Voter eligibility, vote ratification, remote voting, increased participation and a host of related, complex issues were on the agenda when the Code Development Review Ad-Hoc Committee met in August. The Committee is charged to take a comprehensive look at the Code Development process and recommend improvements to the ICC Board by the end of the year. The Committee agrees there is a clear message from ICC members and there is room for improvements.

Key decisions and discussions at the Code Development Review Ad-Hoc Committee's two-day meeting included:
• Unanimously passed a motion that the deadline for eligibility to vote at code hearings be the same date as the code change deadline, approximately 180 days.
• Requested staff develop an online tutorial for Governmental Members to be better informed about the process.
• Unanimously approved a motion to propose adding the words "in the built environment" to the definition of Governmental Members in the bylaws.
• Recommended revisiting current guidelines, including:
o maintain Code Council procedures continue to allow multiple agencies within a jurisdiction to be eligible to vote;
o tighten the by-law definition of an eligible agency to focus on code administration and enforcement;
o carefully monitor the "separate unit of government" criteria to ensure each Governmental Member is in fact a separate agency.

The CDRAC also debated the pros and cons of ratification voting, online voting, and ways to get feedback during the code development comment period. They also talked about tightening up the rules for disclosure during code change testimony to specify who the commenter represents.

The committee debated ways to defray code-hearing costs, reaching consensus to pursue sponsorship outside the hearing room, but to not charge attendees. They also recommended creating a Community of Interest on the ICC website dedicated to code change comments, including written comments, as a way to increase participation in the code development process and requiring email addresses on written code change proposals.

A major area for further review involved remote voting. The members discussed how to define and verify remote voting, and the impact of evolving technology and how it might impact the code development process as well as costs to the organization. They plan to look at how other organizations approach proxy votes and employ the use of proctor site voting. The Committee recommended reaching out to members for feedback and developing a white paper to identify complex issues.

Single issue voting was discussed with the conclusion that the issues have been addressed however there will always be single-issue votes.

Members also suggested a training process be developed for committees, including expanding opportunities for remote participation in accordance with Council Policy 7.