With a mayor wielding CEO-like powers, its by-district voting rules and a large nine-member city council, Richmond is unique in that it operates and conducts its business like no other in Virginia. But all that could soon change.
Richmond may be shifting gears and reestablishing a system that more closely resembles its sister cities. For the past seven months, the Charter Review Commission has been researching other governments, compiling information, collaborating with key city figures, hosting public meetings and receiving counsel from legal representatives in drawing up a new plan on how Richmond should govern itself.
People are also reading…
With a July 31 deadline looming for presenting its findings to the city council, the commission is nearing the end as it wraps up its findings and prepares to make final recommendations.
On Wednesday, the commission released a 42-page outline that sheds light on its two frontrunner recommendations that would fundamentally change the power structure of city government – one calling to remove three city council seats and adding the mayor to the council.
“The establishment of the commission can be understood as an opportunity to take stock of the strengths and challenges of the existing charter and consider whether amendments to it may be advantageous to the city and its residents,” a recent report released by the commission states.
The Charter Review Commission, a city-appointed, citizen-led volunteer board, came to fruition last year at the request of the city council.
Its goals were simple: to determine what does and doesn’t work for the city and how can its charter be amended to better streamline city government. This includes taking a look at city governance, how each political entity functions and how they are paid.
The commission began the daunting task of revising the city charter, deemed the “constitution of the city,“ by establishing a plan and dividing the group into two separate committees: governance and electoral.
The governance committee was tasked with improving and adjusting the city’s current mayor-council form of government. The electoral committee was charged with designing a new form of government.
Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney is seen in January. A commission has two frontrunner recommendations for changing city government, with one calling to remove three city council seats and add the mayor to the council.
Currently, the city operates with an elected mayor, a chief administrative officer and a nonmember city council who all share varying degrees of power.
Essentially, under this system, the elected mayor operates as the executive branch. Similarly to the president, he or she is the face of the operation, in charge of his or her cabinet (city departments) and crafts the budget. Likewise, the chief administrative officer functions within the mayor’s circle and is often the go-between for city hall and the city council.
The elected city council functions as the legislative body and is tasked with governing through the adoption of public policies. While they cannot amend the budget, they have the final say as to whether it passes.
From the Archives: Richmond City Hall’s rise, fall and rise of power
According to the commission’s report, after 20 years with this system, those directly involved said there are some drawbacks.
“Commission conversations with stakeholders established widespread concern that the Mayor-Council system is structured to be excessively adversarial,” the report states.
In order to fix some of the key problems, the commission is pushing two different options.
The first option comes from the governance subcommittee which set out to improve the current government system without affecting the city’s current Mayor-Council system.
In its findings, the subcommittee recommends six potential areas that need improvement including:
Strengthening the ability of the mayor to act as hands-on executive;
Altering the structure of the city attorney’s office;
Adjusting the hiring and removal process for the chief administrative officer;
Increasing compensation for elected officials;
Updating the budget process; and
Promoting better public deliberation and communication.
While several of these items are relatively simple fixes, like adding extra verbiage to the charter to specifically outline which government entity is in charge of which procedure, others are more crucial to ensure equity across the board.
This includes updating the budget process, which served as one of the key factors that led to the commission’s creation and the need to amend the charter.
The commission’s report says numerous government officials, from both the mayor’s office and the city council, expressed concerns with current budget procedures, “specifically, the fact that only the mayor can introduce a budget amendment during the fiscal year” and the need to “provide the administration more flexibility to move funds in response to changing conditions.”
In an effort to alleviate some of the issues, the subcommittee recommends the chief administrative officer, under the direction of the mayor, develop the budget after the city council has time to provide input on key priorities.
The second option sees a more drastic approach to address the city’s political power imbalance – essentially, restructuring both the mayor’s office and the city council.
After taking into consideration nearly 10 different possible restructuring options as well as the city’s current system, the governance subcommittee recommends the city adopt a council-manager form of government.
Richmond considers government shift that may limit a mayor’s power
“A council-manager form of government is also ubiquitous in Virginia. It is how all Virginia cities, except Richmond, are structured,” the report states. “The council-manager form was created to combat corruption and unethical activity within local government by promoting nonpolitical management that is effective, transparent, responsive and accountable.”
This form of government can take on many different forms, with varying numbers of council members, differing degrees of mayoral powers and voting practices, but all see the city council acting as the governing body making all policy decisions and a city manager overseeing administration.
According to the report, to best meet the city’s needs, the subcommittee recommends the city adopt a seven-person council with an at-large mayor serving as one of the members. This is to ensure that the city maintains an odd number of seats, keeps an elected at-large mayor and creates a city manager position to ensure equitable power between the two bodies.
