The President, usually with the active advice of the Board, decides on the agenda. Sometimes the President relies upon a general understanding of issues; on other occasions the agenda of a given administration is designed to continue a long term goal; at times the study decisions reflect input from outside parties, who, recognizing the importance of having the Club issue reports, ask that a particular issue be studied.
A number of examples illustrate the latter. In 1959 President Rudd sent a letter to members of the Board summarizing a meeting that he had with Burl A. Parks shortly before the latter left Richmond that discusses problem areas the Club could investigate. In April, 1970 Alan Kiepper, the city manager, asked the Club to "study and take a position on the pending city budget." Correspondence in May, 1970 between Theodore E. Thornton, Executive Director of the Commission on Human Relations and President Edward R. Parker discusses a possible study of the Commission. Parker said that "Should you and Mr. Doggett reach some consensus as to what an appropriate study might be by the Richmond-First Club, possibly Mr. Doggett may be able to appoint a committee of the First Club to do this study...Generally, the Richmond-First Club has considered itself a study organization rather than one which would implement recommendations resulting from its study." While the state of the Club files preclude more examples of this type of outside pressure, it can be assumed that it has been fairly common.
In its early years the Club advocated, often successfully, such programs as establishment of a public library, a unified toll-free bridge program, a municipal airport, municipal ownership and operation of a stadium, improving the James River channel and construction of a deep water terminal and a central garage for city automobiles.
Reform of government has historically captured the Club's interest and attention. In 1933, under the presidency of Lloyd C. Bird, the Club prepared a comprehensive study of all aspects of Richmond's government. For two years committees studied every department of the municipal administration and submitted detailed reports, which Dr. Raymond Pinchbeck then compiled and edited. Thanks to the strong support of Dr. Douglas S. Freeman, editor of the Richmond News Leader, the paper published the reports, each discussed in detail in front page coverage for thirty days running. The Club also printed the reports in a booklet, "A Study of Richmond City Government," distributed throughout the nation in response to requests from far and wide.
The reports followed a common theme of the need for improvements to the existing strong mayor form of government. The Club advocated recall of the mayor, a unicameral council of seven members, one elected from each of four wards and three at large, professionalization of personnel and consolidation of various agencies. Since the Club recommended changes that undermined the power of elected and appointed officials, the affected public servants ignored most of the proposed reforms. Convinced that a small unicameral council would be more receptive, the Club henceforth concentrated its efforts on that goal.
Rather than continue the struggle to improve the strong mayor form of government, the Club turned to a drive to get a council-manager substitute. It began with a study of Council-Manager government and followed with a recommendation for a nine member council elected at large, a mayor elected by members of council, and a city manager appointed by the council. The press, again with Dr. Freeman's assistance, presented the Club's plan to Richmond voters. Then the Club set out to find allies in the city to help make this ambitious plan a reality.
World War II interrupted the RFC's efforts to build a coalition, but at war's end the Club resumed its activities and played an important role in establishing the Richmond Citizens Association, a group dedicated to bringing council-manager government to the city. In November, 1946 the voters elected a seven man Charter Commission, three of whose members, W. Stirling King, R. Hugh Rudd and Robert A. Wilson had been Club leaders. Lewis F. Powell headed the Commission which, after studying various forms of local government, largely endorsed the Club's recommendations presented in an earlier report. The voters followed suit and in 1948 the city adopted a council-manager form of government.
Ed Hirschler, President of the RFC (1947-48) remembers the events leading up to the charter change. He had been the chair of the Charter Change Committee in 1939-40.
Dean Pinchbeck had done an awful lot of work on it, but it really hadn't been organized... He was sort of like the 'pater familias' of the committee... We came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to get in touch with the League of Virginia Municipalities... And they put us in touch with certain national organizations... And we studied the various types and forms of government and so forth, and came to the conclusion that we ought to go to a strong Council...City Manager...small strong Council with lots of power and a professional City Manager. And we did some preliminary work. Well, along comes World War II, and we turned all our files over to Dean Pinchbeck... When I came back from the service, which was in December, 1945, I started going back to the First Club in 1946. We sort of picked up the loose ends because the time appeared to be ripe... People were already talking about doing a new charter for the City of Richmond, and in a very short space of time we came up with a charter...which we could recommend to the Club... We were very pleased that the consultant that the City hired...adopted 95% of our charter... They just copied the original Richmond-First Club charter... The most important thing that we did is we got out and fought for the charter... You've got to believe that Stirling King would never have been elected mayor if the Richmond-First Club hadn't been out there hustling...In 1986 the Club began examining Richmond's mayoral system and called upon the city to establish a Blue Ribbon Commission, composed of "city residents that accurately reflect the City's population." The Club offered to assist in the selection and work of the proposed Commission, to be charged with studying the Office of Mayor, term of office, method of election and relationship to the office of City Manager. In discussing this effort to reform city government, former president Susan Peterson (1989-1990) noted that the "City Council pre-empted us and appointed members that did not have the proper knowledge and background for service on the commission. No member of the Richmond-First Club was on the commission." Addressing the Club in 1989, former president Jerry M2cCarthy (1984-85) called for a mayor elected at large, since the City needed visibly accountable and inclusive leadership to negotiate effectively with its neighbors. In the same year the Club issued a draft report on election of the mayor. Past president George Peterson (1986-87) co-chaired the committee. He commented upon the Club's inability to effect change through the Blue Ribbon Commission and the lessons learned from that experience.
