Misinformation re: FBPE's rule & David Millers response
Vernon McLean
To Whom It May Concern:
I posted the following email to the aaf-engineering-design Google group administered by David Miller (http://groups.google.com/group/aaf-engineering-design/browse_thread/thread/45872a66adc67fd8# ). It pertains to comments made at the Friday night Palm Beach AAF meeting. It should not come as a surprise at what David Miller did in response to my post. He revoked my ability to post on all the Google groups that he administers on behalf of the AAF. David did the same to Adam Pazzaglia when he posted something that David took exception with.
Apparently, David does not believe in free speech.
Vern
To Whom It May Concern:
Misinformation is being disseminated regarding the FBPE’s pending engineers’ responsibility rules for aluminum structures.
Last year, the FBPE’s issued a statement condemning the use of master file/generic engineer for aluminum structures (e.g. screen enclosures). This statement amounted to a rule which invokes due process requirements to enact. Consequently, the FBPE rescinded the statement and is presently attempting to adopt a rule that will accomplish its goal: mandating site specific engineering for screen enclosures.
Randy Kissell proposed a rule to the FBPE which was modified by Do Kim and publicly submitted on November 14th, 2006. The AAF supported Do Kim’s rule. The minutes of the meeting and the rules are attached for reference and to refute propaganda. These are the actual rules presented at the meeting without any modifications whatsoever. The minutes are exactly how I received them and clearly state what transpired at the meeting. The FBPE voted to adopted Do Kim’s rule with the sole exception of a phrase in subsection (3)(e) “or verification of product manufactures’ technical data”.
Subsequent to the aforementioned meeting, two subsections were surreptitiously relocated from §(3) to §(2). This modification will require that more information must accompany engineers’ drawings than mandated by Do Kim’s initial rule. The final pending rule is attached for reference. With the exception of relocating two subsections and some very minor adjustments, I am unable to discern any substantive differences between Do Kim’s initial rule and the contested rule that is pending adoption.
I am tired of getting urinated on and being told it is rain.
Vernon Leslie
David Miller responded:
Without agreeing or diagreeing with any element of the post
or
contesting the rhetoric, and regardless the history or genesis of the
proposed responsibility rule, the policy and commitment of the AAF is
to oppose the adoption and implementation of this rule.
David Miller
Tom Matson
What is your point and why is this on a public forum?
May I remind you of an e-mail you sent me on 12/13/06,
you recommended that sarcastic e-mails should be sent directly to you
and not put on a public forum.
I would hope that you would extend the same courtesy to others.
Tom Matson
Layout and Design Solutions, Inc.
(561)376-4012
Vernon McLean
I don't have an ax to grind with anyone, but it is my opinion that the AAF
leadership does not see things from the Aluminum Contractors perspective. If
the proposed FBPE rule is going to have such a negative affect on our
industry statewide, why hasn't the AAF taken or joined administrative
actions to stop it? The FFA has waited to long while others have taken
administrative actions to stop the rule. It is obvious that neither Doe or
Randy or the AAF is working in the best interests of the membership when
they allow the FBPE to pass a rule which is going to have such a negative
affect on our industry state wide. I have read some of Randy's e-mails to
the FBPE task force where he refers to the Guide as a joke. This is the same
guy who has massaged the wind tunnel data, resulting in 29 PSF for the walls
in zone C. Why is this fellow who came up with this ridiculous rule
dictating the wind loads to us? Isn't he affiliated with Jude and won't
their future business benefit from this rule? I don't get it?
By the way, why hasn't the AAF allowed my engineer to see the raw data of
the wind tunnel tests? He has requested it in writing more than once?
Why did the AAF propose to the FBC the code change to require the 300 lb
point load before asking for a consensus of our membership?
Our group of engineers seems to only throw metal at the problem which was
initiated by this Port St. Lucie building official who is now in jail.The
AAF group has ignored the capillary action of water on the screen,
releasable spine, additional stitching in the beams to prevent buckling, a
simple rule or warning to plank between beams and not to step on perlins,
and anything else the non-engineering membership has suggested.
Didn't the AAF encourage the FHB to request that the FBPE clarify that the
rule won't affect the AAF GUIDE. Why are we so concerned about protecting
the AAF Guide when Aluminum Contractor's across the state will be devastated
by the enactment of this new rule? If the AAF Guide is not being used by
most of it's member's why does the AAF continue to push for the Guide to be
the industry standard if it doesn't benefit the majority of the membership?
Richard Prince
David W Miller
I wonder if someone would be so kind as to prepare and publish a report (via
this forum) updating everyone on the progress of the PSI program.
My memory is foggy, but I have emails going back to September of last year
on this topic and I'm pretty sure this program was to be finished prior to
the expiration of the 1st public comment period of the FBC TAC's, which
ended March 1st.
I'm not sure anyone is suffering because it isn't done, but I do think that
there should be information about progress publically available.
David Miller
Stephen Raskin
taken them a little longer to complete than anticipated. They are hopeful
they will complete testing in a few weeks and start to work on their
conclusions and report. We are all hopingto conclude the project by the end
of April.
Tom Matson
How soon will their information be available to the rest of us?
Stephen Raskin
completed the testing phase and "should have a report shortly". That is a
direct quote.
Tom Matson
Tom Matson
FUNNY!