The first adjustment in the eligibility requirements came in a by-law change announced in December, 2, 1958. The amendment stated that "No person shall be eligible for membership in the club unless he is a qualified voter with the exception of a person who because of residence or citizenship is ineligible to vote." This rather odd modification is explained by a later statement in the Board minutes that "because of the desirability of membership of a resident alien, a motion was made and carried to amend the by-laws to qualify such persons for membership..." Having concluded that citizenship was not really necessary, the Club could address a more important issue: citizenship in the city of Richmond as a requirement.
As migration accelerated into the surrounding counties during the 1950s, the Club recognized the need to expand its definition of Richmond. The 1942 Letterhead featuring the Club's motto "to develop constructive citizenship," placed around its city hall logo, gave way to a new motto "citizens concerned with study and improvement of metropolitan area government." Revised by-laws made residents of the greater Richmond area eligible for active membership. By the 1960s an increasing number of citizens from Henrico and Chesterfield county had joined the Club. The President of the Club in 1960, Robert Buford, lived in Henrico County. In the late 1970s the Board redefined Richmond to mean the city, and the counties of Henrico, Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, New Kent and Powhatan. One of the Club's active members lived in Bowling Green and was allowed to stay under a grandfather clause, but the Board declared that the Club's definition of Richmond stopped short of Bowling Green. In 1978 the Club changed its by-laws to "allow persons holding elective or appointive positions in local metropolitan government to apply for associate membership, such members not having voting privileges." In making these adjustments the Club recognized the growing strength of the counties vis a vis the city. Issues metropolitan and regional in nature appealed to a Club that increasingly drew its membership from county residents.
At the same time that the Club broadened its thinking about the relationship between the city and surrounding counties, it began a cautious movement toward opening membership to Richmond's black community. Before that could happen, the Club, like the rest of Richmond, had to work its way through desegregation.
The Minutes of October 19, 1954 report that " it was decided that the problem of segregation and public facilities such as schools and playgrounds presented a vital enough question for study by the Club and it was agreed that one or two members of the Board should study the problem further to determine whether or not the Club should form a committee on the subject."
In February, 1955 the Bulletin announced that the Board had authorized Hugh Rudd to form a committee to study the problem of school segregation as it affects Richmond. Later in the year Rudd's Schools Committee issued its report. It noted that "approximately six months ago this committee commenced the task of studying 'the Problem raised in the Richmond Public Schools by the Supreme Court Decision on Segregation; and Attempting to Develop Certain Constructive Ideas Aimed at Its Solution.' This was a rather broad and anything but definite assignment."
The group decided to examine the experience in other cities that had
once operated under a completely segregated system but have recently attempted compliance with The Supreme Court decision in varying degrees, hoping to discover various methods and procedures which have been used and also the results of different policies varying from nominal compliance with the decision to wholesale enforced integration. It was the original aim of the Committee to study the material available...to apply our findings to the situation in Richmond, geographically and otherwise and to recommend to the Club some policy directed toward the continued efficient operation of our schools in light of the recent Supreme Court decision.The Bulletin of February 21, 1956 (Buford being the editor) cited the Davis case in which the court said "there is no purpose reasonably relevant to good government which justifies the classification of school children according to race. As a result Richmond may not now lawfully exclude any child from one of its public schools solely on account of race." Buford (who served on Rudd's committee) continued.Such a policy must have the support of a major portion of the city. It must at least have the support of the First Club. As our studies commenced, it at first seemed that there might be such a solution; as our hearings progressed, however, it became apparent that there was no single policy which the Committee could recommend to Richmond... Instead we report on the results of our investigation for benefit of the Club and recommend no specific course of action.
The Board felt that the importance and seriousness of this matter [desegregation] warranted discussion at a dinner meeting and hence the change in time. ...It is needless to say that in this important matter the thinking of the entire membership is needed so that all members are urgently requested to be present. This will be a closed meeting to which the press and guests will not be invited.
Our committee which reports this week has been working for some time on the problems in the wake of this decision. If it has come up with an answer satisfactory to the great number of our citizens who favor continued segregation and to the federal courts, it will have assured not only its place but that of the First Club in the history of the South and the hearts of its leaders.In another statement in the Bulletin of February 28, 1956 Buford continued the report on the schools.