...realistically we could not expect any movement and also city leadership on the issue had changed; former outs who favor change are now ins, and don't... An outgrowth of this experience with the at-large mayor issue is that it has become recognized that we need to look at the City Charter, adopted in 1947 with few changes since...[We] need a new document that fits these times.One of the Club's strengths is its long term interest and commitment to its issues. Long range planning accounts for much of the Club's success in staying focused on its agenda and periodically the Club assesses its work and its future goals.
In 1980 Hatcher Crenshaw, president of the Club (1979-80), established a Long Range Planning Committee. In his charge to the Committee Crenshaw asked "is the Club making the impact in the community that it can and should...? In the discussion the committee should reflect on the unique or singular purpose of the First Club- that of a government related organization...Should we concentrate our involvement on strictly "governmental" programs or should we incorporate other areas of involvement in our program of work?"
The Committee responded with the following observations:
The competition over the use of land is already occurring in the Richmond metropolitan area. And while various interests promote particular needs-- transportation and highways, waste disposal, parks, housing, and commercial and industrial development, water quality, etc.--no private entity appears to be focusing on the big picture, reconciling use of land in the metro area among the equally valid, but competing needs... It gives substance to our theme of metropolitan cooperation while it encompasses the fiscal, economic and quality of life issues local governments in our area will be increasingly called upon to address.The use of the James River, both as regional water supply and engine for economic development, has been on the Club's agenda for decades.
Robert Buford noted that the Club played a major role in negotiating the agreement between Richmond and Henrico in 1964.
It made no sense to have both the City and Henrico pursuing their separate arrangements to suck up water from the James. It was better to combine efforts and distribute the water fairly according to a formula that would share costs fairly. I was present at a secret meeting--La Vecchia, some half dozen people there from the city and county, As a result of that meeting a contract was agreed to. The work of the Club over time and the publicity that its reports got, helped to create the atmosphere in which a solution was reached.The Club has continued to urge a cooperative solution to using the waters of the James. As Pat McSweeney noted,
We forced to the surface issues that were being submerged in the fight between Richmond and Henrico. The regional implications of that struggle are very important. By airing the issues the Club led the Virginia Chamber and the Capital Area Assembly to take positions on the issues. We formed a coalition of three organizations that forced the hand of the city and the county. We at least gave one issue a regional perspective, in more than an intellectual construct. We made a political issue of it and it got regional attention. The press and the broadcast people began to hound the local officials. I think it changed the way the issue was framed and I think it may change the way the issue is resolved.Economic possibilities the James offers to the region also have attracted the Club's attention. In 1978, at a time when the city appeared to have abandoned any interest in the river, the Club established a James River Committee. In its report the James River Committee noted that "the region and its local governments have shown little willingness or commitment to addressing James River corridor issues either collectively or individually." Following recommendations developed the preceding year, in 1986 the Club hosted a James River Roundtable Meeting. The Roundtable brought together for the first time a diverse group, ranging from the Sierra Club to the Ethyl Corporation, with a common interest in the status and future of the James. A second roundtable under the leadership of Susan Peterson followed in 1987. The March 5, 1987 minutes discuss the James River Round Table, described as a stunning success, noting that Brent Halsey attributed some of the progress made in the city in this regard to the impetus stemming from the Roundtable.
In pursuing its agenda the Club has frequently acted as a facilitator, gathering, exchanging and providing information for others to use in the public interest. At times the Club has debated moving beyond study to some type of action. In 1986 the Board decided that the "Club's role is to study, recommend, serve as a catalyst to encourage others to carry out recommendations and that in some cases, it will be appropriate to pursue the implementation of recommendations. Pat McSweeney commented on this issue.
