Passero is type of mayor envisioned by The Day

Under the leadership of Michael Passero, the position of mayor is functioning much like the editorial board at The Day envisioned when, beginning 16 years ago, it first advocated that New London abandon the city manager form of government.

Then Day Publisher Gary Farrugia and longtime Editorial Page Editor Morgan McGinley saw a city that was directionless and in decline. Yes, the city manager prepared budgets, collected taxes, provided for public safety and paid the bills.

But lacking was a vision for the city.

If the city manager could keep four of the seven New London city councilors happy, it kept his job safe. Taking chances, rocking boats, was not good for job security.

“No one truly leads city government now,” The Day lamented in its July 9, 2006, editorial. “Under a mayoral system, the mayor would have to answer directly to voters and would succeed or fail based on his or her ability to achieve goals.”

When McGinley retired and Farrugia appointed me editorial page editor in 2007, I continued the newspaper’s push for a directly elected mayor to replace the city manager system. In March 2007, in a special election, a majority of voters approved such a charter change, but that majority only represented 12% of the electorate. State law required 15% to make a charter change.

A switch to mayoral leadership was on the ballot again in 2008, but lumping it together with less popular changes led to defeat. Finally, in the November 2010 general election, a stand-alone question on adopting a strong-mayor system handily won voter approval.

Mayor Passero, a retired city firefighter and former councilor, is the second mayor elected since the charter change. He is serving his second term.

Passero has pursued a pro-development agenda, rightly seeing an influx of new residents in the city as a necessary step toward continued revitalization of the downtown. The growth of new apartment complexes and other developments have expanded the tax base, leading to a cut in the property tax rate, though it remains high.

Development is finally on the horizon for the Fort Trumbull area. Also planned there is a community center, a Passero goal since his days on the council. Under his leadership the city created a Human Services Division to coordinate efforts to address social challenges, among them opioid abuse, homelessness and the overuse of emergency care for routine medical and substance abuse issues. And he put in place the people to pursue his agenda.

Passero has been an advocate for the city in a way that a city manager never could be. When the state shortchanged New London in plans for the redevelopment of State Pier as a hub for offshore wind-power projects, Passero used the power and bully pulpit of the office to achieve fairer compensation for the host city.

Highly visible and often attending civic events, Passero has been instrumental in “orchestrating community pride.” This is not to say that everything is wonderful, or that there have been no missteps. Many challenges remain. But New London has the leadership that once was lacking.

In the first election after the charter change, New London voters elected as their mayor someone who had come out of seemingly nowhere to win both the Democratic primary and general election: attorney Daryl Justin Finizio.

Unfortunately, it did not go well. Finizio led a city during a time of persistent fiscal crisis and increasing taxes. There was far too much drama. Instead of this first strong mayor building consensus, divisions widened. It left many wondering if the charter change had been a mistake.

I will give Finizio this, he did establish the parameters of the position. Some had expected the mayor would simply function as a city manager, only elected by voters instead of hired by the council. Finizio made it clear there was a new boss in town, one with the ability to issue executive orders and set an agenda. Unfortunately, Finizio acted rashly in issuing some of those orders and never generated the confidence with the public or the council that is necessary to lead.

But if not for Finizio’s tumultuous four-year term, who knows if Passero would have ever run for mayor? As council president, Passero was in constant political combat with Finizio and ended up challenging him, winning the Democratic primary that led to his election as mayor in 2015.

Now the council has voted to increase the salary to $160,000 for

the mayor, beginning after the 2023 election. Only $86,000 when Finizio took office — that was ridiculously low — it was boosted by the council to $110,000 in 2018. Passero received the raise when he won reelection in 2019. Likely to again seek reelection — and win — he would benefit from this next boost beginning in 2024.

It is excessive. And the council should have allowed for more public input before acting on the planned raise. But the strategy behind it makes sense by trying to assure that qualified candidates do not forgo a run for mayor because it would mean too big of a pay cut. Another incremental step, perhaps to $130,000, would have made more sense.

Just as it would have been a mistake to call the change a failure after one mayor, it is too soon to call the transition to a mayoral government a success during the term of the second. But the outlook is encouraging. I think time will prove that voters made the right choice in approving the charter change, and The Day made the right call in pushing hard for it on its opinion pages.