New London

- Voters narrowly rejected an elected mayor for the city, defeating what would have been the most significant change in New London government in 87 years.

Voting 3,922 to 3,602 - 52 percent to 48 percent - residents decided to retain the City Council-city manager system that New Londoners approved in 1921 as an antidote to the mismanaged, patronage-style government of that era.

Officials returns showed slim margins, for and against, in every voting district but the city's 1st District, where 61 percent approved an elected mayor, and the 6th District, where 983 “no” votes appeared to doom the charter amendments.

An elected, full-time mayor with sweeping executive power could have redefined the city's political dynamics, both for the outnumbered Republicans, potential third parties and the city's powerful Democratic party, which claims nearly half of the city's 12,000 voters and five of seven council seats.

But with Tuesday's defeat - in an election that saw 80 percent citywide turnout - the so-called “strong” mayor proposal appeared to be - firmly - put to bed.

”If it happened, it happened, but that's the end of it,” said Anthony Basilica, chairman of the city's Democratic Town Committee, which didn't take a position on the elected mayor. “I've been opposed to it from the beginning.”

Basilica said voters, in rejecting the elected mayor, showed they believed that “a professional city manager is the way to go.” But he said if voters had approved a full-time mayor, he would have backed freshman City Councilor Mike Buscetto III, who supported the proposal and said he would have sought the office.

Buscetto said he wasn't disappointed that voters didn't approve the office; if the measure was approved, residents would have elected their first modern mayor in the November 2009 city election.

”I said, 'If people vote yes, they vote yes. If they vote no, they vote no,'” Buscetto said. “They weren't ready for the change that was proposed.” He said the next step for the council and the city's political leaders is to “relax” on the strong-mayor proposal, which has been advocated for the past several years. “I think it should be a dead issue. People had a chance to vote.”

Republican City Councilor Rob Pero said he believed that an elected mayor would have been a “better system” for the city, “but the people have spoken.”

”I won't be banging the drum for a Charter Revision Commission anytime soon,” said Pero. “To me, I think we need to move on to other things.”

Elected to a four-year term with no recall procedure, the mayor would have possessed a veto over the council and been able to hire department heads without a council vote.

In a key change to the charter commission's recommendations, the council recommended double the number of signatures for all referendum petitions - 20 percent.

Those changes, which were adopted in a pair of September meetings, appeared to sour many of those who previously backed an elected mayor, including some in the city's Republican Town Committee and the group Looking Out for Taxpayers, who posted “Vote No” signs at polling places.

Article UID=2e0fab4d-ae35-40df-af8b-4de931e54923