on NFRC Meeting Revote
USGNN received the following letter today:
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.
Michael J. Thoman, PE
Director, Simulations and Thermal Testing
Architectural Testing, Inc.
The Architectural Testing Inc. employee who made the motion to revote
was misidentified. It was Rich Biscoe, rather than Mr. Thoman.