I agree you 'missed the boat'---these days it seems that elected officials only work for themselves! ditto, bureaucrats!
audra ranous (who does not always reflect the opinions of her husband)
James Allen wrote:
> Some how I missed the boat. I have always believed the elected officials worked for their constitutes, not the bureaucrats.
> James Allen, P.E.
> From: Mark K Gilligan[SMTP:MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 11:23 PM
> To: INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Reroofing
> A point of fact. Elected officials do not set the level of risk implied in
> the building codes. If you would familiarize yourself with the code
> adoption process you would find that 99.9% of elected officials have no
> idea as to the risks implicit in the codes. Codes are written by
> Architects and Engineers, manufacturers, trade associations, and Building
> Officials who are not elected. The role of elected officials is to
> rubberstamp what the buracrats recommend.
> Central to the issue of going beyond the code is the concept that consumers
> should be aware of what they are buying so they can make an informed
> decision. I would argue that we have both a legal and moral obligation to
> inform our clients as to the risks that they are accepting by making
> various decisions.
> For the most part owners of buildings are not informed of the risks that
> they are accepting. While many clients would still prefer a code minimum
> design there are a number who would probably opt for a higher level of
> performance. Yet the way in which our services are provided the client is
> typically not given an option.
> Secondly if a building that complies with the code has a problem this will
> not protect you from being sued. There may be an implied acceptance of
> the risk in the Building Code but there is not necessarily a guarantee that
> the client accepts the risk.
> Why not provide each client with a summary of the risks associated with key
> decisions. I would expect that this would tend to reduce the consultants
> liability, in addition to increasing fees from those clients who want a
> higher level of performance. Admittedly this would not be popular with
> some Architects and Owners who would prefer not to deal with these issues.
> Mark Gilligan
> Original message
> >Engineers do not and should not set the norm; they are employed to provide
> designs that comply with the level or risk that society dictates. Society
> via the elected officials chose the factor of risk. If more engineers
> realized this there would be less controversy on this exhange.
> James Allen, P.E.
> From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com[SMTP:Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 9:51 PM
> To: ROgawa(--nospam--at)aol.com; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Reroofing
> In a message dated 4/15/99 12:19:59 AM, ROgawa(--nospam--at)aol.com writes:
> >Since the code allows this activity, I see no reason to
> >get excited. Change the code.
> Is anyone else bothered by the attitude that "anything in the code is okay
> with me"? In other words, if an existing building has a sheet of plywood
> each corner and 1/2" anchor bolts @ 6' oc it's code-compliant and therefore
> shouldn't even mention to an owner or potential owner that maybe it's just
> teeny bit less than we would like to see in a building? Ignorance is
> Just a thought.
> Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
> Richmond CA <
> Part 1.2 Type: application/ms-tnef
> Encoding: base64