[Rich, 09:41]
I have received some questions in private e-mail as to why I voted "present" on Article 81 while stating I would have supported Article 81 on a ballot or in an Open Town Meeting. Here's an excerpt from what I would have said if I had a chance to speak before debate was terminated:

There is also the question of TM speaking for the Town. If this were an Open TM there would be no question about that. But this is an Representative TM. And while our constitutents rightly expect us to be informed and aware of local issues, and thus be legitimately able to speak for them on those issues, I'm not sure how much that delegation of authority carries over to discussions concerning a 342-page federal law and no doubt thousands of pages of implementing regulations. I would feel better if this resolution purported to speak for TM instead of the Town as a whole.

I also had ancillary issues with resenting being put in the position of being used for the political and PR benefit of a group (AUJP) whose statements and beliefs I often find objectionable, and of questioning some of the representations made in the materials handed out with the resolution. However, as Mr. Berkowitz said, the resolution at hand and not the merits of AUJP were what was up for a vote.