Roofing Consultants: the Help an Architect Needs by D. B. Young In the May 24th Memo, newsletter of The American Institute of Architects, an article entitled “Roof Problems’’, stated: “It is difficult, if not impossible, for the Architect to observe and attest the total application of a roofing in¬ stallation during construction. Most Architects will admit privately, if not otherwise, that they are not experts and tend to relj’ upon someone else for the quality of job they hope to get.’’ The article further stated: “We call for soil experts, concrete testing, reinforcing bar inspectors, struc¬ tural steel inspectors and in many instances a full-time project representative … So why not specify a recognized, reputable roofing expert?” This question was asked by the claims committee of the AIA Architects Liability Com¬ mittee. C Continued on Page 5 Region Meeting Spotlight This is the first of a series of in depth accounts of Region Meetings held recently. In subsequent issues of INTERFACE, one Regional Meeting will be selected for review in detail. Our initial Region Meeting Spotlight will be focused on the meeting organized by Region 3 Director Donald Busch, Sr. The meeting was originally scheduled for the Best Western O’Hara; however due to heavy flooding in the Chicago area, the original meeting site was destroyed and the meeting had to be postponed from September 30, 1987 to October 7, 1987. The location was moved to the Caravelle Motor Inn in Rosemont, Illinois. A total of twenty-six personnel attended the meeting, 17 members and 9 prospective members. Invitation response was over 90 percent with nearly 50 percent of the membership expressing conflicting business activities. The meeting was divided into morning and afternoon sessions. $ During the first segment of the morning session George Kanz, RCI Second Vice President, provided information pertaining to the 1987 Convention and Annual Meeting, the RCI Certification Program and the 1988 Convention — and Annual Meeting. Continued on Page 5 Message from the President Tlieie is important news for RCI Members and other roofing industry members. With deep regret, I will forego my usual inspirational message in order to inform all readers of recent RCI activities and schedules of events. RCI at NRCA Convention in February NRCA has invited RCI to participate in the technical program at the NRCA Convention February 23-26, 1988 in Dallas, TX. The subject of the presentation will be “improving Working Relations Between Consultants and Contractors.” We will present our program twice on Friday after¬ noon, February 26, 1988. The program will have a panel discussion format. Each panel member will make a brief presentation and a question and answer period will follow. The panel members are: Robert W. Phillips, Jr., ADSS, Raleigh, NC panel moderator Robert W. Lyons, PSI, Houston, Texas Richard P. Canon, PE, Canon Consulting & Engineering, Spartanburg, SC Richard Horowitz, AIA, Trenton, NJ Ben Hales, Moisture Systems Inc., Houston, TX This is an outstanding opportunity for construc¬ tive give-and-take. 1 urge you to be there. KLEI Proposes Testing Program RCI has received a proposal from The Roofing In¬ dustry Educational Institute to prepare a “Testing Program” for RCI. The test program would entail a 6-8 hour test encompassing all aspects of roofing technology and some waterproofing. R1E1 has offered a separate proposal for administering and grading the tests and a one day seminar before testing. We will meet with Dick Fricklas at the R1E1 Seminars in Charlotte, NC, January 5-8, 1988, to discuss the proposal further. Members will consider the proposal at Lhe Annual Meeting on March 30, 1988 in San Francisco. My7 personal thanks to Richard Horowitz, Robert Lyons, Ben Hales and others who brought this to fruition. Certification Test A Task Group of the Credentials Committee lias reviewed and revised the national Certification ex- Continued on Page 3 Scandal in BUR-hemia by Philip D. Drepger Tile case had battled the bank for months —mysterious leakage occurred after every rain despite extensive root repairs. As the authorities led the bewildered plumber away, the rooting contractor approached the noted roof consultant and asked. “What gave it awav?” “Elementary, my dear sir. Superimposing the leak loca¬ tions on the roof plan drawing, circumstantially implicated the interior drain lines and close examination of the pipin g wrapped up the case. The offensive leakage was caused not by the roof but by detective connections in the drain lines. .