In his remarks to the Club in 1922, the President said "I am prouder of my membership in the Richmond-First Club than in anything else. I have never seen a finer bunch of men. I have never known more loyal members." He extolled "the wonderful friendship we bear to each other."
By 1928 the Club apparently had lost its earlier momentum and had turned its attention to maintaining numbers and strength. The membership problems noted and solutions offered echo over the years and can be heard today. Here are some of the suggestions in a memorandum dated August 22, 1928:
I think that we have had a change in the membership, the character of the membership in the past ten years or so. We tend to be more downtown oriented. We have a lot of people in state government and education, a few lawyers, a couple of architects. We don't truly reflect the region and we tend to preach to the choir. We need to bring in people to see what we already see and know and maybe we could see and know what is going on outside of downtown--Varina, south Chesterfield, Gaskins Road, Innsbrook, etc. ... I think it is important that those folks who live and spend most of their lives out there beyond the core, see how important the core is and for us to see the activity that goes on out there and how important it is to the region. But we are not broad enough. We tend to get people who are active and interested and we emphasize committee mparticipation. A lot of people can't attend 50-60% of our luncheons and do committee work...We need to decide if we want to have a broad base of people, some of whom perhaps over years can average the right attendance, but from time to time find it impossible to attend...We need to have people...who not only provide perspective but influence, who are perceived as having perspective, power and influence.Over the years the Club has used a variety of techniques to bring new members into the fold. Board minutes from 1957 note that the Club planned an evening social hour for prospective new members. In 1960 the Board suggested that each member of the Club submit the names of five persons who should be considered for membership. Another technique was to sign up persons who had been invited speakers. With only 80 active members in 1971, the Board opted to reward successful recruitment. The minutes for January 20, 1971 note that the Club had received a week end for two trip gratis from the Richmond Hotels. "We decided to award the trip to the individual who brings in the most members between our January 28 meeting and April 1." In an effort to attract new members, the 1977 Board authorized a "smoker." The event, organized by Harry L. Frazier, Jr., was held in February, 1978, in lieu of the regular Board meeting. Board members made short presentations to prospective new members. Club members attending the event had to invite a prospective member and see to it that he appeared at the smoker. Of the 40 guests attending the event, 15 ultimately became members. Recognizing the importance of bringing in new members, the 1979-1980 Board expanded to include the chair of the membership committee.
Eligibility for membership and the mechanics of the process also changed over the years. The form used in 1958 indicates that the "secret Membership Committee" reviewed applicants who had attended at least one regular meeting of the Club. Apparently not all would-be members had to meet the one meeting requirement. A letter from Edward Parker, dated April 3, 1961, to a candidate, states "I am enclosing an application form for the Richmond-First Club. I would like very much to extend an invitation to join our organization. If you would rather attend a meeting before submitting the application, that would be fine." The 1985 Board approved a new requirement that a candidate must attend three meetings before being considered for membership. The June 18, 1987 Bulletin announced a further revision that assigned the sponsor more responsibility for endorsing new members and required references for all applicants. From a list of the Club's committees, the applicant had to choose those of interest. Candidates also had to answer in writing the questions: Why do you wish to join; what is the role of Club; what talents and expertise can you contribute?
After their approval by the "secret membership committee," the Bulletin published the names of new members. At present the Board decides on admitting an applicant and, after approval, new members are listed in the Bulletin. Under an earlier procedure, the general membership voted. It can be assumed that the membership concurred with the Membership Committee's recommendation and followed the scenario as reported in the 1976 minutes of the Meeting of the General Membership of Richmond-First Club, "on motion duly made and seconded this application for membership was unanimously approved."
Periodically the Club, originally composed of members from the private sector, debated the wisdom of admitting to membership persons loosely defined as public employees. In their determination to avoid any suggestion that the Club's views on issues might appear to be compromised by members with a vested interest, voting membership excluded all city officials. In September, 1942, the files note discussion on the eligibility of a Richmond school teacher or principal. Was such an individual a city or state employee? Was such an employee eligible for membership?
The issue of eligibility surfaced again when a member of the Board noted that Ben Johns, the newly elected Club treasurer, had been appointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Richmond. Could he continue to be an active member of the First Club in view of his City post? In the ensuing discussion one of the Board members observed that Henry Huband had held such a post for the last few years while retaining his active membership. The Club decided that this presented a problem, but took no action.
