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.
Douglas Snowden, FRICS, by email.