-X methodical yet simple approach to solving roof leakage problems can help the root consultant expose the guilty party. The basic steps of a leakage investigation are: gathering background data, reviewing the roof surface, identifying the suspected sources of leakage and conducting a testing program. Information must be obtained about the leakage pro¬ blem, the building construction and the roofing system. The leakage locations should be observed from below to note the type of construction, water infiltration paths and in the case of steel decks, the direction of the ribs. Infiltrating water can flow considerable distances along decking ribs betore exiting to form an observed leak. Specifics about the problem history should be gathered, in¬ cluding when the problem begins, time of the vear it <<- curs, if wind is a factor and whether repair work lias been effective. Also, the investigator should try -o identify die roofing materials, the approximate age of die roof and whether a vapor retarder has .been provided. Finally, the leakage loca¬ tions should be plotted on a roof plan. The rooftop “walkover” review is probabiv the most familiar step of leakage investigations. 7’he survey includes a general overall review of root conditions, but is concen¬ trated near the areas of reported leakage. Locations of ponding water conditions, mechanical units and unusual surtace conditions (i.e., soft spots i should be superimposed on the diagram of leakage locations. This relatively simple procedure has often helped identify the source of leakage. Other iterns which -should be checked included attachment ,f the tool perimeter, lap integrity ol single ply systems and effective curb heights on retrofit roofs. Sometimes the source of leakage is obvious after perfor¬ ming a rooftop survey. However, the investigation should be continued unless there is total confidence all sources have been identified. The likely sources of the water leakage can usually be identified based on the background information and roof¬ top survey. Additional testing and in-depth review work is necessary to ferret out which factors are actually causing the reported leaks. Without this information, money could be wasted on fruitless attempts to correct the leakage problems. The plan of testing and supplemental review work I should be carefully outlined to confirm and discriminate between the suspected causes. This usually involves some creative thinking. Elements of rhe testing program could include ponding water, water spray testing, test cues and nondestructive moisture surveys. Despite the common suggestion, rainy days are not good days to perform water ponding or spray testing. The possible sources of infiltration should be checked one at a time, progressing “upward”, to accurately differentiate between them. For example, is surficial problems are suspected (e.g., splits, punctures, open laps:, waterpond testing should be done before “spray testing” iterns pro¬ truding above the roof surface. Water Ponding—Water ponding for diagnostic purposes is similar to tests performed on some new rooting probjects. but is usually confined to only small portions of the total roof area. The test includes ponding water over the root membrane near die reported leaks for two hours or less and observing for water infiltration. Bentonite or sand bags can be used to isolate areas of ponding. Water Spray Testing —7’he controlled sprav is used to check the water shedding integrity of base flashing, counterilashing, mechanical units and any other sloping or vertical surface suspected tor water infiltration. 7 he test can be perrormed using a common garden hose with an adjustable nozzle or bv using a specially [abricat edr spray rack. If a garden hose is used, the spray should be adjusted to approximately 12” in diameter and no more than a twenty square foot area should be tested at one time. Typically, the test is conducted for 20-30 minutes at each location. Polyethylene sheeting and duct tape can he used to control overspray onto adjacent rooting com¬ ponents. Poof Cuts — Roof test cuts should not be done unless re¬ quired. Test cuts, however, are essential if the components of a roofing system are not known or if deterioration of the decking is suspected. In addition, if flashing details are confirmed to be sources of leakage, representative portions of the flashings should be dismantled to verify the actual path ol water infiltration and to provide the information necessary to formulate effective repair procedures. Moisture Surveys —Nondestructive moisture surveys are used to identify areas of wet insulation. The pattern of wet insulation can be helpful in pinpointing “hard to find” sources of leakage (i.e., small splits and punctures). Wet insulation should be replaced to lessen the risk of deck deterioration and rusting of mechanical fasteners as well as to re-establish the thermal efficiency of the roofing svstem. Generally, it is a good idea to perform a moisture survey unless the leakage is isolated to or in small areas. Moisture surveys should always be performed when in¬ vestigating roof leakage on roofs with vapor retarders since large areas of insulation could be wet without resulting Ln observable leakage. Message: From Page 1 amination. We thank all persons who took tlie test last year for their comments and critiques. We especially thank Richard Frickias. RIEI, for ■ generously donating his time to review and com- ‘ meat on die examination. The Task Group analyzed 1 all comments and is incorporating them where possi¬ ble into the revised and updated test. ‘ We remind you that, by vote of the Members, all Professional and Industry Members are eligible for Certification. Completion of the education and ex¬ perience portion of the program is prerequisite for taking or retaking the written examination. Certifica¬ tion Program applications are available bv written request to RCI. 742-1 Chapel Hill Rd.. Raleigh. NC 2. 