It appears that declining membership played a role in the decision to broaden eligibility. While many of the businessmen and professionals lived in the counties, they worked in the downtown sector of the city. As business relocated into the suburbs and the office parks mushroomed around Richmond, the Club lost some of its members. Members found it easy to get to the downtown meeting place in the John Marshall Hotel from their offices on Main Street and around the Capitol, but it was considerably more demanding to drive in from the counties to come to the twice a month luncheons. Public employees offered a ready pool of recruits to replace the departing businessmen and professionals. Seeing the wealth of talent and knowledge present in the public sector, the Club opened its doors to employees from nearby state and local agencies, including the faculty at Virginia Commonwealth University. Ex President Bob Schaberg voiced the opinion that addition of the members from the public sector infused the Club with renewed energy.
As public sector representation increased both in number and influence, some in the Club feared that it might prevent the RFC from following its time honored tradition of impartiality in its periodic assessments of government practices and policies. From its founding in 1919 the Club had proclaimed its independence. In fact its very name, Richmond-First Club, signified its freedom from any faction and its placing the future of the city first, beyond any other consideration of party or interest group. Believing that the growing contingent of public employees might jeopardize this independent stance, concerned Board members made behind the scenes efforts to limit both their number and influence. The Board quietly imposed a rule that public sector membership could not exceed 25% of total active members.
The increase in public employees must have been particularly strong between 1974 and 1980. Club records that show a breakdown by occupation for 1967 list only six government employees. Jim Doherty, President in 1974, remarked that he was not aware of any public sector employees during his term and could recall no discussion of the proper ratio of private and public sector representation in the Club. According to former president Jerry McCarthy (1981-82), the rapid influx of public sector members caused some alarm. Part of the problem was defining "public sector." For example, a number of members came from the faculty at Virginia Commonwealth University and other quasi-government organizations. How did the Board deal with these prospective members? McCarthy remembered that,
we probably tried to handle that on a case by case basis. ... I am sure that the rule was observed flexibly, because someone at VCU for example was not the same as serving in the city or county administration. But for a while there was a real run on public service employees joining the Club and getting very active in it and voicing their opinions. Some people felt that the government was taking over the Club and in fact the time that the rule was in place we had just about reached that 25% limit and we said no more until some people leave, die or resign or whatever.When questioned about the relationship between bringing public employees into the Club and reversing the slow decline in Club membership and vitality, former president Bob Schaberg observed that at one meeting we were all "business people and lawyers and we were thirteen. Then we finally expanded or opened up the membership." And with a strong boost from public sector applicants, the Club grew. >p> Concern about preventing public employees from exerting influence in the Club affected the leadership as well. At one time the Board apparently adopted an operating procedure and established a minimum. McCarthy observed that "in the years that I was on the nominating committee it was an issue every year and we always held firm to it." The issue came to a head when it appeared that George Peterson, at the time employed as a manager in the Virginia Housing Development Authority, might be denied his turn as president of the Club solely because he came from the public sector. After some discussion, the Board decided to endorse Mr. Peterson and he was duly elected by the Club, serving as president in 1986.
When asked to comment on the public sector question, Mr. Peterson stated that while the by-laws say nothing about the so-called 25% quota, "it has been present as a factor.
In fact, I was told that it was a factor in my case since I was a government employee. It became a big issue and I may not have been President; that was the only thing standing in my way; what was I supposed to do, quit my job? And I can see that in my year the ratio increased, but here we are in the state capital. What else can be expected? Frankly my concern is to get people with energy who want to get involved and do something, but I can see the need to keep people from the private sector involved. We need all sorts of people."Since the mid 1980s the Club has emphasized recruitment from the private sector. But public sector membership continues to grow.
The Club not only needed "all sorts of people." It also needed members who regularly attended the meetings. It was one thing to add members to the Club. It was quite another to get them to come to the semi-monthly meetings and serve on committees.
The attendance problem in the early 1950s seems to have reached crisis proportions. In 1979 Stuart White (president of the RFC in 1939) wrote to James Edge, (president in 1979), that in 1951 the Club seemed to be on its last legs. "Only twelve members attended the luncheons and the programs were poor." The Club's leadership quietly discussed the possibility of the RFC's demise.
Occasional reports in the files suggest poor attendance at meetings over the years, and past presidents from the 1970s on usually commented upon attendance problems. Jerry McCarthy notes that in 1976, when he was a government official, he spoke at a luncheon meeting attended by only twelve members. Bob Schaberg (president 1985-86) said that in 1976 the Club seemed to have reached its nadir. Pat McSweeney decried the poor attendance, and pointed to attendance of only 40 to 50 at the meetings. In 1991 attendance at some of the meetings dropped to about 20.
