Pennsylvania could have avoided the current dissatisfaction, dissension, fear and confusion about the requirements of the state's new Uniform Construction Code if state lawmakers hadn't forgotten about it after Act 45 was signed into law by former Gov. Tom Ridge on Nov. 10, 1999.

However, all of the blame doesn't rest with Harrisburg. Local-level municipalities failed to follow developments and requirements surrounding the code and fully analyze its impact and implications between the time Ridge signed the measure and the April 9, 2004, effective date. Neither did the public pay attention to what was going to happen until the code became an issue at the municipal level.

That was when municipal officials came face to face with the task of deciding whether to opt in and pass an ordinance adopting the UCC, or opt out, leaving inspections required by the code up to the state.

The deadline for municipalities to vote to opt in is July 8. Any municipality that hasn't provided the state with a notification to that effect by Aug. 8 will have opted out by default.

The theory behind the code is solid - to minimize or eliminate shoddy, possibly unsafe, construction. But the conclusions that have emanated from a closer look at what the General Assembly enacted and Ridge signed, and to which the state Department of Labor and Industry added its input, are that the law's provisions are too intrusive - that the law is too much of "big brother" trying to dictate to the people on projects too minor to be under the code's scrutiny.

Now the state House and Senate are busily attempting to achieve common ground on an amendment that would weaken some of the code's provisions. While that might be right regarding some aspects of the law, the danger is that in their hurried considerations as the law is gearing up, they might go too far, weakening the law to the detriment of everyone.

Instead of that, the General Assembly would act more responsibly simply by extending communities' July and August deadlines by 30, 60 or 90 days to allow for lawmakers' less-hasty consideration of evolving code issues.

Such belated business shouldn't be necessary, but unfortunately that is the way things are done under the capitol dome in Harrisburg.

The UCC is based on codes developed by the International Code Council, whose members are professionals in construction trades and who meet once a year to consider changes. While a uniform building code is new to the Keystone State, 47 other states already have such laws in effect. They presumably have dealt satisfactorily with the issues surrounding minor repair and renovation projects that are of such concern here at this time.

John Stokes, Butler Township zoning officer, has the right perspective on the issue - that if the new state law had been adopted exactly as written in the International Code Council documents, there would be less opposition and uncertainty now.

"That's where changes to the code system should be made, through the ICC, not legislators who don't have the knowledge and background to understand what the requirements were and why they were in the code," he said.

For the General Assembly's current tinkering to become part of the law, the House and Senate must approve identical bills and the final measure must be signed by the governor. Some lawmakers are hoping that their remedial work can be completed this week or next week; of concern is whether the product of the work will be better or worse than what was produced in 1999.

"I'd love to repeal the whole thing, but we don't have the votes," said state Sen. Don White, R-41st, who represents part of Butler County. Such a radical move isn't necessary if lawmakers merely identify the mistakes made in the new law - mistakes that allow for too much micro-managing by government - and fix the problems before too many people are seriously inconvenienced.

- J.R.K.