To the editor: By now you will have seen rebuttals from Mr. O’Shea and Mr. Gargano, who have a priority space in these newspapers, regarding the petitioning committee’s decision to not proceed with the petition in its present form for the November election. We should be congratulating the committee for having the courage to vet the document and to not allowing it to proceed with positions not suitable for this community. I would take note to congratulate Councilman Nolan and candidate Geist for conceding that the document, put forward by their party (Democratic), was flawed and should not proceed as presently positioned. I am both surprised and pleased at their actions. It certainly defies their history. I have previously stated in this newspaper that no one can be against good government. No one should assume that going overboard in one’s criticism will gain good government. We certainly must guard against selfish interests disguised as “in the community’s best interest.” The committee action is affirming my belief in that position. I think Mr. Gargano’s vote, to proceed as presented, indicates a stubborn attitude to maintain the status quo regardless of the community’s (committee’s) decision. Maybe he can explain his position in the face of overwhelming opposition. Maybe he can explain it to the 1,000 people who signed a petition in favor of an act that they had never read. Were they all registered Democrats who assumed that the party elite would not steer them wrong? Maybe the council needs to revisit an ordinance that allows a small number of misguided but well-intentioned folks to petition the local government to act against the best interest of the community and in favor of the questionable interests of a small questionable group. I guess Mr. O’Shea and Mr. Gargano will have to wait to have their legacy enshrined in the annals of West Milford. Herbert Druckman West Milford