To the editor: “We reverse the grant of summary judgment [that] favor[ed] the defendant .” With those words, the New Jersey Appellate Court, confirmed the legality of the West Milford Attorney Accountability Law - an ordinance that makes public, the ethics history of attorneys when the town hires them. Yet some West Milford councilmen who originally endorsed and voted for it now seek its repeal claiming that we don’t need it after all and that it will cost the township money. On the contrary, preserving it is critical both because we desire and deserve the best people working for us, and because retaining unethical counsel is costly. Since we want police who do not have criminal backgrounds, and teachers who have not abused children, why should we not hire attorneys with proof of a clean ethics record? It has been said by some council members that no other town in the state has adopted a similar ordinance. I say “so what?” What is wrong with having smarter government? Why should we dumb down to someone else’s lower standards? It has been claimed that the ethics information is already on the Internet, so this law is not needed. Yet a reading of the court transcript shows that this is not quite true. The report currently available is a brief, incomplete summary with important details withheld. However, when an attorney signs the release as required by this law, all pertinent information becomes available. Without this sunshine, we remain in the dark. Lastly, it has been claimed that this law should be repealed because we might get sued if it remains on the books. West Milford was already sued in a lower court but the Appellate Court has since affirmed that this is indeed a valid ordinance. All questions about the law have been answered - in the townships favor. From a different perspective, what might it cost if the law is repealed (aside from the inherent cost of bad government counsel)? An attorney the town had hired prior to the enactment of the ordinance was not only incompetent in municipal law, it turns out he also was cited for contempt of court, use of false evidence, had a pattern of abusive and unwarranted behavior directed at the trial judge, etc. He left the employ of the township, but not before physically attacking an elected official in West Milford town hall. The next person harmed by someone who should never have been hired may not be as gracious, and might sue the township for its questionable hiring practices. Repealing the ordinance sends a message to our children that mediocrity is perfectly ok - that there is no need for them to be on their best behavior because after all, no one will know. New Jersey has no shortage of competent, ethical attorneys. A lawyer not wanting his/her ethics history to become public knowledge is probably not proud of it, and if they are not proud of their work history, why would we want them working for us? We are entitled to good government, and we only get good government if our government hires only good people. Gary Oppenheimer Newfoundland