From the Archives: Richmond City Hall's rise, fall and rise of power

At the steps of City Hall, a group made up predominantly of Thomas Jefferson High School students handed out pamphlets to passers-by.

Within their pages, the pamphlets told of a new way of doing things. A new way of collecting taxes. A new way of how government might be run.

As the summer faded into the fall of 1947, a new age was dawning in Richmond. The city’s industries were booming as a result of World War II, and residents — especially the younger generation — were becoming more involved in local politics.

For years, Richmonders watched as new mayors took office and left. Some left favorable impressions, and some, not so much. In 1942, the city had collectively voted to impeach Mayor Gordon Ambler, and a sense of distrust toward the office carried for generations.

So when it came time for residents to cast their ballots for a new system of local government, it was no surprise that Richmonders overwhelmingly voted in favor of adopting the council-manager model, setting a precedent for generations to come.

“If it is a foregone conclusion — which nobody disputes — that the recommendations will call for far-reaching changes from the present system,” Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter Overton Jones wrote in the Sunday, Dec. 22, 1946, edition of the paper.

Throughout Richmond’s history, the pendulum has swung countless times. Folks get tired of the current system. There is a push for change that holds long enough for people to forget, and then folks start to get tired again. It is a cycle that continues.

This is at least true in regards to the way in which the city chooses to run its government. In its 286 years, the city has wavered between a strong mayor and a strong council, with several instances of power shifts.

In 1947, Richmonders pushed for a new form of government. They had grown tired of the strong mayor system that placed most of the city’s policies and responsibilities onto whoever was elected for the role.

At the start of 1945, the Richmond Citizens’ Association, a community-led group comprising primarily white, wealthy, well-financed residents, began throwing around the idea of shifting Richmond’s local political power to its city council with the creation of a city manager position.

While this idea began as little more than a whisper, it soon took hold, crescendoing into a widespread movement across the city, with groups on opposite sides of the issue.

In the Friday, Oct. 31, 1947, edition of the Richmond News Leader, Richmond residents wrote in to weigh in on the new concept.

Richmond resident and Association for the Preservation of Our Democratic Form of Government member Joseph Fusco stated the charter change would ultimately lead to government corruption through tax collection. With strong opposition to the proposed change, Fusco held his own anti-charter meetings.

“Where there is so much smoke, there must be some fire,” he stated. “Having spent so much money to change the charter, it would be too much to think they do not intend then to take over control of the city.”

Tensions rose around the issue as people pushed back against the opposition. The Richmond Citizens’ Association’s L.E. Marlowe remarked that those against the change lacked the intelligence to understand its implications.

“If the (anticharterites) would only take the trouble to read the proposed charter,” Marlowe said. “We have been trying patiently for many weeks now to explain to the anti-charter forces that they suffer from numerous misconceptions.”

Regardless of where people stood on the issue, it was an idea that the city council could get behind. Committees were formed, discussions were held and a referendum was scheduled.

Richmond’s polling places saw a higher turnout than in the 1944 presidential election. After years of discussions, the city decided it would adopt the strong city council form of government.

It was a decision that remained in place for over half a century.

At the start of the new millennia, the pendulum swung back as discussions began around changing the city’s government back to a strong mayor system.

The charge, led primarily by former Mayor Douglas Wilder, pushed for a strong mayor system, arguing it would be a “positive change” for the city and “would give the people what they want.”

In a similar fashion to the city’s 1947 process, the city established a committee and held meetings, and residents weighed in on the power shift. While some folks, including several Times-Dispatch columnists, opposed the shift, voters ultimately approved of it.

By the start of 2003, the city had adopted a strong mayor form of government and had begun adjusting to the shift in power.

Now, the pendulum has begun to swing back yet again, with the city council slated to hear from the newest Charter Review Commission in the upcoming months. The commission is set to offer recommendations as to which form of government it believes best serves the city.

If the council moves forward and the public weighs in favor, the city could see the power shift back in favor of the council. And if history repeats itself, it will be unclear as to how long the process may last.