The standard for ‘transparency’ should be clear and consistent

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to a recent letter about Council Member Denise Merrifield and “transparency.”

There has been a lot of talk lately about “transparency” in Riverhead, including criticism of Ms. Merrifield because her husband spoke at a Town Board public hearing and identified himself only as a resident of Wading River. 

Recently, one commenter even claimed that the only reason I “stood up” for Council Member Joann Waski was because she “brought me in” to get a contract without a bid. That ignores the basic facts: I was one of the key people who helped create Alive on 25 and was almost solely responsible for executing it in 2017, 2018, and 2019, and my agency was solely responsible for executing it in 2025. My role did not magically appear out of nowhere; it is the result of years of hands‑on work on this specific event. I find it hard to argue that, if you ask anybody who could possibly get an event of that scale planned and executed in six weeks’ time with such a successful and positive response from the community about a fabulous vibe and atmosphere. I am beyond proud of my team for what we accomplished. This was no handout. And I would argue it was no gift. It was an enormous lift and is yet again this year.

The fact is, I did not even know Council Member Waski until many years after I had already successfully executed the events. Despite our attending the same high school, and vaguely knowing who each other was, we never crossed paths. That said, she should, in my opinion, be acknowledged for her persistence in making sure town residents have the events they would like to see happen and for facilitating support of the BIDMA and helping to transition this event back into fruition. A decision supported nearly unanimously.

For me, this raises a question that goes beyond one person or one meeting: what, exactly, is the standard we expect when we talk about “transparency”? I believe having a clear standard would help both the public and elected officials know what should be expected. “Implied” or made‑up rules that simply sound right in the moment don’t help anybody.

From what I understand of open‑meeting and ethics norms, there is no clear legal requirement that a private citizen speaking during public comment say, “I’m the spouse of Council Member X,” nor that the council member interrupt to announce that relationship. Public comment rules are generally about giving residents a chance to be heard, and in many towns speakers are asked to state their name and whether they are a resident or to identify their business affiliation for the record. This helps with basic record‑keeping, but it is very different from a formal legal requirement that private citizens disclose every personal relationship they may have with anyone on the board. Ethics and conflict‑of‑interest rules are about how elected officials vote and disclose real financial or personal interests when they act in their official capacity.

In this case, Ms. Merrifield’s husband has no role in the project and no authority in the decision. He spoke as a resident. If we are going to say that any personal connection to an official must be verbally disclosed at the microphone, that logic quickly becomes unworkable. Would every speaker also need to announce if they donated to a campaign, volunteered on a committee, are friends with someone on the dais, or have a relative working for the town?

Separately, in the name of “transparency” there has been criticism that the town negotiated my contract for Alive on 25 without issuing a formal bid. For a recurring, highly specialized, time‑sensitive event that I helped create and have produced successfully for years, the town chose to work directly with a known, local contractor with a proven track record. A formal bid process in this situation would have required additional staff and legal hours to write, advertise, and evaluate proposals, and would have delayed planning while the calendar moved closer to summer. All of that would cost taxpayers more money and more time to arrive at a result the town already knew my team could deliver. In my view, the Town Board deserves credit for making a fiscally responsible decision that kept Alive on 25 alive, instead of spending extra public money to run a process that would not meaningfully change the outcome.

When “transparency” is demanded of me over a public contract on social media, and then used again in this situation, it looks less like a clear standard and more like a word that gets pulled out when convenient. The timeline and context matter.

If our community wants a stronger disclosure standard for public comment and procurement, that should be discussed openly, written down, and applied evenly to everyone, residents, vendors, and officials alike. It should not be invented after the fact or on the fly.

We deserve clear, consistent rules, not moving targets.

Sincerely,
Diane Tucci
Riverhead 

Editor’s note: Diane Tucci is the owner of Main Street Agency