Sircle board director Anthony Walker on why RICS members need their voices heard 

Yet on one of the most fundamental questions of governance, who elects the president, around 140,000-plus members remain excluded from the process and kept in the dark about whether that will ever change.

In May 2025, Harriet Kemp, chair of the Nominations and Remuneration Committee, acknowledge concerns raised by members “about their current level of involvement in this process” and added “the process for the future senior-vice president (SVP) election will be considered as part of the 2025 independent review, with the possibility of change thereafter.” Ten months later, members are still waiting.

At last June’s RICS AGM, it was confirmed that an independent governance review was planned for Q4 2025. In his 8 December 2025 update, CEO Justin Young said the review was due to start before the end of the year and “may have implications for the future governance structure”. There was no mention of how the SVP is elected.

The summary of the Governing Council (GC) meeting on 22-23 January, published on 5 February, confirmed that
the GC had received an interim update on the independent review from consultancy Strat-edgy and had discussed ”the emerging conclusions and areas presently identified for focus”. It noted that final findings were due to be presented to the March 2026 GC meeting.

For an organisation that has publicly accepted members’ concerns about their lack of involvement in selecting the SVP, the absence of any meaningful update is concerning. The issue has really only been acknowledged when members have raised it in public. I have been questioning the presidential election process for several years, including an article in Property Week last April (‘RICS president must have a membership mandate’, Propertyweek.com).

These long-standing concerns have been put directly to RICS leadership in public and at AGMs. Members feel disconnected from, and unrepresented in, one of the most visible leadership choices their institution makes. Each time, the answer has been the same: wait for the next review.

In response to a LinkedIn poll I ran last April asking ‘Should RICS members have a voice and vote in the election of future Presidents?’ 95% voted ‘yes’.

This raises a simple question: why does a professional body that describes itself as member-led need to wait for an independent review, held every five years, before addressing repeated concerns about how its president is chosen?

A modern, outward-facing, member-focused institution would treat this as a live governance priority. It would engage  with members, test options and put forward proposals, rather than parking the issue until the next quinquennial review. If RICS requires the cover of such a review simply
to decide whether members should have a direct say in choosing their president, it suggests a governance culture that is still uncomfortable with genuine member leadership.

The GC was due to discuss the independent review findings on 16 and 18 March. If RICS is serious about rebuilding trust after recent governance crises, this is an opportunity to show that it is prepared to move beyond words and into substantive reform. To do that, it should:​

Publish the Strat-edgy review findings in full without delay.

Communicate directly with members about what the review recommends for the presidential election process.

Set a clear timeline for implementing any changes.

Engage members in the decision about how their president should be elected, through consultation and a meaningful member vote, not top-down imposition.

Members deserve better than silence. They deserve transparency. Above all, they deserve a voice.

Anthony Walker is a board director at Sircle