黑洞社区

It appears that the worm may be turning. But many questions arise before we act.

If there is a realistic chance that QSs will have the courage to break away from the institution, I want my say. The rebels comprise a minute group out of 40,000 QS members. How will we be consulted?

And would we form a completely independent institution? Or would we seek to attach to an existing body? Fairly recently the CIOB offered the hand of friendship, and I have long felt an affinity with the RIBA.

We badly need a professional body which will truly advance a great and influential profession. But, first, some consultation, please.

To learn that we pay our chief executive more than 拢400k per annum is obscene. It is disheartening evidence that we have allowed so much power to pass to the staff of a machine that has been of so little benefit to 40% of its membership.

Malcolm Taylor

I pay my 拢400+ per year and receive nothing for it. I am deeply offended by Max Crofts鈥� ill-informed comment about disgruntled board members. If he was a worthy president he would hear them out and endeavour to affect change; not propose they left so he could have an easy life.

Neil Watson

The RICS鈥� seemingly insatiable commercial thirst for growth has not reaped lower unit membership costs for members, just a lowering of standards through ongoing amalgamation of anyone loosely connected to property in its broadest definition. When will we be welcoming car boot and second hand car sales persons?

This loose club has served us very poorly over the years. Let鈥檚 have some brave leadership from those industry QSs stirring and serious consideration of breakaway and exploration of links with more relevant representative parties.

David

The RICS should beware the silent majority who up until now have kept quiet not through lack of interest but because they are fed up of shouting at the wind. Who found all these odd-bod institutions to join the RICS? I am sure most members are not even aware of their existence yet they are offered the status and letters we have worked and paid for for many years. And the salaries 鈥�

The Silent Majority

The RICS鈥� response shows how utterly out of touch they are with the membership. This is not about a few committee members, it鈥檚 about thousands of unhappy members. When QS employers stop paying the annual fees, all will become clear. Wake up RICS leadership!

Gary

While I do not agree with Max Crofts that only a few disgruntled 鈥渙ld members鈥� are instigating this, I have to say that some of these members are themselves to blame for such lowering of standards. Most of the companies do not care about providing quality training for APC candidates, with the exception of a few like Faithful + Gould.

Allowing just about any BSc holder with a mathematical background to join the RICS is also a mistake as the conversion courses do not really teach these guys the basics of quantity surveying.

Jean-Luc

The RICS should concentrate on what it was supposed to do; not seek out commercial partnerships that it feels would top up the coffers. QSs I am sure could do a better service to each other if they left the RICS.

John Johnson

At last, someone is taking this seriously. The RICS offers very little support to the QS profession. Anything that may be of interest is at a premium cost. What are we paying our subscription for? 黑洞社区 and other magazines provide better legal updates.

Mathew