607 . The second seating for the Certification test will be on Monday morning, March 28. 1988. at the Westin St. Francis in 5an Francisco. California. Meeting with NRCA RCI recently met with NRCA to discuss the status oi the NRCA request for endorsement ot the Quali¬ t•y Control documI ent. We received the status of our reply. Members tabled action on the request at rhe Annual Meeting in Orlando. March 25. 1987, We covered the following additional items in a frank and constnicuve discussion: A statement of any sort should be in RCI’s language as approved by RCI Members. RCI should participate in testing, etc. concerning quaiity control of built in roofs. RCI and NRCA should maintain regular liaison. The next revision of the NRCA Roofing & : ‘Waterproofing Manual should contain the Qualitv Control document. IWRCA should send the document to The ■ American Institute of Architects for inclusion in i their master spec documents. , The following action steps have resulted from the meetings: The Executive Committee will prepare a state- , ment concerning RCI endorsement of the Quality , Control document. Members will discuss the state¬ ly ment at die /Xnnual Meeting on March 30, 1988 < in San Francisco. I RCI invited Michael Beldon, NRCA President, to attend the Convention and /Xnnual Meeting to ! participate in discussions concerning the document i as desired. Michael has graciously accepted. I A representative from RCI will participate in and j report to Members on field tests concerning asphalt < application rates. NRCA will conduct these tests in Miami, FL in January in cooperation with Trumbull ■ Asphalt. These are foilow-up tests to earlier joint ■ NRCA/Trumbull tests. RCI and NRCA have established the Liaison Com¬ mittee. The RCI committee makeup is being con¬ sidered by tlie Executive Committee. By-laws are be¬ ing prepared. NRCA committee members are: Robert Harrison, James Dietz, Richard Rosenow and Bob LaCosse. New Board of Directors The Executive Committee announced it’s proposal lor an expanded Board of Directors in tire previous issue of the Interface Newsletter. The proposed Board of Directors will consist of seven Region Directors, the Officers, and the three most recent Past-presidents. Region Three elected William B. Earlv, Illinois Roof Consulting Associates. Inc., 4302-G Crystal Lake Road. McHenry, IL 60050, 815/385-6560 as Director. Other Regions may choose to elect their Director at the Convention in San Francisco, or bv mail ballot of the Region Members. RCI at Researcii Meeting Ben Flales. RCI First Vice-President, Moisture Systems Inc., Houston. TX, participated in the re¬ cent Research forum sponsored by NRCA and MBS. Ail forum participants were roofing industry leaders and tlie output of their gathering will benefit each of us and the roofing industry. RCI and SPRI Convention in January Richard P. Canon. PE, immediate Past-President of RCI. Canon Consulting & Engineering, Spartanburg, SC. will address the Single-Ply Roofing Institute. SPRI will meet January 23-27, 1988 at Bonaven¬ ture Resort & Spa. Fort Lauderdale, FL. Dick will i speak on “Modified Bitumen—The ‘Hot’ Alter¬ native.” I do not consider Dick to be contentious, but I will say that I have never known Dick to back down from a position in which he strongly believes. i If I were you, I would plan to be in Fort Lauderdale for this presentation. ■ As I write this, Christmas is two days off. Even j when things are flowing smoothly and caught up, i my output can best be characterized as “just in I time.” This year will end leaving me with about 1 two more months of work to get out—choke—sob. Best wishes for the Holiday Season. See you in San Francisco! Robert W. Phillips, Jr., President Robert F. Martin This is the third of our series of RCI Super stars. Bob Martin is one of our most hardworking and active RCI members. Ue is currently Director of Region I. It was a quiet day in the Sports Department when the boss came in and handed me the lead for my latest assign¬ ment, an interview with a guy who coached soccer in his spare time. There wasn’t much info to go on, just the basics—Robert F. Martin. Born New York City, September 16, 1942. I knew what I had to do. I found Martin standing on the sidelines of the soccer field during a practice game. His team looked pretty good. I introduced myself and he agreed to an interview. “Tell me, Mr. Martin, how did you get in¬ terested in the game?” “Well, my initial contact was with Owens-Coming Fiberglass in the Industrial-Commercial Division.” “Owens-Corning?” “Yes, from there