While QSs must thank Building for its coverage, the real shame is that the institution does not provided a platform for protest. Had HQ shown more sensitivity to the growing disquiet, the move towards a further EGM as a means of getting redress, and the harmful publicity, could have been avoided.
A professional institution exists primarily to maintain standards of that profession so that society can recognise and trust those who offer their skills on the market. The RICS must ask itself if it is becoming too big, too remote from its membership. If so, it becomes a bureaucracy of powerful and power-hungry officials who come to regard their existence as an end in itself, rather than a means of satisfying the needs of the members they nominally serve.
Agenda for Change was over-expensive, led us in the wrong direction, abandoned core values – and isn't working. The institution makes ritualistic noises that it wants feedback. But it did not respond to my suggestion that RICS become a federation of individual professions that could draw on the centre for provision of administration and common services. How many other members were similarly ignored in a headlong rush to fulfil an agenda already fixed?
It is gratifying to see that that one member, Jeremy Hackett, stands up to be counted. Although I agree with much of what he writes, I could take issue with some of his beliefs. If this sounds ungracious to one who has the stamina to return our institution to sanity, I make the point only to plead for a wider forum of debate before we commit the RICS to yet more upheaval. Let's try to get it right this time.
Malcolm Taylor, via email.