But, to do so, the city would need to eliminate and consolidate three of its current districts to drop from a nine-member council to a six-member council with one at-large mayor.
While the mayor would have to relinquish some power over city hall and become a member of the legislative body, the subcommittee recommends he or she still retain significant authority by leading the council.
Richmonders would still cast their ballots the same with council members elected by their sole district and the mayor by a citywide election. But, the subcommittee recommended the city update its vote tallying.
Currently, the mayor is elected by a majority-of-districts requirement that was established in 2004 to ensure minority voters have more of an equal say “by diluting the voting power of certain communities of interest.”
However, in the past 20 years, the subcommittee said there have been significant demographic shifts in the city that call into question the effectiveness of this practice. As a result, the commission recommends returning to a popular vote in which the candidate will need 50% or more of the vote to take office.
The city manager, in this proposed system, will take over some of the current roles delegated to the mayor’s office and the chief administrative officer. This includes the hiring and firing of city employees, the supervision of government departments and the development of fiscal budgets.
While this potential shift in power may seem drastic, the subcommittee argues it is more on par with other cities across the state and is reflective of other cities of comparable size across the country.
For example, Norfolk, which has the closest population size to Richmond at 235,000, currently operates with five council members and one at-large mayor.
“Researchers have consistently found that more managerial council-manager governments feature higher-measured economic stability,” the report states. “Studies frequently link measures of government innovation to more managerial systems.”
Although the two options differ in severity, the two subcommittees shared some overlapping goals including increasing the salaries of both the city council and the mayor’s office.
According to the report, for the government to function effectively, city council members’ salaries should be on par with the surrounding localities. The committees recommend an average $55,000 salary as it is on par with the city’s average median household income.
Additionally, the commission reports that the mayor’s current salary is less than the top five city executives. As the mayor is in charge of city hall, the commission argued their salary should reflect that.
In 2021, the average reported salary for the top five executives was $200,000. The same year, the mayor’s salary totaled $125,000.
“We believe that a significant pay increase to assure that the mayor is better compensated both makes sense from an organizational perspective and would potentially increase the pool of talented individuals with executive-level experience willing to seek the office,” the commission report states.
Charter changes through the years
While the city has taken up the “is this government working” baton numerous times throughout its history, this year’s Charter Review Commission is one of its more extensive deep dives in a long time and the first since it first adopted its current form of government 20 years ago.
“Since the establishment of the Mayor-Council form of government in 2004, no comprehensive assessment of the Charter as a whole has been undertaken,” the commission’s outline states.
The city’s current charter dates back to 1948. Since then, it has seen numerous amendments in its time. While some were minor, others resulted in large-scale shifts of power including shifting from an at-large council to a district-based council in 1977.
In the city’s most recent history, it adopted the current Mayor-Council system, the first and currently only in the state, in 2004. Since then, the city has operated under this model.
While its objectives were clear, the task of changing the city’s charter is a large undertaking. For the city council to make adjustments to the document, it needs to weigh its options, hear from the public and then make a final decision at the local level.
From there, any changes to the charter need both public and state approval. So, any decisions made will not be finalized until the General Assembly signs off.
Thad Williamson, a University of Richmond political science professor and Charter Review Commission chair, said the commission strongly recommends the city hold a referendum before sending the proposed changes off to the General Assembly.
Thad Williamson, a University of Richmond political science professor and commission chair, said the commission strongly recommends the city hold a referendum before sending the proposed changes off to the General Assembly.
While it is not mandated by law that the city allow Richmonders to weigh in by an elected vote, Williamson said it is the best practice when such drastic, controversial, long-term decisions are at play.
Additionally, the city is more likely to get the go-ahead from the state if a majority of city residents are in favor of the shift.
Before the commission presents its final recommendation, it plans to hear from the public through a series of public hearings as well as through an online survey.
The survey closes on June 21, and Williamson said the commission has seen good community engagement. Residents can share opinions at bit.ly/3NdGuOI.
Likewise, the commission will hold an in-person public hearing June 22 at 6 p.m. The meeting will also be streamed online via Zoom.
The commission is set to present its final recommendation at the city council’s regular meeting July 31 at 6 p.m. From there, the commission will absolve unless reestablished by council for further deliberation.
Photos of the Downtown Expressway construction in the early to mid-1970s
Downtown Expressway Construction, 1970s
Downtown Expressway Construction, 1970s
Downtown Expressway Construction
Downtown Expressway Construction, proposed course (different path was chosen)
Downtown Expressway Construction
Downtown Expressway Construction
Downtown Expressway Construction, Powhite Bridge over the James River
Downtown Expressway Construction
Downtown Expressway Construction, Kanawha Plaza, 1981
Downtown Expressway Construction, Riverside Parkway (would have cut along south bank of the James River past Pony Pasture and Williams Island, never happened)