I went to work at Bradco Supply as a General Sales Manager. During that ime I was an officer in the New Jersey Roofing Industry Association and came to love the industry and its participants and its challenges.” I had the feeling’ one of us had taken a hard left in the conversation. “Excuse me, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone refer to soccer as ‘the industry’.” “No, neither have I. But getting back to roofing. . . ” “Roofing?? What about soccer?” “Soccer? Oh, it’s a great game. But as I was saying, in 1973 it was evident that the industry was changing. There was a growing need to help people with all their roofing problems from the original design stage through their replacement stage. Thus the birth of Roof Maintenance Systems.” I could see we had a problem. I looked for an opening. “That’s great coach, but what about that team of yours today? They’re looking pretty good so far.” “Why, thank you. I have to admit, I’m very proud of the progress we’ve made over the last fourteen years.” “Fourteen years? Gee, Mr. Martin, I didn’t realize you had that much experience out here.” “Oh yes. Naturally, we started out in the immediate area, New York and New Jersey, but we’ve practically been all over North and South America—Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico. And there are currently plans in the works that would take us to the United Kingdom and Brazil. “Brazil? You’re kidding me. You mean the World Cup?” Martin laughed. “World Cup? No, we’re good, but not that good: I don’t mind telling you though, I did receive the Engineer Of The Year Award from the AIPE.” “Really?” I reached for an antacid. “Yes, I’m very proud of that. But personal achievements are only part of the story. Working with other dedicated professionals in the field also has its rewards. I believe, by working together, we were in¬ strumental in getting the State of New Jersey to introduce Roofing Consultants into their Division of Building and Construction. Currently, the State of New Jersey cites membership in a professional organization such as RCI as a criteria for their selection of Roof Consultants.” At this point I heaved a somewhat defeated sigh and asked “RCI?” “The Roof Consultants Institute, in which, by the way, I’m currently working as director of Region One. I first became interested in RCI in 1983, after a seminar given by Bob Phillips and Bob Lyons in Newark, New Jersey. I liked the commitment shown by its officers. And, I was impressed by their approach of working towards the bet¬ terment of the industry as opposed to self-centered goals. We should strive to do all we can to improve the industry where we earn a living. “Yeah, I see what you mean,” 1 said, studying my shoes. “Those who become involved in this business quickly come to realize what the rest of us already know, which is that education is a large part of this industry. Over the years I’ve not only attended, but have given numerous seminars in roofing, such as the one at the National Plant Engineering and Maintenance Conference in Chicago. I’ve also produced articles for Building Management as well as the AIPE library.” At this point, even 1 had to admit, this guy really was dedicated. . . “It sounds like you know all the ins and outs of roofing.” “I wouldn’t say all. There’s always something new to learn. Over the years, of course, you do build up a body of knowledge, including a few tricks of the trade. For in¬ stance, I’ve discovered some warning signals that indicate when a project may be headed into some dangerous ter¬ ritory.” “You mean, if you see a water stain on the ceiling it means there’s a leak in the roof?” Somehow my integrity as a sports reporter began slipping away. “No, no. Nothing that obvious. These come in the form of a few choice phrases you hear people say. I’d be happy to share them with you —if you’re really ’nterested.” “Oh, 1 am, I am.’’ Oh my god, what was I saying? “Alright. There are five phrases that always put me on my guard: ‘1) 1’11 give you a 20 year guarantee’ ‘2) I’ve never had a problem on any of my roof jobs’ ‘3) This roof system will solve all your problems’ ‘4) I’ve been doing roofing. for 50 years and 1 know all there is to know about roofing’ ‘5) I’m an expert’ .” Smiling, I shook my head. “You know Mr. Martin, “Call me Bob.” “Thanks. Well, Bob, I have to say, if you’re as single minded about coaching soccer as you are about roofing, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find your team at the World Cup.” He raised his eyebrows to consider the possibility. And, sportsfans, that’s a wrap. Editor ‘s Note: In his leisure time, Bob Martin coaches the Jackson Vics, a girls soccer team that includes his daughter, the star forward. Thank You Cooley This issue of the RC1 Newsletter is sponsored by COOLEY ROOFING SYSTEMS, another manufac¬ turer of fine roofing products which has seen (it to support our organization. Roofing Construction: From Page. 1 Along with the decision to select a roof consultant, the architect must