To the editor: An article in the Trends suggests either good investigative journalism or a political plant. The notion of a local Sunshine Law has been floated around the community ever since the Bill S-1219 was stalled or stonewalled in the legislature. It is an attempt to circumvent the legislative bodies in the state and create more confusion in administering existing law by piling on additional law. It further proves the point that most people will sign anything (petitions) put in front of them without considering the consequences of the act. Last us take a brief look at the issues addressed in the article, in the order that they are presented. ( Hopefully they were not the real order of importance). 1. Reduce the cost of copies to 5 cents from the present 75 cents. We pay the town employees sufficiently and they are entitled to raises periodically. Don’t we think their time is worth more than 5 cents. How do we discourage people from seeking arbitrarily requesting nuisance copies just because it’s cheap. Go to the print shop and get copies and see how much it costs. 2. ”Require public bodies to post meeting notices, agendas and minutes on the Internet.” This is followed by “ Currently the township’s web site posts meetings schedules, agendas, and older meeting minutes. The only difference I see is that meeting schedules are not meeting notices? How old are older meeting minutes and how fast do the current ones have to be posted to satisfy this requirement? We may need additional town staff to satisfy the urgency of keeping the Internet current. This would be especially true of those individuals who are home monitoring this avenue of communication. 3. This next one, I know, has been a thorn in certain individuals side ever since the change in government. The public comment portion of the public meetings (particularly the council). I am not sure if I care whether the public comment portion is in the beginning of the meeting or the end. What I would like to be assured is that, while they allot five minutes to each comment, there be no requirement that the council responds to these comments during the meeting. (Except to take it under advisement). That would allow 12 people to speak, beg, plead, harangue or vent and the council can decide, at a later date whether it was worth a public response or just a letter thanking them for their interest. (In hindsight I would prefer that it be at the end of the meeting so that when they choose to bore us with the same political defensiveness I can walk out with a clear conscience) 4. The next issue is reviewing minutes of non-public meetings. Wonder who gets to decide if they should be released and won’t that be a public issue. 5. Internet postings of all rosters of all local government officers and members of each body. Are we going to include their Internet addresses and home phone numbers? Are all of these people elected or are they also municipal employees or appointees who we will subjecting to this harassment as well as officers of the townships municipal committees for political parties. (I will admit I have no idea what this is about) 6. And finally the township would be liable for any and all reasonable legal fees for any crank (my word) that can get his complaint heard by a court. Do we really need to support an ordinance to find ways to increase the taxpayers costs? In closing, I might say that no one can reasonably oppose open government. There are probably better ways to do it then to hamstring our officials with cumbersome ordinances that are of partisan origin and are aimed at discrediting our duly elected officials as well as intimidating the employees and volunteers who serve our community. There are a few quotes at the close of the article which would suggest that the “facts” contained therein were supplied to the writer. Not to suggest that this ordinance is not patriotic but, to quote je Wall Street Journal “Not everything is fit to print. There is to be regard for at least probable factual accuracy, for danger to innocent lives, for human decencies, and even , if cautiously, for non partisan considerations of the national interest.” I overheard a commentator suggest that the framers in our constitution believed in open disagreement in order to reach the compromises necessary to achieve a fair and lasting government. That, rather than participating in bi-partisan dialogue, we open our minds and hearts to what is for the good of the community and not what benefits the party most. If this ever gets to a community vote it should be soundly defeated. Herbert Druckman West Milford