LMA NTWS

GARY L. SMITH executive vice president

I Vn's third Owners/Partners MeetL ins concluded on Saturdav afternoon. -Nou.rnber 5. 1988 with a sail around San Diego Bay on the Continental I tri-maran. It provided a relaxing end to the 2-1/2 day meeting that offered a lot of valuable and challenging information to those attending.

The event was held at the Marriott Hotel in San Diego for the second year in a row. We began on Thursday, Nov. 3, with an update on labor law information by Paul Simpson of Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson and Horn. If Paul's comments didn't raise the collective blood pressure in the room with his discussion of wrongful termination and discrimination, partner Arthur Bredenbeck certainly succeeded during his presentation on employee benefits programs; particularly while explaining Section 89 of the Tax Reform Act of I 986. You will most certainly hear much more about Section 89 in the next few weeks and months. It goes into effect January 1, 1989, and requires all businesses to closely examine all employee benefit programs, including health and welfare plans, for discriminatory practices. The act provides for penalty excise taxes if you compute wrong or fail to report as income any excess benefits paid to certain highly compensated individuals.

The following day Jim Pence brought the group into the real world of employee beneftts and compensation programs with his discussion of the incentive plan he and his brother developed for their lumber businesses in Indiana. The day's session was concluded with roundtable-type discussions drawing on the experience of the LMA participants.

The working sessions concluded Saturday morning with a security program provided by Jack Case of John D.

Case and Associates of San Diego. Jack concentrated on the subject ofemployee theft, but also discussed shoplifting, preemployment screening and testing, and related subjects.

And finally, the harbor cruise, one of many opportunities throughout the time we were there to discuss common goals and challenges in an atmosphere of fraternity and good will. Opportunities like that are really what the association business is all about.

This will be my last opportunity to share editorial space with Fred, Chuck, Wayne, Bill and Wally, as well as Hugh Mungus and Freddie Fungus. Even though my new position at Northwestern Lumbermen's Association separates us from the West geographically, we look forward to staying in touch at regional and national meetings and through our continued association with this great industry of ours.

minute of differences. The result is that virtually no one wants to take a chance and expose themselves to the least liability.

EDr,CgNrI-Y the association office

I lhas had a number of calls relative to interchangeability of lumber grades. This is not something new, but a rehash of an old story.

Everyone is aware of the fact that lawsuits are being filed over the most

There are times when the substituted product may be better for the intended purpose, but it's not acceptable because it's not what was intended to be used.

To be more specific, we have over the years since the grade has existed used either stud grade in 2 x 4 or standard and

Golumbia Harbor Lumber Go.

Custom Remanufacture

Resawing:

I 54" Bandmill

I Computerized Line Bar Setworks r Rough Double-end Trim r Sortino Chain - 150 ft

Drying: r Steam Dry Kilns - 2,000,000 Bd. Ft Capacity Per Month r Dry Storage

Planing: r Patterns - Splitterhead - Rougherhead r WCLIB Grading r Finish Double-end Trim r Vinyl or Paper Wrap

Shipping: r 15 Acres Paved Yard r RailSiding BN & UP r l-5 Direct Access better interchangeably as a stud in residential and light commercial construction. The two grades have been considered adequate for the job intended, regardless of which was specified.

Now, due to the litigious nature of society and the fact that specifiers determined that stud grade can be shown to have greater strength value than standard and better, building departments, not universally but to a large degree, will not accept standard and better as an equal substitute for stud grade.

The argument they put forth is valid on the surface. Stud grade is specified, standard and better is shipped with the Sdt & Btr stamp on the product. Since the building inspector is not a grader (and we don't want him to be) he concludes that all the material is standard and therefore not of the same strength value as stud grade. The plan was stamped stud grade and that's what must be furnished. End of story? No, there is a way around this. But it isn't easy.

The framer or builder must obtain from the engineer who calculated the structural values needed a letter stating that standard and better would be acceptable in lieu of stud grade. This has to be walked through the building department and a no value change order issued, which becomes a part of the plans to be held by the department for eternity or however long they have to hold that sort of thing so that when some homeowner sues, the building department can have their defense ready.

The way to avoid all this might be to seek from the framer or from whoever is furnishing the lumber list, the information as to exactly what is specified on the set of plans that has been approved by the building department.

This is a rather Pollyanna view, but there are some problems being created by virtue of substitutions. The word comes back that such and such a building department won't accept standard and better studs. The statement is correct when it's made, but needs clarification to the extent that it's a particular job on which they won't accept them, not on all jobs in that particular city.

Call LASC if you have a problem relative to grades on a job site. Assistance is another of the manv benefits of association membership.