Key leaders of the Massachusetts House of Representatives used a procedural maneuver on Thursday to block a vote on Gov. Mitt Romney's proposal to eliminate the state university system's central office and the president's job.

Mr. Romney, a Republican, may still have other means of forcing a vote this year on his university-governance proposal. But its adoption appears unlikely, especially given the staunch resistance to the measure in the Massachusetts legislature, in which Democrats hold control of both chambers.

Although the House had been seen as unlikely to pass the measure before last week, Governor Romney and leading Republican representatives were seeking a full House vote on the proposal anyway, to get lawmakers' positions on the record.

The House leadership's decision not to take up the governance overhaul was hailed by the measure's chief target, the president of the University of Massachusetts system, William M. Bulger. Mr. Bulger has strongly opposed Governor Romney's proposal, and their debate over it has at times seemed like a personal feud.

"Perhaps there's an opportunity now for a little breather, and we might find some basis for working together," Mr. Bulger said in response to Thursday's actions by the House. Governor Romney said he was "disappointed" by the House leadership's actions, and that his office "will continue to push for this important reform."

"No one should be afraid of an honest, up or down vote on this or any other issue," Mr. Romney said.

The measure that had been pending before the House was a proposal to amend the state's budget to eliminate the state university system's central office and position of president, and to transfer a $14-million appropriation for those functions to a state scholarship fund. House leaders effectively killed the amendment Thursday by proposing a second amendment calling for further study of the governance- reorganization proposal, and for the transfer of $1-million from the president's office to a scholarship fund. Under the procedural rules governing House debate, the introduction of this second amendment -- which the House adopted by a vote of 109 to 46 -- precluded the university-governance amendment from being considered.

Governor Romney had called for the elimination of the university system's central office as part of a broader plan to reorganize higher education in his state. He has maintained that the proposal is unrelated to his public criticisms of Mr. Bulger's refusal to testify before a Congressional panel investigating James (Whitey) Bulger, the university- system president's gangster brother.

"This has nothing to do with who occupies the office," Mr. Romney said in a written statement issued Thursday after the House killed off his proposed amendment. "We simply believe that the responsibilities of the president's office can be redistributed elsewhere for substantial savings in a tight budget year." The state is facing an estimated budget deficit of $3-billion.

For his part, Mr. Bulger has accused Mr. Romney of trying to seize power over public universities in an attempt to keep them focused on meeting the job-training needs of the business sector, from which the governor has derived much of his political support. "As I look at the proposed plan, I see the 'higher' and 'public' being removed from public higher education," Mr. Bulger said at a legislative hearing on the governor's proposal in March.

It is still possible for the Senate to amend its own budget proposal with language eliminating the university system's central office, thereby forcing the House to grapple with the issue once again as part of its negotiations with the Senate over a state budget plan. Such a move is not expected, however. Mr. Bulger served 17 years as Senate president before taking the university system's helm in 1996, and he continues to have strong personal connections with several of his former legislative colleagues.

Governor Romney could still put forward a government-reorganization bill calling for the elimination of the university system's central office, which lawmakers would be required to vote on within 60 days. But such a measure would probably meet the same sort of resistance from lawmakers as the other proposals submitted so far.