Clarification on NFRC Meeting Revote

USGNN received the following letter today:

Dear USG:
I am writing to set straight some of the facts you've put in your article. You've correctly recounted the discussion concerning the ACE, although I disagree with your statement that "such a change would have limited the entities that could have been called ACEs." The intention of the motion was to use an existing NFRC term, which clearly describes the business relationship between NFRC and an entity (be it a laboratory or anyone else), rather than creating a new term. The term as it is currently defined uses "laboratory" in the definition because laboratories are the only "accredited" entities at NFRC at this time.

As for the revote request, I was not present in the meeting room at the time the request was made, so I am not sure of all the details of what transpired. The request was not made by me, but by Rich Biscoe of Architectural Testing and stemmed from the misuse of proxy votes at the subcommittee level (where they are not allowed). Several members were carrying proxies and incorrectly using them throughout the proceedings that day. It was determined that only 3 or 4 members had used proxies and the minutes were checked to determine which votes could have been affected by those votes. Only one vote was in question (It was NOT the ACEs vote which had been rather soundly defeated!) and that vote was retaken with no change in outcome.

I would request that you issue a correction to the mistakes in this article and also point out that NFRC's lawyer did rule that the official procedures for voting were NOT being followed.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Thoman, PE
Director, Simulations and Thermal Testing
Architectural Testing, Inc.

Editor's Note:
The Architectural Testing Inc. employee who made the motion to revote was misidentified. It was Rich Biscoe, rather than Mr. Thoman.


No reproduction, in print, electronic or any form without the expressed written permission of
Key Communications Inc. 540-720-5584.

USGNN Home