To the editor: If you bounce a check because you neglect to make a deposit, do you blame the bank? I think not. Yet that is exactly the kind of flawed thinking the Republican council members have used in their feeble attempt to justify repealing the attorney ethics ordinance. My decision-making process is governed by logic and facts. It is for this reason that I am perplexed by the Republicans’ proposal. This ordinance is neither cumbersome nor costly. It merely provides for immediate public access to the ethical history of a consenting attorney hired by the township. Indeed, this ordinance should be reviewed, strengthened, and improved upon rather than repealed. It protects our resident taxpayers. While it is true that this ordinance was the subject of a rather costly lawsuit, it was not the ordinance that failed us. It was the township manager who failed to abide by its simple terms, and the subsequent actions of the then all-Republican council, who needlessly and recklessly chose to fight the lawsuit at taxpayer expense rather than release the ethics-violations report of the township attorney they appointed (William DeMarco). Hiring ethical attorneys to represent our township should not be a Democratic or Republican principle, yet this ordinance is likely to be repealed by a 4-2 vote, with Democrats Nolan and Warden in the minority. Hopefully, the Republican councilmen will recognize their flawed hypothesis and choose not to abolish the attorney ethics ordinance. After all, it is evident we need more ethics in West Milford, not less. Bettina Bieri West Milford