decide what type of roof consultant to utilize. Roof consultants fall into three broad categories. The first is that of the exroofing subcontractor or exroofing material representative. The second category is that of the independent testing laboratory. The third is comprised of Architect/Roof Consultants. These roof con¬ sultants are, in fact, architects who, through additional formal training and continued experience, have specialized in the design of roof membrane and construction ad¬ ministration of their installation. The latter group is the most knowledgeable about building systems and best qualified to make decisions relating to the interface of both roof membrane and roof deck. Furthermore, the Archi¬ tect/Roof Consultant is knowledgeable in the preparation and coordination of drawings and specifications due to his architectural background. . Jin selecting a roof consultant, the architect should use x.* same approach that he does in selecting other specialized consultants. The architect should review the consultant’s qualifications in depth. Specialized training should include additional educational courses through the National Roof Consultant’s Association, the Roofing In¬ dustry Educational Institute and other continuing profes¬ sional education courses in roofing. A review of the con¬ sultant’s construction documents provides the architect with an insight into the quality of documents to be ex¬ pected. In addition to a review of the consultant’s con¬ struction documents, tire architect should examine the qualifications of the field inspectors, as well as examples of field reports. Paralleling the architect in his services, the roof consul¬ tant should interface at all project phases. In the preliminary design phase, the roof consultant can have in¬ put to the structural engineer as to the selection of the structural deck for interface with the roofing membrane; coordination which the plumbing engineer as to the design of storm water system for interface with the roof drainage layout; input to the mechanical engineer in the selection of roof insulation. For the architect, the preliminary design decision of roof membrane and flashing system is the most significant decision made with the roof consultant. In the construction document phase, the roof consultant will prepare a comprehensive roof plan, indicating all roof top equipment and penetrations with complete flashing details for all conditions. The specifications prepared would both be current and tailored to the membrane details drawn. During the bidding/negotiation phase of the project, the roof consultant would be responsible for answering the bidders’ questions regarding the documents relating to the roof membrane and preparation of addendum items, if re¬ quired. To begin the construction administration phase, the consultant would review and process submittals and be responsible for the roofing pre-construction conference prior to the beginning of the roofing installation. Upon commencement of the roofing installation, the roof consul¬ tant would provide periodic site visits to observe the con¬ struction. Upon completion of the roofing subcontractor’s work the roof consultant would perform a substantial in¬ spection, followed by a final completion inspection. Prior to final acceptance by the architect, the roof consultant would perform an additional “roof walk-over” to insure that the roof was not damaged during subsequent con¬ struction. The previous tasks discussed are representative of nor¬ mal roof consulting services for a roof and/or a new building. Roof investigation of an existing building prior to an extensive interior renovation project, is another service that architects could utilize. For architects providing building maintenance services to the firm’s clients, the roof consultant’s periodic roof inspections can compliment the architect’s services. In addition to periodic site visits, the roof consultant can provide a full-time project , representative during the roofing installation. In summary, now is the time for the architect to add the roof consultant to tire design team to assist in answer¬ ing the critical question of roofing design and installation. Effective Trail Testimony for the Roofing Consultant by James B. Irwin. Attorney, New Orleans, LA The three key elements of effective trial testimony for the rooting consultant are 1) understanding the proper role of the roofing consultant as a witness. 