To the editor: I see that you are giving a lot of space to the Democratic party advocates (Aaronson, OShea) and Republican party advocate (Aiello). The fact that these people seem to dominate the op ed page doesn’t seem to give the readers an honest perspective. Having said that, let me comment on a few of the statements made. I am a resident of Bald Eagle Village and attended the recent meeting. Mr. Scangarello did not attend. I could not tell you that I heard (publicly) the reason for his missing the meeting. One of the principal issues brought up by a Democratic candidate was that the parks and recreation budget was large and growing and there was no accountability by that department. One of the village residents questioned whether this was due to mismanagement or illegal activity. The candidates addressed the fact of accountability, but disassociated themselves from any suggestions of illegal activity. Mr. Weisberger stood to state, for the record, that he could not suggest any illegal activity on the part of anyone associated with Parks and Recreation, and the others nodded in agreement. If this is the item that has been reported as “disgraceful” it is a tempest in a teapot and misleading. There was a discussion of the condition of ball fields and this was ultimately concluded by at least one of the Democratic candidates, saying that having been closely associated with the sports in the town, he suggests that there were probably enough ball fields but the maintenance needed to be improved. Since Mr. Scangarello was not in attendance he could not voice his opinion on this point which, others say, he champions. Speaking of misleading, what about this Timins Issue. I don’t know anything about his professional or ethical background but the impression given is that he is guilty of something when I think the issue is that he didn’t file something on time. If he didn’t want to file the papers, then he deserves to be dismissed but lets not suggest that he violated the legal ethics law, just that he violated the disclosure aspect of the law. A witch hunt is not necessary here. And one last thing. We hear a lot about the failure of the present council since they took office. The fact they have been attacked and practically filibustered since the day they took office might have something to do with the perceived lack of “progress.” I can’t see how you can accomplish much when you have to spend most of your waking hours defending yourself from the same people who just were put out of office. Some of the same people who are attempting to gain office again are some of the people we watched create some of the issues that the new council had to deal with and are still dealing with. Can we remember the little voting blocks who sat on the council and catered to the betterment of their special interest groups? Weren’t they the democratic majority? Maybe its personalities not party that we should be looking at when we elect our council persons. Remember the tedious public debate over who could use the sound system when renting the meeting room? Did we have to pay a lawyer to unravel that one? Lets start by voting for people who understand the issues, can address them reasonably, and tell us the truth when things don’t work out exactly as we had hoped. Let’s not bring back those people who tell us what they think we want to hear but their records tell us the truth about how they will act. H Druckman West Milford