COMMENT Some members think the RICS should be dismantled and is too broken to fix. They have every right to feel this strongly. I have a different view and, like many others, want to see a modern, inclusive and effective RICS.
I took the painful decision to step back from direct RICS involvement in April following concerns I had regarding the governing council elections. As a result, I am not in a position to make a fully informed view on the detail of the resignation by all members of the RICS standards and regulation board. Based on what’s in the public domain, there appears to be a stark difference of opinion that led to “dirty laundry aired in public”, which is unfortunate.
SRB members are of the view that it became increasingly difficult to do their job, stating they had repeatedly raised serious regulatory and legal concerns amidst frustration over the implementation of Bichard Review recommendations. The RICS stated in response: “The SRB absolutely has autonomy to set and regulate standards and that has never been and will not be altered”.
The changes the RICS needs to make are not easy and take courage. It may be that what we have observed is a fall-out, flowing from SRB’s inflexibility to embrace change or, possibly, the result of the RICS’s attempts to erode the SRB’s independence and taking an overly rigid approach. Whatever the reality, it’s disappointing that a greater level of emotional intelligence and self-awareness could not have been applied to the matter to avoid the damage that has been caused to the RICS’s reputation.
Main concerns
There are three issues that jump from recent events:
The first concerns the letter from RICS president Ann Gray to SRB chair Dame Janet Paraskeva. The chair of the SRB was requested to attend a meeting to discuss concerns, to decide on the next steps, yet the RICS president stated in her letter: “It is my intention to remove you from the governance role as chair of the standards and regulation board”. The SRB chair in her response understandably stated: “I do not believe I would get a fair hearing and, for that reason, I will not be attending the hearing scheduled to take place later today.” The assumption of guilt stated so openly in a letter prior to a meeting was an uncomfortable read and reminded me that, culturally, the RICS still has some way to go if it feels its behaviour on this matter was appropriate.
Secondly, initial communication with members was poor. The president pushed out, in my opinion, a poorly drafted e-mail to members that came across as trying to downplay the seriousness of the matter. Instead, we had to find out the full details from reading articles in the press, before the RICS issued its own Q&A on the matter. The responses within the Q&A fell short of answering its own questions. It was not clear if resources were removed from the SRB from the response given.
Thirdly, there are also questions around how much GC – which the president also chairs – was informed of the situation, and if its members collectively approved of the letter. It was well documented in the Levitt Review that decisions by the then-chair of GC and ex-president Chris Brooke, regarding the dismissal of the four non-executive directors, were made without discussion with GC and only informing it after the event. This was then repeated by former president Kathleen Fontana when ex-GC members were sent legal letters on false claims of defamation of character, where the GC was only informed once the letter had been sent. Is the RICS repeating the mistakes and the president acting without full board knowledge and approval?
Listen to members
A number of members have said there should be an extraordinary general meeting so the circumstances that led to this situation can be explained to members and that a way forward can be put to a vote. The RICS should respond to this as a matter of urgency.
In the recent GC elections, of the 15 seats that UK & Ireland members should have the opportunity to vote for, they only were able to vote for two – the residential professional group seat and young member seat. Three professional group seats received no candidate applications and 10 seats (eight UK&I geographic seats and two professional group seats), only had 10 applications and all 10 applicants were offered an uncontested seat on GC, meaning members did not have the opportunity to view their election statement, election video, governance competencies and, most importantly, did not have the opportunity to vote for them. Nine of the 10 accepted uncontested seats, and by not being voted in by the membership they do not have a mandate.
I applied for a UK&I geographic seat and was one of the 10 offered an uncontested seat. I took the decision not to accept. I was firmly of the view that at a time when the RICS needs to reconnect with its members and be member-led, as it openly states, to take a seat on GC without a mandate is the wrong thing to do. I asked the RICS if it would reconsider its stance and I offered several alternatives that would give members a vote and give the elections legitimacy – all my proposals were rejected. The RICS applied no flexibility, or gave any indication it was willing to compromise, that would result in it putting members first. We now have a GC that is predominantly made up of members without a mandate. This has, in my opinion, has weakened GC’s overall credibility and the confidence members have in it, especially when having to deal with challenging issues, such as the recent one regarding the SRB.
Myself and many members believe the nine members of GC who accepted uncontested seats should put the RICS and members before their own interests, and collectively agree to a re-run open election before the end of 2023. If this was to happen, it would send a very strong and positive message to members in terms of their importance, as well as the legitimacy of the GC election process.
There’s still hope
The RICS has many passionate and committed members and staff across the UK and beyond doing excellent work on a range of issues to move the RICS to a better place, yet this is not getting the attention it deserves due to continued challenges at the top of the organisation. I was actively involved in the RICS for more than a decade, giving countless days to sit on various boards and working groups, spoke at conferences and drafted articles. All who know me are in no doubt of the passion I have for the RICS. I remain optimistic that at some point in the future my confidence and trust in the RICS will return and I will feel able to reconnect actively.
The majority of members want to see an RICS that can emerge from these challenges as a better professional body that is member-led and best placed to advance the profession and safeguard public interest by promoting high standards of competence and conduct among its members. Hopefully we won’t have to wait too long for this day to arrive.
Anthony Walker is a former RICS UK and Ireland world regional board member, a fellow at the RICS and director at Sircle. He has also held various RICS advisory and professional group board roles, and was the judge for the RICS Young Building Surveyor of the Year awards.
