CODE CHANGE SESSION
2000 UFC ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING
NOVEMBER 8 & 9, 1999
S-Support
O-Oppose
SWA-Support w/Amendment
W-Wait
A-Approved
D-Disapproved
E-Editorial
AR-Approved as Revised
ITEM
North
South
Members
Comment
32
S
    Editorial
48
S
    Makes sense, more focused.
61
S
O
  We supported in May.
63
O
O
  We like the Committees decision.
67
O
O
  I guess we’re FPO’s at heart.
69
O
S
  We don’t like the word integrity as used.
79 #1
S
    That’ll work, better submittal Daryl.
79 #2
O
     
82
O
    We’ll stick with the committee’s decision.
86
S
    Supported before, we’ll support again.
92
S
    Supported before, we’ll support again.
97 #1
O
    Doesn’t do it. Most fires occur in dwelling units where the system is not activated, only single station units. This gives occupant the opportunity to notify via MP. Also, don’t like this when dealing with outside balconies. Too restrictive.
97 #2
O
    Same reasoning as above. Too restrictive.
97 #3
O
    Too weak!!!
98
S
    Like the language better.
100
S
    We like the discretionary "God Clause".
102
W
     
106
O
    Too much of a building standard. FPO’s are required to utilize the Building Codes just as much as the Fire Code.
107 #1
O
    Same old argument.
107 #2
O
    Not going to happen.
152
O
     
176
S
    Didn’t like it. Never liked it!
181
O
    We support the committee’s decision.
206
S
S
  Only cause we like the proponent.
213
S
S
  Again, we get along with the proponent.
215
S
S
  By Laws say we have to like the proponent.
216
S
S
  Regardless that the proponent doesn’t like us!