Perhaps the new (and old) members lost interest because they did not feel themselves to be a part of the group. The 1979 Board assigned new members to the program committee for two months and asked them to use the period to decide on the regular committee they would join. All members had to serve on committees. As Ken Powell noted in 1987, new members should be quickly brought into the work of the Club. "The major reason for dropout of new members is their sense of not being involved in a meaningful way."
The need for meaningful work for the members sometimes created other kinds of problems. Could committees keep the members happily involved while producing carefully designed and researched studies? The President and the Board would have to set an agenda, identify problems, assign committee chairs, monitor progress and, as necessary, cajole/badger the members to complete the work. How could discipline necessary for producing the reports be imposed on a group of volunteers? In a statement to the members of the Club in March, 1959, President Hugh Rudd complained about committee irresponsibility.
Recently several committee chairmen have invited me to attend committee meetings which were called to advance various First Club projects now under way. On at least two occasions the committee attendance at the meetings was so small that the meeting had to be postponed with a consequent delay in the committee's project...Keeping the committee on course became even more important when in March, 1970 the Club dealt with the perennial problem of ineffectual committee work by coordinating the luncheon programs with committee progress reports. This also required keeping close tabs on the committees to be sure that they generally followed the Board's direction. In Lee Frazier's administration the Board directed all committee chairs to prepare a planning guide of their anticipated activity and have it approved by the Board prior to any activity taking place or any money spent. That procedure not only allowed for better control of the programs, but also for more thorough examination of the proposed activities and their relevance to the Club's agenda. Sensing some drift in the committees, Rocky Laha in 1986 said that "if the committee chairmen are going in the wrong direction they need to know the Board's feelings." The Board instructed Chairs to attend a meeting so that they could be "redirected." By the latter 1980s, each member of the Board acted as a liaison to a committee. All of these extra duties may have weighed on Board members. That perhaps explains the comment in 1987 that members of the Board should be required to attend 80% of the Board meetings, in addition to all of the luncheons.
As committee work and assignments became more important, the need for planning and coordination grew apace. In November, 1980 the Board minutes record a suggestion that committee chairs and members be appointed in the spring so that activities could begin during the summer and the committees be ready to start work in the fall. Recognizing that some committees needed more than a year to complete the work, the Board established a permanent long range planning committee that estimated time needed for completing the proposed study. Long term committee assignments had two effects. They tended to discourage some members from signing on because of the length of the project. And sometimes the committee had no room for newcomers when complex studies required members who had gained expertise and knowledge through prolonged analysis of an issue.
While the lack of meaningful committee participation troubled some Boards, a more fundamental issue was getting the members to come to the general meetings. A number of Boards established a "telephone committee," whose members called their assigned members and urged them to attend the meetings. Membership on the committee varied. In his instructions to the chair of the Telephone Committee, Bob Buford suggested that he "use so far as possible the new members of our Club." In 1977 the Board "discussed procedures for contacting members personally to remind them of regular semi-monthly meetings, and it was decided in the interim to assign members to each officer and director for the purpose of making such contact. In the future, a committee will be formed to carry out this task." Bob Schaberg commented that "while I was on the Board and for a few years thereafter, every Board member called a portion of the list of Club members to remind them of luncheon meetings and urge them to come. Usually it did not take more than a minute, but sometimes you had the opportunity to chat with people. Mostly it let the members know that the Board was staying in touch with them and wanted their participation."
The latter approach had the added advantage of helping to establish a welcoming climate at the meetings. In 1960 each Club member got a name tag to facilitate conversation and social intercourse at the luncheon meetings. Bob Buford saw this as "a valuable aid to many of our new members who do not know the names of our older members." The January 1979 Bulletin announced that new members had been assigned to the program committee for two months and that among their duties they were to "arrive early at the Hotel to insure that all preparations are in order and act as greeters to all members and guests." Periodically the Bulletin contained brief "bios" of selected members to encourage social exchange.
Could poor attendance be attributed to the lack of communication from the Board to the general membership? One member suggested that the Board make reports at the general meetings and include them in the Bulletin. In 1956 the Board, apparently in response to a request from members agreed "that the club officers annual reports should be published in the coming bulletin." They also responded to a recommendation that the Bulletin include the schedule for meetings so that members could put the dates on their calendars. Beginning in 1987 the name tags of Board members included a ribbon, so that they easily could be identified and thus encourage communication with the other members of the Club.
