To the editor: To the West Milford resident who is reading this letter, I would like to thank you for staying informed and concerned about our local issues here in West Milford. One of those issues was the repeal of the current Attorney Accountability Ordinance. At times, an ordinance must be repealed before it is replaced. In this letter, comments made will be factual and not politically directed. The original intention of this ordinance was to provide West Milford with an ethical legal staff for all its boards, departments and council. The objective of any ordinance is to clarify an intention, to protect and to provide a better quality of life for the Township’s residents. I truly believe that the ordinance, when passed, was done for the right intent. I feel that those sitting on council at the time meant for the ordinance to do good, for all useful purposes. However, something went wrong during the construction phase of this ordinance. Was it haste, a negative perception of saying no, or just local politics? Regardless, in conclusion, it became a severe contradiction of the original and actual objective, that is to protect and to provide. How can an Ordinance, which started with good intent, develop into one, which is vulnerable and defenseless? Where was our legal advisor? Allow me to answer: There wasn’t any. Our township attorney at the time would not advise or participate in the ordinance construction. They were excused from participation. Therefore, West Milford Township did not have legal representation or advice, prior the passage of this ordinance. The ordinance was presented from the floor, or even worse, from out of town. It was passed without a review from any of our township’s legal staff. That is unheard of, and of course, extremely poor practice for any municipality. That was an expensive mistake. If you are familiar with the wording of the ordinance as it was written, it starts with a severely flawed first paragraph. Requiring a waiver for proof of ethical documents after a contract is signed. And the ordinance continues to unfold: There aren’t any disclaimers, agreements or any appropriate wording for action allowed if ethics report, when returned, is unsatisfactory. There is no due process to determine what level or type of a complaint is considered justification for the appointee to be removed from position. There are no pre-appointment procedure for explanation of a complaint by appointee. That’s before he is appointed. There should be acknowledgement from potential appointee, that if report returns with unsatisfactory results, than his/her appointment could be denied. These concerns and others are why the township is put into a vulnerable position. What powers or protection does a township have on a pending complaint that is eventually dismissed by the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics? Without these and numerous other specific clarifications, the Township is defenseless and the ordinance serves no purpose of it’s original intent. This is why it was repealed not revised. A few residents have stated the ordinance is fine, it should remain and then the same few residents suggest a revision. Logically, if a revision is needed than obviously something is either missing or wrong. I do agree with that. The ordinance needs reconstruction, not a revision. West Milford council majority is dedicated to an ethical West Milford. The council majority is dedicated to good government. That is why the council majority is proposing to adopt a stronger and more proficient ordinance that will protect and procure ethical attorneys and legal staff, as we currently employ, for our township. I hope allcouncil members will partake in the task of construction. I urge all to stop the negativity and let’s get to work. Thank you. Joe Smolinski West Milford