This Committee's report provokes mixed reactions: it deserves praise for the intense effort and thoughtful study which the Committee has given the subject; it solicits sympathy for the tremendous difficulty of the assignment, it can be criticized as incomplete since the report tells us nothing about the situation here in Richmond, and it's inconclusive because the Committee was unable to agree on even the broad outlines of a policy to recommend for Richmond.Many years would pass before the general citizenry in the Richmond metropolitan area reluctantly accepted the changed social situation. The Club, to its credit, moved somewhat more rapidly. The first sign appeared in the May 24, 1962 Bulletin announcing a panel discussion -The Negro point of view on Richmond area problems-scheduled for the next meeting. The Club had invited three prominent leaders in the black community, Dr. William Thornton, president and a founder of the Crusade for Voters, Dr. Thomas Henderson, the President of Virginia Union University and Dr. William Ferguson Reid, a highly regarded physician, to address the topic.The report is unique in that it transcends the issue with which our political leaders have been wrestling - whether to integrate or not - and, apparently assuming that this in no longer open to question, discusses forthrightly how integration might be accomplished with least friction or sacrifice of academic standards. This explains to a large extent the notoriety the report received from press and radio. It is a fact that ever since the Segregation Decisions our political spokesmen have largely been engaged in the search for some means for preserving segregation. This was the avowed purpose of the Gray Commission and the Resolution of Interposition. As a result there seems to have been very little constructive planning for accomplishing integration if that result proves inevitable.
...The report indicates that wherever separate schools have been maintained the educational level of Negroes has been somewhat lower than that of white children in comparable age groups. ...The report makes it clear that this is not a racial characteristic but results from the prior inadequacy of the colored schools and environmental differences. [In this copy of the bulletin --ownership unknown--the previous sentence is underlined and in the margin is written NO!]
These are problems which ultimately must be solved by professional educators and our local School Board ...The First Club, if it thinks well of the idea, can furnish the leadership for a movement that will stir public opinion and give expression to the ideas that will set the theme for a program by which Richmond can comply with the Supreme Court's decision with a minimum of racial tension and without sacrifice of school standards.
Five years later the Club opened its membership to African Americans. Correspondence in the general files includes a note dated August 10, 1967. "We have an application for membership from Robert J. Grey...Executive Director of the Richmond Urban League...his application is endorsed by our president, Arthur Beck and also by Wayland Rennie. Mr. Grey is a negro." The Bulletin dated August 10, 1967 announced that two candidates had been approved for membership-- Walter Loving and Robert J. Grey, Executive Director of the Richmond Urban League.
The October 12, 1971 Board minutes report the creation of a new committee to recruit blacks for the Club. Committee members included Jim Doherty, Robert Grey, Randolph Kendall and Ivor Massey. Thereafter the Club made a consistent effort to recruit more black members. The minutes of February 21, 1980 discuss the need to "give the Club a more balanced membership" and note that the "Club should explore where we can make a contribution to breaking down racist barriers in the City."
By 1977 the Club's concept of "balanced membership" also had grown to include women. Following the usual pattern, the process began with a study, followed by an invitation to a speaker. Among the studies suggested for 1954 was "Woman on the City Council," with a recommendation on this matter. Two years later the Club invited its first female speaker. In her letter of October 24, 1956 Mrs. Ulrich Troubetzkoy, the city's public relations and information officer, says "I enjoyed my luncheon visit with the Richmond- First Club [August 27, 1956] and appreciated the honor of being the first woman to speak to your group."
Years would pass before a woman was invited to join the Club. Apparently the attitudes expressed by Hugh Rudd, Secretary of the Club, in a June 2, 1956 letter to H. Addison Dalton, died hard. "The Club was originally organized by men of our age; unless it remains a young men's organization, it cannot continue to be effective in its task..." Over the next twenty years the files show no evidence of women being members. The Bulletin dated January 12, 1977 announced that Suzanne Shilling had been approved for membership. The first woman on the Board seems to have been Grace Duncan, named in 1979 to replace a member who had resigned. Suzanne Shilling was to be the alternate. In May, 1980 the Club elected Jean Boyea as Bulletin Editor. Within a few more years, Susan Fore Brown won the presidency (1984), to be followed by Susan Peterson (1989) and Nikki Nicholau (1991).
Having finally established the need for balance, the Club has worked to achieve it by recruiting persons to fit into specified groups. In his report to the Club in 1979, Jim Edge announced that his administration had increased the number of women from five to fifteen; minorities from three to six. Bob Schaberg notes that his Board discussed recruiting people to fit into different blocks-- black, white, business etc. "We attempted to identify people who would fit into those categories."