There isn’t much question that having a plan for the future, evaluating city staff regularly and empowering the mayor and city council are good ideas for Albert Lea. The question is whether the city charter needs to be changed for them to happen.

A group of residents is proposing to alter the charter to turn those ideas into law. A four-year term for the mayor instead of two years, built-in requirements for performance reviews of the city manager and other employees, and a mandatory long-term plan are among the proposals.

But as with amending the U.S. Constitution, changing the city charter is a very serious step. These kinds of documents are meant to be constant through time with changes made only when they are absolutely necessary because of a changing world.

In this case, it seems that most of the proposals brought before the charter commission could become matters of council policy or tradition without amending the charter to make them mandatory. A motivated city council, urged on by an engaged public, could keep a living long-term plan in place and provide more direction to the city manager; in fact, that’s already started happening. Mayor Jean Eaton and the new city council have already started prioritizing for a long-term plan, and plan to measure the performance of the city and its employees against the goals set forth.

The mayor may find it easier to lead if the term is lengthened to four years, but it’s also important for the residents to be able to make a change if necessary. A strong, successful mayor should have no problem being reelected, anyway.

With that in mind, it doesn’t appear that changes to the charter are necessary, although the proposals on the table would provide a good guide for council members to follow.