So far, the only announced candidate for next year's mayoral election in New London is the incumbent, Michael Passero, who says he has more to do and doesn't want to waste his first four years in office.

It still might be early for others to be jumping into the race. I'm sure some eventually will come forward to suggest those Passero years have indeed been wasted.

But whether one thinks Passero is doing a good job or not, everyone should welcome a big field of candidates to choose from next year and a lively debate about the management and future of the city. That was part of the original appeal of the idea of electing a strong political candidate to run the city, rather than hiring a professional manager.

Certainly one way to ensure a wide field of qualified candidates is to acknowledge that the mayor, at $86,000 a year, is woefully underpaid. He makes less than many of the department heads who work for him, including the chief administrative officer, who makes $90,000, the director of public works, who makes $105,000, and the chief of police, who makes $124,500.

Both the current mayor and the city's first full-time mayor might have been in a position to be able to accept less money, one young, without children, and the other older, a guaranteed pension and second law career under his belt.

But the city needs to offer a salary commensurate with a similar job in the private sector, one with the level of responsibilities given to the mayor of a small city. Really, how many companies with a budget as big as New London's would pay their chief executive officer $86,000?

That's less than a rookie patrolman in New London working some extra overtime shifts might make. I shudder to think how many second- or third-tier managers in the city's school system make more than that.

The city is never going to attract super qualified candidates unless it can pay something at least near what those people might make elsewhere.

Indeed, many of the department heads in the Passero administration have come from other careers that have primed them, with pensions and maybe even surviving better health benefits, to be able to take less while working for the city. That's not right. That shouldn't be a job qualification.

I know the City Council that originally set the salary wanted to seem cost conscious, especially when it was envisioned the new mayor would hire a well-paid experienced city manager anyway. (Of course, that didn't happen with either of the first two elected mayoral managers.)

But, really, wringing tens of thousands of dollars out of the salary of the city's most important hire as a budget savings, in the universe of the millions of dollars the city spends, is ridiculous. Why narrow the field of candidates who apply to those who can afford to?

It is time for this City Council to step up and correct this misguided attempt at frugality. The mayor certainly can't be the one to propose it.

And hurry. The countdown to the next crucial mayoral election already is ticking.

Appoint a committee. Do some research on how much the chief executives of cities the size of New London make. Be decisive. Improve the mayor's pay.

If you believe Mayor Passero should get re-elected, this is the right thing to do. Give the mayor you like a raise.

If you think New London can do better, make the job more competitive. Raise the salary.

This is the opinion of David Collins.

d.collins@theday.com