The RICS debate

The Attack

Thank you Launce for putting into print what many of us have been saying since Agenda For Change. The RICS has become remote from the membership and the secretariat appears intent on following its own agenda without consideration of whether that is what the members want.

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought the RICS was a body to serve its members, not the other way round. You are quite correct that many members are looking round for alternative bodies to pay their hard earned subscriptions to and there are many of us QSs who would have been hammering on the door of the IQS had it still existed.

I must refute the claim by Rob Mahoney that ‘significant improvements’ have been made to members. I can only comment on my local area, the old Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire branch, but prior to Agenda For Change, the divisions all ran active CPD and social events and had some success with engaging the membership generally. Since Agenda For Change, funds were centralised, an additional bureaucratic layer added (East Midlands Region, more staff, offices, etc.) but the delivery to the members has reduced.

There are now less events to attend and, more to the point, the content is less relevant than when the members were directly involved in their selection and organisation.

I was proud to be elected as a member of the RICS back in 1981 and served on the Notts and Derby QS committee from 1992 to 2001(Chairman from 1998 to 2000, Branch Committee member from 1998 - 2000, and an elected member of the East Midlands Regional Board from 2001 to 2002.

I trust, therefore, that my comments are read as a previously active member, who has tried to put something back into the RICS, but is now very disillusioned with the current state of the RICS. I would be quite happy to debate the above with Rob Mahoney, or any other representative of the RICS.

Nigel Tate, sole practitioner.

The Defence

You reported last week comments made by the former RICS Construction Faculty Chairman which contained a number of personal opinions and inaccuracies. I would like to set the record straight.

I am aware that some members are dissatisfied with the lack of professional information and support they receive from the construction faculty. We are able to track this annually through the membership survey.

We have been working with the construction faculty board to develop a work programme which will improve the range of services and support we provide to our members. This started at the end of last year.

But this is not the only benefit of RICS membership. The faculty works closely with other areas of RICS including public affairs on influencing decision makers at a European and UK level, marketing to promote surveying as a career and recruit students into the profession and education on promoting the right degree courses. We also support the development of isurv construction, a unique online source of RICS best practice guidance on construction surveying matters.

In addition, it is by speaking as one body representing a diverse range of chartered surveyor specialisms worldwide that we can influence the political agenda affecting this profession, talk with credibility to a whole range of stakeholders such as the Construction Industry Council and attract the surveyors of the future. This benefits all members, including those working in the construction sector.

Financially, there is better control in RICS than there has ever been. Budgets are agreed and decided by the strategy and resources board, a committee of RICS’s governing council, the institution’s member governing body. All decisions on resources are taken by members and are subject to proper audit processes.

Despite some of the claims, membership retention is over 96 per cent for the last two years which shows that most members value the benefits of belonging to the RICS. We will continue to work hard to improve our service to all our members and we are building on a sound base.

Yours faithfully

Rob Mahoney, Chair, Faculties and Forums Board, RICS