I'm writing in regard to the North Stonington special town meeting on Tuesday.

In accordance with state law, our selectmen have scheduled the meeting in response to a petition signed by 34 citizens concerned about confusion over our May 2 referendum.

I prepared that petition when it became clear that the referendum question was, at least, ambiguous and, at worst, hopelessly confusing. The resultant uncertainty has precipitated incendiary threats of million-dollar lawsuits and "war" against our town. I encourage all of you to join us on Tuesday to squarely address this state of affairs.

As many of you know, our May 2 referendum concerned a proposed lease for the Buon Appetito restaurant that was drafted by Fotis Georgiadis and/or his attorney. The specific question was: "Shall the First Selectman be authorized to enter into a proposed lease agreement, as presented with a petition to the Town Clerk's Office on March 28, 2011, and execute the proposed lease on behalf of the Town of North Stonington?" Having voted for 27 years and having practiced law for 15, I believed I understood that question and cast my vote.

A matter of authority

As I understood it, voters were asked (1) whether our first selectman (Nick Mullane) should be authorized to enter into and execute the Georgiadis lease (a yes vote); or (2) whether Nick Mullane should be stripped of his authority to enter into that lease (a no vote). Thus, "yes" would leave Nick Mullane with the authority to execute the lease if he so chooses, and "no" would remove his authority/discretion to execute the lease. The final tally was 171 (yes) to 161 (no).

I was soon surprised when the Mystic River Press reported that Georgiadis was "ready to go to war …", "… if the lease isn't signed by Friday …" Despite the fact that the referendum expressly uses the term authorized (not required), Georgiadis apparently believes that the question put to the voters was whether Nick Mullane is required to execute his lease.

I asked around and soon found dozens of people who understood the referendum question exactly as I did. Nonetheless, local papers continue to quote Georgiadis threatening to sue us and our selectmen for more than $1 million unless his lease is executed immediately.

No clear consensus

Tellingly, they also quote Georgiadis threatening an injunction to prohibit the May 24 meeting altogether. Perhaps worst of all, is the proliferation of anecdotes about, and online commentary by, those who, inexplicably, believe(d) the May 2 referendum involved an ordinance change permitting Buon Appetito to serve liquor (a change that was approved back in January). In short, we have a vote-count; but no consensus on what we were asked, much less what we answered.

The petitioners called for the May 24 meeting to determine whether the confusion warrants clarification of our collective will. If so, the petitioners propose that we consider a clearer question: whether Nick Mullane shall be required to execute Georgiadis' lease. The petitioners suggest this question because (1) it is so simple that it leaves little to no room for confusion and/or manipulation; and (2) it directly asks the question that Georgiadis apparently tried to ask.

If we really do demand that our first selectman, Nick Mullane, cast reason aside and reflexively capitulate by executing the Georgiadis lease, we can unambiguously demonstrate that intent by voting yes on Tuesday. Otherwise, we can unambiguously demonstrate our will that Nick Mullane retain his discretion over this matter by voting no. Either way, the ambiguity will be resolved.

This is our town, our democracy and our future and I encourage all of you to attend, listen and participate at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Wheeler Middle School cafeteria.

Anthony M. Palazzolo Jr. lives in North Stonington.