The RICS has embarrassed itself by refusing to recognise the demand for an extraordinary general meeting on the subject of subscriptions and governance.
Even worse, the governing council has seen fit to take legal advice on ways to thwart the wishes of its members.

The previous vote on the question of subscriptions was carried by a small majority on a very small percentage turnout of the "electorate". The results of that vote were interpreted by the RICS leadership as giving it a mandate to increase fees by about 32%. The number of members prepared to endorse such a call falls not far short of the "ayes" in the original vote, so how can the RICS choose to ignore the call to review the previous decision?

I have read that the need for increased subscriptions has arisen not only to allow the implementation of Agenda for Change (I had very little change out of a cheque for £500 this year) but also because of losses on the stock market and a hole in the RICS' staff pension fund.

It would be interesting to know how much of the 32% increase is allocated to these headings, and how much is directed towards improving services to the members (and, dare I say, owners?) of the institution.