows the opportunity by anyone to make comments and recommendations to modify their codes. Often this involves the best part of the sausage making process in a true public forum with open debate where anyone can speak to the committees making decisions. This process is not dominated by the building scientists or economists, but does pay considered attention to anyone's point of view on an issue. Only the final vote on changes by the members representing the adopting jurisdictions is limited. This sausage making may not be pretty, but it does develop a building code that has been uniquely successful in gaining adoption throughout the United States.
-------------------------------------------
David Collins FAIA
Preview Group, Inc.
Cincinnati OH
-------------------------------------------