2″‘ exhibiting the appropriate demeanor to the judse and the jury, and 3) doing the necessary preparation for an effective presen¬ tation. The role of a roofing consultant on the witness stand, is that of a teacher, not an advocate. The finder of fact, whether judge or jury, is not experienced in matters of rooting, hence, our system provides tor the testimony of an expert, who, by virtue of his experience and training, can express opinions on questions which are not ordinarily known by the Jay public. As such, the roofing consultant’s job is to teach the trier of-tact about the roof¬ ing business and technology, and express an expert opinion on the facts ol the particular case at hand. It is the lawyer’s job to advocate a position for the client, and not the expert’s, yet the expert must be firm to be convincing. Balancing strength and impartiality is where demeanor comes in. and the most appealing de¬ meanor is one that -irmly conveys the opinion without un¬ necessary argument, ail expressed on an even level with counsel. That is to say. neither above nor below counsel, but on an equal level. It is essential that the expert treat opposing counsel with the same respect as he treats the at¬ torney who has retained him. Without minimizing the importance of the role of the roofing consultant, and his demeanor .is an expert witness, clearly the most important element is his preparation. A .good presentation on the witness stand Joes not come about lay accident, it’is the result or a partnership of hard work between the roofing consultant and counsel. Accord¬ ingly. this article will present in checklist form the basicsteps in the preparation for trial. Although most cases set¬ tle, the consultant should approach ever/ case from the beginning with the view that he will testify in court. INVESTIGATION I. Initial Contact and Exchange of Information Counsel should familiarize the rooting consultant with the tacts, law and issues in the case. Preliminarily, there should be a discussion regarding any potential conflicts of interest and thereafter an outline of the consultant’s charges and rales. Usually the consultant will have to be retained on a preliminary basis, since it cannot be known at the early stages whether the consultant’s opinions will be favorable to the attorney’s client and position. Accord¬ ingly, the roofing consultant and counsel should be prepared to exchange information to determine the scope of the work to be performed by the consultant. Counsel should provide the consultant with significant pleadings, contract documents and specifications, photographs and any other materials that would aid in providing a preliminary review for the consultant. On the other hand, the consultant should provide counsel with excerpts of ap¬ propriate treatises, industry information, manufacturers’ material or any other professional documentation that would aid counsel in appreciating the consultant’s poten¬ tial role in the case and the ultimate issues that the con¬ sultant would be called upon to render an opinion. 2. Preliminary Review Upon preliminary review of the case information, it should be resolved whether the consultant is likely to be able to express an opinion consistent with counsel’s posi¬ tion. If the consultant foresees any potential problems in representing this particular party, now is the time to con¬ vey them to counsel. 3. Planning Conference The consultant and counsel should have a face to face meeting to plan the consultant’s role in the case. That discussion should include an outline of the plans for nature handling, such as the deposition schedule for the excert, if known, the potential trial date, the period of time for con¬ ducting discovery of documents and witnesses and how the work of the consultant will fit into that litigation schedule. The comerence should also contain a discussion of the type of documentation which should be reviewed bv the consultant, the planning of inspections and sampling by the consultant, including the necessary preparation or documents, roof plans, samples and photographs, and the .selection of a laborator/ tor sample analysis, if necessary. Counsel and the consultant should also discuss at this time if it will be necessary to prepare a formal report. •i. Inspection / Sampling. Photographs It is not the purpose of this article to teil a roofing cansuitant how to do his job. except to advise, from a trial standpoint, that all tindings ot the consultant should be well documented and the consultant should prepare these documents mindful that opposing counsel and the jure wiil most likely have access to them. 5. Report By now the consultant s expert inspection and analysis is usually complete, and he is in a position to express an opinion and finding to counsel. This should be done first in oral form, and then by written report if required. DEPOSITION At this point the consultant’s initial work is complete, and in all probability, opposing counsel will want to take his deposition. The roofing consultant should welcome this as an opportunity to get to meet the opposing counsel. In many respects, the deposition can be a dress renearsal for the trial testimony, hence, the preparation for the deposition may substitute in some respects for the trial preparation. The following steps should be taken to prepare for the deposition, and if the consultant is not deposed, they should be done prior to trial. 1. . Review of important depositions taken in the case. 2. Review of contract documents. ■ 3. Review of manufacturer’s documents. -1. Review of photographs and laboratory reports. 