Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Reroofing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
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
>
> James
>
> 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
> in
> each corner and 1/2" anchor bolts @ 6' oc it's code-compliant and therefore
> I
> shouldn't even mention to an owner or potential owner that maybe it's just
> a
> teeny bit less than we would like to see in a building?  Ignorance is
> bliss?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
> Richmond CA <
>
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2    Type: application/ms-tnef
>            Encoding: base64