To the editor: I read in the 9/3/06 Trends that the bi-partisan petition committee for the “West Milford Sunshine Act” withdrew the Act from the November ballot. I compliment Martin O’Shea for his work on developing the Act, and I compliment the petitioners for collecting over 1,000 signatures, a sufficient number for a ballot referendum. However, I especially compliment the petitioners for having the courage to withdraw the Act after in-depth discussion revealed that it needed improvements. Residents spoke at two West Milford council meetings both for and against the Act. I agree with those who said that it was mostly good, but needed some revisions. As I have been spending about $300 per year to get Township xerox copies and discs of information relevant to Eagle Ridge and Valley Ridge proposed developments, I certainly approve of the Act’s clause that would reduce those costs from 75 cents per page and $10 per disk. Further, there have been times when I have spent weeks trying to get information on those developments. So, I also approve of the Act’s intent to shorten those delays. As many residents know, I have been active in testifying at West Milford Council, Planning Board, DEP and Highlands Council meetings, in writing letters to various governmental agencies, and in helping Skylands CLEAN write legal briefs to provide arguments against developments that would outstrip our ground water capacity, pollute our surface waters, and/or destroy our beautiful and sensitive natural environment. I need “open public records” from town hall in order to learn the legal and environmental details on which to base my actions, on behalf of thousands of township residents. There may be other residents who would be more active if they could afford the high cost of getting public information. West Milford would benefit from having a more open government with more residents involved. What has transpired in the past few months is what should happen in a democracy. Residents used their legal right to develop an Act to modify their government, and open discussion on that Act occurred. In response to comments on its problems, the petitioners withdrew the Act in order to work together with others to improve the Act. In talking to some petitioners, it became clear that they are genuinely interested in good government, rather than in playing the “game” of partisan politics. Hopefully, they will form a more broad-based committee, and welcome constructive input from others. In my opinion, the petitioners have done the right things for the right reasons. I congratulate them on their thoughtful concerns, their hard work, and their desire to improve the functioning of our government to benefit our residents. Doris Aaronson West Milford