We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

logo
  • Engineers & Specifiers
  • Contractors & Installers
  • Wholesalers & Distributors
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Free Subscription
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
  • PRODUCTS
    • Bath & Kitchen
    • Fire Protection
    • HVAC
    • Hydronics/Radiant
    • Plumbing
    • PVF
    • Tools
  • PROJECTS
    • Commercial
    • Green Building
    • MRO/Retrofit
    • Remodeling
    • Residential
  • HOW TO
    • Design
    • Fire Protection
    • Legal Matters
    • Management
  • BUSINESS
    • Buying Groups
    • Technology
    • Associations
  • CODES & STANDARDS
    • ANSI
    • ASHRAE
    • ASSE
    • Regulations
    • Green Building
    • IAPMO
    • ICC
    • NFPA
  • RESOURCES
    • Media Kit
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • Classifieds
    • Digital Editions
    • Behind the Wall
    • Webinars
    • AHR Live 2023
  • PODCASTS
  • DIGITAL EDITIONS
Home » ICC announces procedures to address public comment hearing onsite voting problem​

ICC announces procedures to address public comment hearing onsite voting problem​

December 10, 2015
No Comments

The International Code Council Board of Directors has reviewed the Long Beach, Calif., Public Comment Hearing (PCH) results and concerns with the unexpected voting device problems. The Board has unanimously agreed on a process to address the issue that maintains the integrity of ICC’s Code Development Process and the Online Governmental Consensus Vote (OGCV), which follows the PCH. It should be noted that this process will only be used for those code changes which were voted utilizing the voting devices. The PCH action for the code changes which were considered and voted by a show of hands remains as published and will be the basis for the OGCV.

The Board has directed staff to develop and utilize a two-step, electronic voting process to re-create the PCH, resulting in accurate and transparent PCH results to be used to conduct the cdpACCESS OGCV.

“The Board has acted in a timely manner and considered all the options to address the challenges,” said ICC Board President Alex “Cash” Olszowy III. “It is unfortunate that the old voting technology we have used for more than a decade is not capable of supporting cdpACCESS and we will work to replace it before the Group B hearings.”

The online process will closely mirror the process used to conduct the in-person PCH. This includes the initial motion under consideration being the committee action in accordance with Council Policy 28 (CP28). It will be followed by consideration of the public comments, as applicable, resulting in the PCH action. To ensure consistency with the Long Beach PCH, eligible voting members will be limited to those who were issued an electronic voting device during the PCH period in Long Beach. The OGCV process will remain unchanged with the resulting PCH actions used to conduct the OGCV.

“We believe that the Board’s corrective procedures will result in a PCH outcome that reflects the consensus of the eligible voting members in attendance at the hearings,” Olszowy said. “It will ensure the Online Governmental Consensus Vote can be conducted in accordance with ICC rules and procedures.”

Anyone with a “MY ICC” account will be able to log on to cdpACCESS.com and view the process. All the necessary information, including: code change documents; access to both the Committee Action and Public Comment Hearing videos; and the actions and recorded vote counts from the Long Beach PCH will be displayed. Where submitted public comments result in an option for the approval of a combination of public comments, staff will annotate the ballot noting compatibility/correlation of public comments.

A two-step process is necessary as illustrated by the following two examples.

Example 1

Where the Committee Action Hearing (CAH) result is Disapproval (D), Step 1 will include the initial vote to sustain the Disapproval. A 50 percent majority is required to sustain the committee action. If the committee action is sustained, Step 2 is not necessary and the PCH result is Disapproval. In accordance with Section 8.1 of CP28, the OGCV will be conducted with the allowable actions being As Submitted and Disapproval.

If the committee action for Disapproval fails, Step 2 will include a vote on the public comments submitted. In the event that multiple public comments requesting further modifications are submitted, they will be on the ballot. Where a public comment was withdrawn in Long Beach, the public comment will not be considered. Where an allowable motion to consider a public comment was not made in Long Beach, that public comment will also not be considered in Step 2. Where the required majority in accordance with Section 7.6 is achieved, the PCH action will be the action that carried the required majority. In accordance with Section 7.5.8.9, if the required majority is not achieved, the PCH action will be Disapproval. In accordance with Section 8.1, the OGCV will be conducted with the allowable actions being based on the Step 2 PCH result.

Example 2​

Where the CAH result is either As Submitted (AS) or As Modified (AM), the Step 1 vote will include the allowable public comments (as noted above) requesting further modifications (AMPC). A 67% majority is required for AMPC. If the required majority is not achieved, Step 2 is not necessary and the PCH action is Disapproval per Section 7.5.8.9 and the OGCV allowable actions are Disapproval and As Submitted (or As Modified where the committee action was As Modified). If the required majority is achieved, Step 2 is not necessary and the OGCV allowable actions are AMPC and Disapproval.

The results of each step will be reviewed and certified by third party ICC auditors. The results will be posted prior to initiating the subsequent PCH step or OGCV, as applicable.

ICC staff is developing the two-step ballot process and the customization of cdpACCESS to ensure a secure and transparent process. It is anticipated that the two-step process will not open until December at the earliest, followed by the OGCV for all code changes considered in Long Beach. All efforts will be made to minimize the possible conflict between this process and the upcoming 2016 Group B code change deadline

ICC will be conducting webinars to support understanding and participation in the process.

Business Engineers & Specifiers ICC Industry Community News
  • Related Articles

    Early-Bird Registration Still Open for ICC 2021 Annual Conference and Public Comment Hearings

    Registration open for 2015 ICC Annual Conference and public comment hearings

    Changes to purpose and scope of Standard 189.1 open for public comment​

  • Related Products

    Directory Listing - Free

    Directory Listing - Premium

You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Report Abusive Comment

Most Popular

  • SLB Announces Newmans Valve as NEWCO Valve Supplier for Western Hemisphere

  • Duravit Announces New Hires and Promotions

  • PVF Roundtable Annual Golf Tournament Registration Now Open

  • Chicago Plumber’s Union Dyes Chicago River Green for St. Patrick’s Day 2023

Featured Video

Caleffi video thumb

The Gold Standard: Separation with NO Compromise

Industry Events

  • 11Apr

    ASA ELEVATE2023

    Charleston, SC
  • 18Apr

    2023 WQA Convention & Exposition

    Las Vegas, NV
  • 18Apr

    2023 AD Decorative Brands Annual Meeting

    Boston, MA
More Events

Subscribe to our newsletters & stay updated

Subscribe & Learn More

  • Tw03 2023 cover
    Learn More
  • Pe03 2023 cover
    Learn More
  • Phc03 2023 cover
    Learn More
  • Es 2022
    Learn More
Subscribe

More from PHCP Pros

  • Editorial Team
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • About
  • Advertise

Follow Us

© 2023 All Rights Reserved

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development | ePublishing