270 likes | 352 Views
Webinar 3: Informed Voting. People Helping People Build a Safer World™. September 5 , 2012 cdpaccess@iccsafe.org. Today’s Discussion. Code Change Submission Committee Action Hearing Public Comment Submission Public Comment Hearing Governmental Consensus Vote. Guiding Principles.
E N D
Webinar 3: Informed Voting People Helping People Build a Safer World™ September 5, 2012 cdpaccess@iccsafe.org
Today’s Discussion • Code Change Submission • Committee Action Hearing • Public Comment Submission • Public Comment Hearing • Governmental Consensus Vote
Guiding Principles • Preserve the governmental consensus process • Present code change information to inform voting • In-person attendance at hearings allows for maximum contribution • Success requires addressing technological, cultural and process issues
Key Research Findings • cdp ACCESS addresses the primary barriers to participation in code development: time and money • Majority support cdp ACCESS concepts • Most members are likely to participate online for periods of time • Viewing testimony and voting on final proposed code change language are two most important factors for online participation
Public Comment Hearing and Governmental Consensus Vote • result in Final Disposition of Code Change Voting Procedural Flow
Voting Procedural Flow:Hearing Process &Voting Standards • Committee Action Hearing and Public Comment Hearing are conducted in the same manner as the current Code Development Hearing and Final Action Hearing procedures.
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Examples CDP1-12: 302.1 cdp ACCESS. The cdp ACCESS effort is intended to provide for an increase in participation in the ICC Code Development Process. Committee Action Hearing: As Submitted Public Comment Agenda posted Public Comment 1: Disapproval Public Comment 2: AMPC: 302.1 cdp ACCESS. The cdp ACCESS effort is intended to provide for an increase in participation and remote voting in the ICC Code Development Process. Public Comment 3: AMPC: 302.1 cdp ACCESS. The cdp ACCESS effort is intended to provide for an increase in participation in the ICC Code Development Process in accordance with the feedback received from the ICC Membership.
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Example 1 Public Comment Hearing: Standing Motion for Approve as Submitted • Motion made and seconded for AMPC 2 • No further motions made (a motion for AMPC 3 is permitted) • Standing motion now AMPC 2 65 Public Comment Hearing Result: AMPC 2 by a vote of 145 - 65 145
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Example Public Comment Hearing Result: AMPC 2 by a vote of 145 - 65 Governmental Consensus Ballot • The cdp ACCESS system will provide: • Code change as proposed and committee action/reason at Committee Action Hearing • Public Comment Hearing result and vote count: AMPC 2 by a vote of 145 - 65 • Code change shown in legislative format based on modification from Public Comment Hearing result • Link to video of the Public Comment Hearing to view testimony and preliminary motions • Staff identification of correlation issues, if any • Government Consensus Vote ballot allowable actions for final voting • For those eligible voters who voted at the Public Comment Hearing, their ballot will indicate how they voted
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Example 1 Governmental Consensus Ballot • AMPC 2 - requires 2/3 • Current text as revised by CDP 1 - 12 based on AMPC 2:302.1 cdp ACCESS. The cdp ACCESS effort is intended to provide for an increase in participation and remote voting in the ICC Code Development Process. • Disapproval - requires simple majority
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Example 1 Public Comment Hearing & Governmental Consensus Vote Results Tabulated • GVCPCHR • AMPC 2: + = 895 (68%) • (Requires 2/3) • Disapprove: + = 415 (32%) • (Requires Simple Majority) AMPC 2 received the 2/3 required per CP 28
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Example 1 Final Action on CDP - 12 The Final Action on CDP1 – 12 is AMPC 2.
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Example 2 • Motion made and seconded for AMPC 2 • Motion failed. • Motion made and seconded for AMPC 2 • Motion failed. • Standing motion for AS Public Comment Hearing: Standing Motion for Approve as Submitted Public Comment Hearing Result: AS by a vote of 113 - 109
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Example 2 Public Comment Hearing Result: AS by a vote of 113 - 109 Governmental Consensus Ballot • The cdp ACCESS system will provide: • Code change as proposed and committee action/reason at Committee Action Hearing • Public Comment Hearing result and vote count: AS by a vote of 113 - 109 • Code change shown in legislative format based on modification from Public Comment Hearing result • Link to video of the Public Comment Hearing to view testimony and preliminary motions • Staff identification of correlation issues, if any • Government Consensus Vote ballot allowable actions for final voting • For those eligible voters who voted at the Public Comment Hearing, their ballot will indicate how they voted
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Example 2 Governmental Consensus Ballot • Approved as Submitted - requires simple majority • 302.1 cdp ACCESS. The cdp ACCESS effort is intended to provide for an increase in participation in the ICC Code Development Process. • Disapprove - requires simple majority
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Example 2 10 PCH votes changed from AS to D Public Comment Hearing & Governmental Consensus Vote Results Tabulated • PCHRGCV • AS: + ▬ 10 = 653 (49.4%) • (Requires simple majority) • Disapprove: + = 669 (50.6%) • (Requires simple majority) A simple majority for D achieved
Voting Procedural Flow: Code Change Voting Example Final Action on CDP2 - 12 I’m just a code change The Final Action on CDP2 – 12 is Disapproval. CC
Answering your questions • Q 1: How early can changes to the most current code be submitted? • Q 2: When a proponent wishes to "float" a proposed code change, will the system provide icons, such as “thumbs up” or “needs more work”? • Q 3: Will there be a legal disclaimer indicating that remote access is not necessarily guaranteed?
2012/2013 Timeline • January 31: Steering Committee Meeting • Feb 28: Steering Committee Conference Call • March 14: Technology Survey • March 22-23: Steering Committee Meeting • April 16: Steering Committee Conference Call • April 28: ICC Board Meeting – Dallas, TX • April 29: Presentation to Membership – Dallas, TX September 9/5: Webinar 3 9/10: Webinar 4 9/25: IAC Mtg • October • 10/20: ICC Board Mtg • Membership Forum Winter/Spring 2012 • June 25-26: Steering Committee Meeting • July 11: Webinar 1 • Aug 1: Webinar 2 • Sept 5: Webinar 3 • Sept 10: Webinar 4 • Sept 21: Steering Committee Meeting • Sept /Oct: Interviews & Virtual Focus Groups • October: Presentation to ICC Board and Membership in Portland Summer / Fall 2012
Continuous Feedback Process Member Input SteeringCommittee incorporates feedback… Member Input Guiding Principles & Member Research
Opportunities for Member Involvement www.iccsafe.org/cdpaccess Link to Discussion Forum Email questions/comments to cdpaccess@iccsafe.org Contact a steering committee member Webinar Series Presentation Archives Committee report available at www.iccsafe.org/cdpaccess
Q & A cdpaccess@iccsafe.org