Mark Twain wrote that the past does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
And so, next week at the polls New Londoners will decide, as they did in 1921, to exchange one form of government for another.
In 1921, the voters, egged on by The Day, with publisher and Republican town chairman Theodore Bodenwein at the helm, approved a switch from an elected mayor form of government to a city manager-council.
It was considered a leap forward, and in 1923, using language usually reserved for barkers selling foot powder, the newspaper praised the new government as “scientific.”
Now, nearly 90 years later, voters will have the opportunity to switch the form of government yet again, to an elected strong mayor, with a four-year term at a $100,000 salary. (See info box for details on the proposal.)
This time, the buzz words are “accountability” and “direction.” And adding to the symmetry, the daily newspaper is seen as one of the catalysts behind the strong mayor. Indeed, the newspaper’s editorial page has long desired a change in the form of government.
But among the political movers and shakers and workaday people in New London, the prospect of the first elected mayor since Woodrow Wilson was in office has the city equally excited and filled with trepidation.
John Fleming, a registered independent, is in favor of an elected mayor but will be voting no, because under the proposal the City Council would not get oversight over mayoral appointments to the city administration.
“That is not in the best interests of the city,” he said.
Republican City Councilor Rob Pero, who despite some reservations is in favor of the charter revision, countered that the City Council does get to vote on the city manager’s appointments in the present charter.
Sandra Kersten Chalk, the executive director of New London Landmarks, said the modern city should have a city manager.
“In the 21st century running a city is a professional job,” she said.
Susan Munger, a resident, is fearful of the disruption that could potentially happen if a mayor keeps on getting elected every four years.
“It would be automatic upheaval,” she said.
Some in the audience at a recent informational session sponsored by the Republican Town Committee wanted to keep the city manager’s office apolitical, which raised Pero’s eyebrows.
“[Former City Manager] Richard Brown was a better politician than all of us,” he said. “He knew how to keep five people happy.”
Munger also worried that New London does not have “the talent pool” from which to find a suitable mayor.
Thus far, only one person, freshman Councilor Michael Buscetto, has announced an intention to run for mayor should the measure pass.
Munger noted that Buscetto has the ability to raise “a huge amount of money.” As in the 2007 municipal elections, a mayor’s race featuring the 36-year-old developer would bring his financial largesse to bear. In one quarter of fund raising for the City Council race, Buscetto raised more than $25,000 in donations, a sizable figure for a New London political contest.
Some, such as resident and council meeting regular David Hayes, fear a strong mayor would result in an emboldened Democratic hegemony.
“It would be a dictatorship of Democrats,” he said.
The Democratic Party, which has held a majority on the City Council for most of the past 50 years, has been keeping mum about its official position on charter revision. Mirroring the city, the Democrats are split over the issue.
Democratic Town Chairman Anthony Basilica, while not a public critic of the strong mayor, is nevertheless opposed to it.
Among the Democratic councilors, Margaret Curtin, twice the mayor of the city, is opposed to it, while Deputy Mayor Wade Hyslop, once a member of a past revision committee, favors a strong chief executive.
Asked last week for a prediction on the vote, Buscetto was typically sanguine.
“I think it’s going to pass,” he said.
Despite Pero’s stature as the leading figure of the New London GOP, the Republican Town Committee is not taking an official position on the charter revision. GOP Chairman William Vogel, however, allowed a peek at his cards.
“If the stew is done, eat it,” he said. “If it’s not done, let it cook some more.”
Councilor Adam Sprecace has been the council’s leading critic of the current charter revision.
“I’m going to be voting no,” he noted.
Sprecace foremost disagrees with the increase in the percentage of petitioners needed to reconsider a City Council decision. Both Sprecace and Pero voted against raising the percentage of those who voted in the previous election from 10 percent to 20 percent.
“It passed because [the Democrats] said it was the same 600 people who are signing the petitions,” Pero said. “I say it’s the same 600 people who pay taxes in the city.”
Though he voted against the measure, Pero agrees with Buscetto’s view that if a council decision creates an uproar, the 20-percent threshold ought not to be a problem.
Because the charter revision vote will take place during a presidential election year, turnout is expected to be high, leading many to think that the mayor question, after nearly a decade of debate, will be settled.
“We’ll know once and for all,” said Pero.
The Mayor Question in Depth
If approved:
• Creation of a directly, elected mayor with broad powers, who will serve as the city’s chief executive, with a four-year term.
• City manager position will be eliminated.
• Creation of a director of administrative services, appointed by the mayor to oversee day-to-day operation of the city.
• Mayor will appoint city administration. Currently done by the city manager.
• Mayor will submit an annual budget. Currently done by the city manager.
• Mayor may veto City Council measures. City Council may override with a 5-7 vote.
• Require that 20 percent of those signing a petition to reconsider a council action voted in the previous city election. The threshold is currently 10 percent.
• The Board of Finance’s powers to set a budget cap and to approve bonds will be eliminated.
A “No” vote is in support of the status quo.