We had a discussion before I started my term as president about an implementation or advocacy phase, and I felt it was an obvious follow up to what we were doing. We did have some implementation and that was due to the efforts of some of the people having reached conclusions (Brian Farmer, Davis Wrinkle other people involved in the water committee) that we should take some action to prompt people to move. Just by bringing it to the Club in the form of a resolution we could get some implementation. During the period when a vote was scheduled in a local jurisdiction, we asked our members to call their locally elected officials. They did and it made a difference. There was a debate within the Club about whether we should be advocates or get into an implementation of policy or policy proposals. My first acquaintance with the Club was back in the early days when I learned that the Club proposed and advocated the councilmanic form of government to replace the old unworkable bicameral form. We have a history of advocacy, so I hope that we will learn something from this recent experience and not let the education report just sit on the table. It gives some people a good feeling to believe that we can nudge people in public office; we get something from our hard work that has social and political importance and that it is not merely an intellectual exercise. We can pick our shots carefully and continue to do that in a thoughtful way. I think we have a role to play because no one else seems to be filling it.The Club always has sought to expand its influence in the community, either by getting favorable publicity or working with other groups to affect outcomes. A few examples will suffice to illustrate the process.
In his letter dated October 7, 1939 to Stuart White, Club president, Kenneth C. Wood, observes that the RFC is an "ardent advocate of many progressive steps in city government, often appearing before Council and Committees with success...most upon its own initiative and all too often without a great deal of public support, or even interest...This attitude is to be commended, as none of us would want it said with any degree of truth that the RFC sponsored those things which were reasonably sure to be adopted by Council.".. He urged "getting quickly involved in issues in which the people are interested, promptly studying such matters as these and promptly advocating or opposing them..." Wood called for more publicity for the Club so that "if we support other people when they are advocating measures which deserve our support, they in turn will support us. Very often we seem to fight a lone hand, and on many occasions such support as we have worked up has been hard won and has to some extent exhausted the energies and resources of the Club." In his reply of October 9, 1939 White says he agrees and "plans to have the club study a great many questions that will come before our city council. It will be done by small committees quickly appointed, who can go right into the matter as soon as possible....form the basis of news stories for the press, and occasionally the radio...will not only win us lots of friends among other organizations...also keep the name of our club constantly before the public...."
In 1978 Lee Frazier called for an Action Committee that could quickly identify metropolitan issues and develop policy responses. The 1980 Long Range Planning Committee recommended that "we enhance our visibility by urging our members to involve themselves in community activities and publicize this activity." A board member proposed in 1987 that RFC members indicate their other clubs and groups, thus providing a ready list of contacts when needed to present the Club's position on issues.
As might be expected the Club has made a special effort to educate legislators and public officials. In 1959 the RFC sought to influence City Council by having an observer present. "By assigning members of the Club to attend City Council meetings it is felt that the Club can be kept better informed of Council's activities, can have its membership made more aware of Council's operation and can obtain ideas for future study projects." A. Scott Anderson, Mayor, wrote to Ben Johns, RFC president in January, 1960 to thank him for "advising that your group will have a representative sit in on council meetings. I have always thought that this was an excellent idea, and we will be delighted to have any members of your group be with us." Members assigned to attend the Council meetings used the docket of the meeting to take notes on actions of interest to the Club, mailed the docket with their notes to the Councilman, and requested a response or attendance at a Club luncheon. The RFC member attending Council made oral reports to the Club at regular meetings.
The Club's consistent efforts to push area jurisdictions to cooperate on matters of common concern has made local officials more sensitive about working together. A 1989 committee charged with examining attitudes of officials about regional cooperation reported that "while the possibilities are at hand for regional cooperation in the areas of utilities, transportation and economic development, the chances of regional cooperation in the areas of education, housing, social services and land use are not yet on the horizon." Stung by this criticism, Lane Ramsey (Administrator for Chesterfield County), Allan T. Williams (Administrator for Hanover County), William F. La Vecchia (County Manager for Henrico County) and Robert Bobb (City Manager for Richmond) signed a joint letter to the Club.
We have been seeing, hearing and reading recently about the lack of, and need for, regional intergovernmental cooperation in our metropolitan area. We and our predecessors have been working diligently on regional intergovernmental cooperation for many years. We, along with the strong support of our elected officials, believe that we have raised intergovernmental cooperation to a level that should be receiving accolades as opposed to the negative comments that we hear...We realize that maybe the fault was that we have not told our story... [We are] submitting for your information a six page listing of the areas in which our jurisdictions cooperate.The Club also worked to influence other opinion shapers and for many years enjoyed particular success in its relations with the Richmond media. As reported in his history of the Richmond first club, Stuart White notes that the editor of the Richmond News Leader, Dr. Douglas S. Freeman, "was for a long period a confidential adviser to the club. Leaders of the club conferred with him on matters of strategy. He arranged for studies of the club to be reported in his newspaper and his editorials frequently supported proposals advocated by the club." Robert Buford usually circulated reports to the Board of Supervisors and to the City Council, a strategy followed by all RFC presidents. Mike Houston frequently attended Club meetings and often wrote a column in the Times Dispatch that used Club reports as sources. For some years the Club sent a member to the Inter-Club Council, formed of representatives of different clubs. In 1980 WCVE in cooperation with the Club presented a live two hour telecast in which candidates spoke on issues: crime, housing, Project I, education and taxes.