5. Potential prior inconsistent statements. 6. Cross-examination. The consultant and counsel should prepare a list of all points on which there may be an- ‘ ticipated cross examination. 7. Preparation of file. The consultant’s file, including his . field notes, photographs, lab reports and final report, if any. should be appropriately prepared for rhe deposition so that it will be readily available to the consultant and to ail counsel. In some jurisdictions, the disclosure of the consultant s fiie is limited in certain respects. This would have to be taken up with counsel on an in¬ dividual basis. In any event, what is produced should be put in a professional and usable form. The Joys of Being an Expert Witnes by Victor Bedibion. Roof ConsiiltorH “Oh joy. oh rapture unforeseen.” oh little did vou know when you wrote that report, a year and one-half apo. on that leaking built-up roof, that one day you would be call¬ ed to task on ail those opinions and conclusions you so easily came to at the time. Here now. in a crowded cour¬ troom. a judge before you. a jury to the side of you and a hostile attorney advancing toward you with the sole pur¬ pose of discrediting you. here now those words vou Hibiv wrote down, you will have to justifv. Does it sound familiar? Fore most of us who have chosen roof consulting as our profession, it is an inevitable experience. Is it an experience we can enjov? For the con¬ sultant who enjoys the challenge of a professional ‘ ‘matching-of-wits.” serving as an expert witness is an enjoyable experience. If not. it can be a humiliating and trustrating experience with a likely temporary loss of seif continence. It is not enough to have knowledge and experience in roofing matters, you must also be able to convev this ex¬ pertise m a concise and understandable manner to a jurv. A jury is often in the position of having little, if anv background in the area covered by the expert witness testimony. The expectation of the lawyer who retained the Roof Consultant is that he or she will have a pivotal im¬ pact on the decision rendered by tire judge or jurv. To have this impact, communication must occur. Based on my own experience and of other experts I have talked with, here are some suggestions which mav help to make the most positive effect on the deliberations of the court. Be professional, candid, and sincere. If unable to res¬ pond to a question, say so. If unsure about a question, re¬ quest clarification. Avoid ambiguity, memory failure and misperceptions. Be patient and maintain a sense of humor. If the occasion arises for levity, provide it. 1 lowever, forced humor is worse than no humor at all. Do not argue with the opposing counsel, and even worse, do not argue with the judge. You must realize that you are a novice playing in their ballpark under their rules. You have got to play it straight and prepare thoroughly. Cases are won or lost on the credibility of the witness not on his brilliance. Speak slowly in a clear voice. Be confident but not cocky. Avoid using technical jargon. Use visual aids such as charts, drawings and photographs to simplify technical matters. Explain complex construction conditions simpiv and without condescension. Don’t become argumentative, defensive or sulky when the opposing attorney appears to gain the upper hand. Let him have his moment. Keep calm and professional. Remember, the consultant’s attorney has the option of re¬ direct testimony to repair any damage incurred during cross examination. Don’t pretend to Ire an expert in ail matters. The witness stand is an inappropriate place to discover a lack ot expertise. Try to be realistic about your own abilities and knowledge. A good opposing counsel will deflate your ego and destroy your testimony if there is no substance in your claim to be an expert. Fees charged by the Roof Consultant should be based on time expended and the complexity of the case. Thev should never be dependent on a percentage of die recover.-. Contingent fees for expert testimony will certain¬ ly impair testimony, and worse, may be illegal. The expert Roof Consultant should be familiar with the rules of evidence. In particular, he should know something about the legal term “hearsay”. It is entirely possible that die laboratory tests he had made or the calculations by an employee of his firm which he incorporated in his report, may be declared as “heresay” bv the trial judge. If no one from die testing lab was at the trial who had personal knowledge ot the test procedures to authenticate the reports, the reports will not be adrnissable as evidence. If the employee who made the calculations was not under your close personal supervision, or in court to testify, the calculations will not be adrnissable as evidence. The Roof Consultant must be very careful on the procedures he follows, always keeping an eye on the fact that the evidence he is collecting must be in a form acceptable to the rules of the court. Report on Regional Meetings The Regional Directors are to be