Don’t determine your view on the length of Albert Lea mayoral terms based on what’s going on in St. Paul or Washington.

While state and federal leaders fight tooth and nail over budgets and play political brinkmanship, in contrast, city, county and school leaders — including mayors — are able to find agreements swiftly and nimbly in reaction to the trouble, delays, shifts and unfunded mandates higher legislative bodies present to them.

Compared to state and federal leaders, local elected officials look quite astounding and remarkable.

Here’s the other thing to consider: Some people say two-year terms allow voters to throw out mayors not doing the job well.

However, people don’t vote completely on how a mayor (or any elected official) did while in office. They cast their votes more greatly based on how the candidate campaigned.

In other words, Albert Lea indeed could have a great mayor, but if he or she fails to campaign well, the person loses the seat. In turn, the mayor could be awful, but if he or she is good at politicking, well, that person most likely would win the next term. So what four-year terms do is A. reduce the number of elections, and B. allows a mayor the necessary time to guide the city in a some semblance of a direction.

And no one can argue against the case that Albert Lea City Hall could use a steady sense of direction these days considering all the changes in leadership it has had to endure.