The club's reputation for probity and impartial advocacy of good government sometimes has led others to trade on its good name. In 1978 the Club had endorsed Project I in a vote at one of its meetings. Propaganda issued by the Central Richmond Association and the Richmond Taxpayers Alliance subsequently included the Club among those supporting Project I. This prompted a March 4, 1978 letter from Max Cisne to Ben Johns. "I, like you, was concerned about the promotional material including the Richmond-First Club as a member of the "Richmond Taxpayers Alliance." This was not specifically authorized by me or the Club's board." During his term president George Peterson and the Board reminded the membership that the by-laws restricted to the President the power to make public statements on Club positions.
To underline both its enduring interest in the principal goal of good government and to honor those personifying the effort, the Club has established the Good Government Award. J.Stuart White, a past president, advocated that the Club establish the Good Government Award to recognize annually a citizen of Richmond or its environs who had made an outstanding contribution to the cause of good government. A committee of past presidents put the finishing touches on the proposal and in 1953 the Club made its first award to Sherwood Reeder. With the exception of one year in which no person was deemed worthy of receiving it, the Club has made the award to a citizen, (occasionally two) in the private sector, whose contributions have furthered the cause of good government. A veritable who's who of corporate and civic leaders (including some members of the Club) have been honored in this fashion.
For many years the Club has studied and reported on public education's critical role in shaping the destiny of the Richmond Metropolitan area. The RFC played a major role in putting the Mathematics and Science Center on a firm foundation. Following a series of reports calling attention to challenges confronting the schools, in 1992 the Club established the School-Business Partnership Award to encourage continuing support in the business community for public education. The award helps to focus attention not only on the issues facing the community, but also to acknowledge in a public forum the significant and innovative contributions from the business sector to solving problems.
Careful preparation and analysis of issues characterize the studies issued by the Club. A multi- year study chaired by Jim Doherty (president, 1974-75) provides a good illustration of an in-depth study. Believing that all the local jurisdictions, Chesterfield County, Henrico County and Richmond should be more responsive to their voters, the Club issued a study led by Jim Doherty in 1974 that called for at-large representatives, as well as those elected from a ward or district. The carefully prepared campaign included a study done by a faculty member at VCU, reports on various communities around the United States that had broadened the base of representation through at-large seats, some public commentary and speaking appearances at Club meetings. The Club debated the recommendations before releasing them for public consumption. While none of the jurisdictions studied endorsed the results, the discussion lives on, and surfaces periodically in the Richmond press.
The Richmond-First Club's strategy of study and education, often masks its important contributions to the Richmond metropolitan area's progress. In a few instances the Club's influence has been outstandingly evident, such as occurred in the debate over financing the planned Richmond Expressway System. Stuart White described the Club's role as follows:
In late July of 1969, Richmond newspapers published a story of tremendous importance to the city and its environs.In keeping with its original charge, the Club has dedicated itself to studying issues vital for the metropolitan area's future. Working tirelessly to bring issues to the attention of the public and offering proposed solutions for those vexing problems, the Club has presented literally hundreds of reports to its membership and the public at large, often reaching the latter through the media. Over the past several decades many of those reports support the Club's commitment to the cause of metropolitan cooperation. While other organizations and persons may not share the Club's convictions on this important subject, they respect the honesty and impartiality that characterize these contributions to better understanding.Federal funds will be made available, the story stated, for the construction of a section of the Richmond Expressway System. This system was originally planned to be financed entirely by bonds through the Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA), established to build and operate it, with the bonds to be amortized with revenue from tolls. The original estimated cost was $95 million....
For three years, the Richmond-First Club made extensive studies of all available trafficway reports, which included the Richmond Expressway System. As a result, in October, 1968, the club passed a resolution calling upon Virginia Department of Highways to apply for funds from the Department of Transportation and presented copies to the Governor of Virginia, members of the General Assembly from the Richmond area, Virginia members of Congress and the City Council of Richmond. As a result the federal government paid for 90% and the state 10% of the cost of the Beltline Expressway segment of I-64, to be toll free.
The First Club's resolution represented the first public plea to the RMA and Virginia Department of Highways to seek Federal funds from the 1968 Federal Highway Act. The resolution and subsequent conferences First Club representatives held with the authorities had the effect of focusing the attention of the authorities on this avenue of approach. Prior to that time, RMA planned to finance the entire $95 million Expressway System through bonds to be repaid by toll revenues...