At various times the Board tried to enforce attendance. In 1957 the by-laws required that active members attend 40 percent of the meetings. The Board routinely ignored this rule, until 1960 when the Board once again turned its attention to this problem. In his letter to a member, Buford said
As you know our Constitution requires a 40% attendance at meetings. In past years the Board has generally waived this requirement in respect to all delinquent members. This year the Board feels that the requirement should be waived only in the case of the delinquent members who indicate a renewed interest in the Club and a determination to improve their attendance.Some recipients of this letter promised better attendance; others decided to accept associate membership, citing irreconcilable time conflicts or the press of business.
Although the by-laws required attendance and participation, at times the Board sometimes ignored them. In his June 1969 address to the Club, the outgoing president, Thomas Parker, observed that "attendance at our meetings is very poor." He said that he "detected real apathy among the members and a lack of interest for service to the Club and the community....If we were to enforce attendance provisions of our Constitution, we would lose more than half of our present so-called active members."
The situation did not soon improve. The President's Report for the following year (1969-70) chastised the membership.
In recent years we have seen growing apathy which has diminished the quality of our work product...This Club claims among its membership a cross-section of men whose stated purpose is to improve government in the Richmond metropolitan area. These members bring to the Club diverse business and professional backgrounds as well as a wide range of age. Yet, we find more and more that the older members have abdicated their responsibilities to the younger members at a time when the background and experience of the older members are most needed. ...This Club is dependent upon the collective energies and abilities of all its members. In the past it has made definitive contributions. But unless in the future the Club can command the energies and abilities of its total membership, many times to the point of personal inconvenience, the Club as a whole will abdicate its position as a voice of constructive thinking in the Richmond metropolitan area and will necessarily retire into the shadows as just another luncheon group with interesting speakers.Membership within the RFC has expanded and contracted over the years. While the Club's modern constitution sets a limit of 100 active members, having risen over the years from 50, to 75 to 100, it seldom has reached that number. When membership has been robust, it seems clear that expanding membership had been adopted as a Board priority. By most accounts the surge in membership began in the late 1970s. In 1978 there were 86 members; in 1980 the minutes note membership of 100, with 13 associate members and 3 honorary. The pressure on the constitutional membership limit led to a proposal in October, 1980 to revise the by-laws and increase active membership to 125. The members voted against the increase in December, 1980.
Instead the Board tightened requirements for maintaining membership. For many years the by- laws required members to attend at least 40% of the meetings and directed that the names of all who failed to meet the 40% requirement during the first six months of the Club year be published in the bulletin. Members received credit for attending committee and Board meetings. In January, 1981, shortly after the vote against increased membership limits, the Board announced a new 50% attendance requirement.
As membership strengthened, the Board also moved to overhaul the policy on dues. Occasional reports in the files suggest that the Club's preoccupation with maintaining membership, sometimes led it to avoid forcing Club members to pay dues on time. Sloppy bookkeeping also contributed to the dues problem. The Auditor report for 1952 shows that the
Treasurer had not charged the associate members with their dues for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 1951 .... through oversight he had not charged associate members for their dues for the year nor had he mailed any bills therefor "...it will be seen that the accounts of two active members were five years in arrears, three were four years in arrears and three were three years in arrears... It is recommended that appropriate action be taken by the Board with respect to such delinquent accounts.In 1954 the Board had to deal with a Founding member with dues many years in arrears. One member proposed that the Board force payment. However the Board minutes of November 9, 1954 note that "it was brought to the attention of the Board that under the terms of the Constitution, payment of back dues for a period in excess of two years cannot be enforced." In May, 1955 the Board "unanimously resolved that in recognition of his long and faithful service to the Club [he]...be granted honorary membership and forgiven all dues in arrears." While willing to make that exception, the Board in 1956 "agreed that members with dues in arrears for two or more years should be dropped from the rolls." As membership grew, the Club policy on dues grew progressively restrictive; by 1979 members had a grace period of two months before being dropped from the Club's rolls.
Despite occasional attendance and participation problems, the Richmond-First Club consistently has shown its leadership on major issues confronting the community. The Club is a volunteer organization that relies wholly upon the cooperation of its membership. To a remarkable degree Firsters plunge in and at considerable personal sacrifice do the work necessary to maintain the Club's distinctive position as a leading force in the community. After five years of active participation in this organization that expects and demands so much, members can opt for associate status. Associate members are required to pay dues, but not work on committees or meet normal attendance minimums. As testament to the loyalty that members have for this unique organization, many associate members continue to volunteer for service on committees.
For seventy five years the Richmond-First Club has remained faithful to its goal of bettering government. Membership has waxed and waned, as has attendance at meetings. The Club still debates moving beyond study and distribution of the carefully prepared reports on the issues it has adopted as its own. Adherence to the goals and methods adopted in 1919 suggests the wisdom of its founders and those who have since served as members of this very special Club.