We understand and support the decision by Albert Lea City Manager Chad Adams to reorganize the leadership of city government.

But we have some serious reservations, too, and we hope that he and the City Council alter the proposal slightly.

The leader of any company, agency or government entity has the duty, as a leader, to organize the staff in a manner to be effective. Hired in 2011, Adams has been city manager for three years, and there has been enough time for him to sum up the pros and cons of the city government he is charged with leading.

One of the leading books on quality management, “Good to Great” by Jim Collins, even discusses having the right people on the bus to move forward. Adams deserves to determine who should be the people on his bus.

But people are a different matter than structure. Here are our reservations about the structure he proposes:

Under the plan, there would be no parks department and no parks director. The parks superintendent and recreation director would report directly to the assistant city manager.

Who would be the advocate for adding facilities to the parks, shorelines and facilities in the department? The existing parks director, Jay Hutchison, was a spearhead in getting the state to fund the nice, new enclosed pavilion at Edgewater Park. He had a hand in all kinds of improvements, from the expansion the swimming pool to working with the state on the marina at Frank Hall Park to the second sheet of ice at the City Arena to adding the pickleball courts to moving the management of the Marion Ross Performing Arts Center to the local community theater group to numerous other visible improvements that made the city look good.

And who will be advocates for the users? Like or dislike Hutchison, he always saw matters from the perspective of the park users, not merely from the view of what’s convenient or inconvenient for city workers. He sought additional park attendance, not merely having parks. For example, he often pointed out that the swimming pool isn’t supposed to be profitable and spoke on behalf of the children. With him gone, will the pool become more costly because a bean counter at City Hall wanted more beans?

We think highly of the parks superintendent and of the recreation director, but what time will they have to fill this role of advocacy, overall vision and understanding quality of life in the city, especially for such a large department? They already have their hands full as it is. And the assistant city manager would be too busy because he already is leading seven or eight departments.

If the city says farewell to Hutchison, fine, that’s part of arranging the city manager’s “people on his bus,” but we have concerns about breaking up the department and getting rid of having a leader. We fear it could result in either stagnation or moving backward on the quality of life for Albert Leans that this department has achieved after many years.

We would urge keeping the department in tact and having a department director who reports directly to the assistant city manager. Many cities are organized in this way. In fact, that’s the structure proposed for the public library.

The Parks and Recreation Department is important to people on this city, and the recent push for dredging Fountain Lake is but one example of how they care about their treasured landscapes. It would be a mistake to assume the city doesn’t need a Parks and Recreation Department.