As indicated in my previous comments on LEEDuser, the 'USGBC Approved Program' is the big dealbreaker for me. The USGBC chose not to respond to my questions about it, and although I've heard from several people that they will not make any 'substantive changes' without member approval, I remain mistrustful. There are other issues that bother me, like the ACC influence in the MR Credits, but the 'USGBC Approved Program' looks like a very serious mistake to me.
The consensus process has been on a downhill slide since the Committees who used to write the Credits were disbanded. Staff took over the Credit writing, with 'input' from the TAGs, and final approval by senior staff (this process description is directly from staff). In the past couple of years they've added special advisors quietly selected by staff from the membership and the trade associations. Despite the best of intentions, the staff who are in charge of writing the Credits are simply too inexperienced on a practical project process level, lack the depth of technical knowledge needed, and are susceptible to undue influence from the dark side to take LEED to the next level in a workable version.
So now, in a effort to bypass those pesky members and streamline the process, we have 'USGBC Approved Program'. Surprise! Excluding the members from the development of the Credits and decisions about these god-knows-what programs will seriously harm the brand, but more importantly, it undermines the consensus process that LEED was built on. AND, inexplicably, they are sabotaging consensus while they are under intense attack for not having a consensus process. Do they think the other guys won't notice?
Voting yes because we feel sorry for them does not seem wise to me. I don't think we can fix it later. To me, voting yes is hastening the demise of LEED. I don't want to help them hurt the brand, and I don't want to willingly give up my power as a member.
For me - it's a solid NO. It won't be the end of the world if v4 doesn't pass this time. They'll have to fix it. It could be so much better if they would invite the members back into the Credit development process. Just imagine....
Bill Swanson
Sr. Electrical EngineerIntegrated Design Solutions
LEEDuser Expert
735 thumbs up
June 25, 2013 - 10:03 am
Just remember to give a reason "related to the draft" when voting no, or it'll be ignored.
"15. Each member of the consensus body shall vote one of the following positions:
a. Affirmative
b. Affirmative, with comment
c. Negative, with reason
d. Abstain
16. All negative votes without reason or with reason not related to the draft shall count toward quorum but shall not be factored into the numerical requirements for consensus."
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
June 25, 2013 - 11:38 am
That's right, Bill. "No" votes need a reason more than just hating on USGBC to be counted as valid—since it's a vote on the v4 draft.
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
523 thumbs up
June 25, 2013 - 12:39 pm
Thanks Peggy for the insight on the credit writing process. We spend so much time implementing and interpreting LEED requirements in the field and keeping up with the changes that I haven't been able to stay on top of the organizational issues behind their creation. We've been doing this for 10 years, and I can say that overall I would agree that staff seem to have less practical industry and field experience than in previous years. I have been naively thinking that only GBCI was experiencing this culture shift and honestly did not realize the checks and balances on USGBC staff writing the requirements provided by the Committees basically is no more. So your comments explain a lot, thanks.
And thanks Bill for the voting advisory.I had no idea that a No vote could be ignored based on the reason. Interesting.
And Tristan, rest assured that if my firm decided to vote No on the v4 draft rating system, it would have nothing to do with "hating" the USGBC. If anything, quite the contrary. Isn't that the idea behind consensus and democracy? You guys had a debate right? Argued the pros and cons? And you probably didn't all agree on every point despite your group outcome. Striving to acknowledge legitimate concerns and reach reasonable compromises that advance our mutual cause is what this is all about right?
Bill Swanson
Sr. Electrical EngineerIntegrated Design Solutions
LEEDuser Expert
735 thumbs up
June 25, 2013 - 1:19 pm
Tristan, most people take a simple approach to things and don't always fill out every line in a form. I'd just like the lazy "Yes" vote to carry the same weight as the lazy "No" vote.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
June 25, 2013 - 1:26 pm
BIll, that was an interesting component that I had not been aware of. I see the pros and cons for it... like this debate.Michelle, I did not intend to imply in any way that all "no" votes are about hating. I was simply trying to clarify the USGBC policy, and the video I linked to tickles my funny bone... much needed.
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
523 thumbs up
June 25, 2013 - 1:30 pm
Thanks, Tristan. Sorry I generally take things too seriously and can be literal. The humor is appreciated even if I missed it.