commended for their work in organizing and conducting the Meetings. Also, a special thank-you goes out to the RCI Officers who assisted the Region Director during the Meetings. Finally, we want to express our appreciation for all those who at¬ tended and participated in the Regional Meetings. The following is a brief review of recent RCI Regional Meetings held during 1987. Region 1 Director: Robert Martin, Roof Maintenance Systems. Farmingdale. New Jersev Date: October 9, 1987 Place: Holiday Inn Jetport, Newark, New Jersev Program • Review of Institute Business, current and Agenda: future • Review of the Certification Program • i echnical Session on Polyurethane Foam Roofs presented by George O’Donnell of Dow Corning • Technical Session on Roof Fasteners by Stan Choiniere of Olympic Fasteners • The election of a new Regional Director will be held during the 1988 National Convention in San Francisco Region 2 Directors: D. B. Young, D. B. Young & Assoc., Altamonte Springs, Florida Joe Hale, Roof Consultant Services, Dublin, Virginia Date: November 6, 1987 Place: Airport Marriott, Orlando, Florida Program • Review of Institute Business, current and Agenda: future • Review of the Certification Program • Roof Fastener Program presented by Tim Eason of Trinity Group Fastening Systems • Roundtable discussions on fee structures, roof reports and contracts Region 3 Director: Donald Busch Sr., Illinois Roof Consulting Assoc., McHenry, Illinois Date: October 7, 1987 Place: Caravelle Motor Inn, Rosemont, Illinois Program • George iKanz, RC1 Second Vice President, Agenda: provided information pertaining to pre¬ vious and future National Conventions, annual meetings and the RCI Certification Program • David Rich of Owens-Corning Fiberglas made a technical presentation on Modified Bitumen Systems • Paul Nimtz, representing RCl’s Educational Services Committee and the American Iron and Steel Industry provided a two hour over- % view of the metal roof industry • William Early of Illinois Roof Consulting Assoc, was elected to serve as the new Director for Region 3 Region 6 & 7 Directors: Region 6 — Harold Larsen, Roof Systems Engineering, Fresno, California Region 7 — Harold Crooks, Roof Consultant and Inspection Service, Edmonds, Washington Date: October 14, 1987 Place: Hyatt Hotel, Oakland Airport, Oakland, California Program • Report by Jim Magowan, Secretary of RCI, Agenda: on attendance at the 1987 RCI Conv L > I-,’1! veptijyi aF Orlando, Florida, including the oj results of the new RCI Certification Tests ■ for roof consultants. • Seminar on Metal Roofing presented by Paul Nimtz, a representative of American Iron & Steel Institute • Report by Harold D. Larsen, RCI Region VI Director, on attendance at the meeting of the Legal Resource Center of the National Roofing Contractors Association at Palm Springs, California on September 18 and 19, 1987′ • Report by Harold D. Larsen, Chairperson of RCI Legal Information & Resources Committee, on “Latent and Patent Defects of Construction and California Laws”. Future RCI Regional Meeting Schedule Below is the latest regional meeting schedule dates and locations that we have received from our Regional Direc¬ tors. Please feel free to contact your Regional Directors directly with any questions, comments, or suggestions you may have for these upcoming programs. We are sure any help and support you can provide these organizers would be greatly appreciated. Region 4 Director: Chris Clarke (214) 631-4372 Date: February 9, 1988 Place: Hyatt Regency – West Tower, DFW Airport Topics: Expert Witness Testimony and Related Topics Meeting: From Page 1 formerly with Dergibum America gave an excellent generic discussion of the technical aspects of modified bitumen, both SBS and APP, concentrating on the strengths and weaknesses of both systems, and providing historical performance data. Mr. Rich provided a very in¬ teresting discussion which sparked many questions from the audience and he responded with very direct and thorough answers. Our thanks to Mr. Rich and OCF for a job well done. During the afternoon session Paul Nimtz, representing RCl’s Educational Services Committee and the American Iron and Steel Institute, provided a two hour overview of the metal roof industry’. Paul’s invigorating presentation was the highlight of the annual meeting and was par¬ ticularly well received by those planning to take the Cer¬ tification Examination in March 1988. This program is highly recommended as a training tool for all Regions. At the conclusion of the meeting all voting members were assembled to elect a new Director to replace Donald Busch, Sr. Nominations were solicitated from the membership and William Early of Illinois Roof Consulting Associates, Inc. was unanimously elected to serve as the Director of Region III and serve on the RCI Board of Directors for a period of three years. Mr. Early assumed his new position immediately. Tentative plans were discussed to hold the next annual meeting at approximate¬ ly the same time next year.
