The Albert Lea Charter Commission voted unanimously Monday against changing the city’s mayoral terms from two years to four years.

The vote came after additional public comment by three residents in favor of the change and one person against.

Commissioner Phillip Kohl said up until the previous weekend he was in favor of the change, but he recently changed his mind.

“I think what is being proposed is easier for the mayor, but easier isn’t always better,” Kohl said.

He said generally the public is right in its decisions, noting that the public should continue to be able to do so every two years with the mayor.

“The implication of what we’re being told is that somehow the city would be better,” Kohl said. “I reject that notion. I don’t think that has been shown to us.”

He also referenced a certain “checks and balances” that the current charter provides.

Commissioner Randy Kehr called the decision a “difficult” one but noted that the commission had not been presented with a significant number of citizens in favor of the change, or any kind of petition or direction from the City Council.

He said changing the “constitution” of the city was an enormous task and noted that the state and federal government does not allow changes in the state and federal constitutions without letting the people vote.

There was no other comment on the issue from the remaining commissioners.

The decision came after the commission recessed from its May 2 meeting with a desire to seek out more public input on the issue.

After the vote was rendered, former Albert Lea Mayor Randy Erdman, a proponent of the term change, expressed his disappointment.

“I think when we’re talking about changing the constitution, that’s a little out there,” Erdman said. “It’s a mayor’s term. Every other regional center is doing it, and we’re not.”

During the time for public comments at the Monday meeting and the May meeting, proponents of the change argued that switching to a four-year mayoral term would remove the distraction of too frequent of re-election campaigns and provide greater continuity for the Albert Lea City Council and effective leadership for the community.

Opponents said it would take away the more frequent opportunity of the people to vote for change if they don’t like the direction the city is moving.

Former Albert Lea City Manager Paul Sparks spoke in opposition to the term change and talked about how a change would take away the opportunity for the community to vote on a majority of the council members every two years.

“You lose that ability of the public to make a change to the council at any given election,” Sparks said.

It would also create a political imbalance, he said, with only certain councilors being able to run for the position without the risk of losing the election and not having a council seat to fall back on.

Sparks said he believes the city’s current form of government operates well.

“It’s designed to do what it does, and it does it well,” he said.

Both Kohl and Kehr referenced Sparks’ comments, noting they thought they were well-stated.