Volume 41, Issue 11 - November 2006


GANA Files Appeal Against IECC Code Committee Citing Conflict of Interest 
The Glass Association of North America (GANA) filed an appeal with the International Codes Council (ICC) Appeals Board on October 11 against the International Energy Conservation Code Committee (IECC) for allowing two of its members to vote on a code change proposal for which there was an “inherent conflict of interest.”

GANA is appealing the fact that two board members of the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC), who are also members of the IECC development committee, did not recuse themselves from voting on code change proposal EC-9. A third member of both did recuse himself. Presented by GANA, the Aluminum Extruders Council and a codes consultant, Craig Connor, proposal EC-9 would have allowed for a reference to AAMA 507 as an alternative to the NFRC 100 site built procedure for the thermal rating of glazing (but not certification) in commercial buildings. The proposal was supported by other industry groups as well, including the American Architectural Manufacturers Association and the Insulating Glass Manufacturers Alliance. It was defeated by a vote of 11-2. Those supporting the proposal cited ease of use, output acceptability and providing an alternative for rating (not certification) as benefits for using AAMA 507. Current procedures were designed initially for residential applications and supporters of EC-9 sought an alternative reference designed for use specifically in commercial buildings. 

“It is a procedural challenge to the failure of two members of the IECC code development committee, who are also active members of the NFRC board of directors, to recuse themselves from hearing GANA’s proposal EC-9,” said Kim Mann, general counsel for GANA. “EC-9 proposes that the IECC adopt AAMA 507 as an alternative compliance path to NFRC 100 for commercial fenestration systems, thus ending NFRC’s model-code induced monopoly on energy rating systems in the commercial fenestration market.”

According to Mann, the GANA appeal claims the two individuals had inherent conflicts of interest and were required under ICC rules to recuse from voting. The appeal also questions the failure of the IECC code development committee itself to force these two board members on the committee to recuse themselves or to even consider committee action to require them to do so. 

A date for the hearing is not yet set.

AFG to Move Headquarters to Atlanta
At a corporate meeting in September in Kingsport, Tenn., AFG president and chief executive officer Brad Kitterman announced that the company’s headquarters and executive offices would be moving to Atlanta effective January 1, 2007. Current operational functions presently executed in the Kingsport office will continue and the facility will be designated as AFG’s corporate services office.

“We will have a small corporate office in Atlanta of approximately 25 to 30 people with less than a dozen moving from our Tri-Cities workforce of about 1,200,” Kitterman said.

Kitterman, who became AFG’s president in May, has initiated a transformation process focusing on creating a “high-performance” culture, according to information from the company. 

Kitterman added, “AFG’s top-down culture of the past must change, so I have decided to move the executive team to Atlanta, away from the daily operations. This approach has a multitude of advantages, but the top two are: 1) developing a catalyst for constructive and profitable change and 2) taking advantage of our middle management strength by pushing decision making and responsibilities to the lowest level commensurate with excellence in process management.” 

© Copyright 2006 Key Communications Inc. All rights reserved.
No reproduction of any type without expressed written permission.