Matt A

Thank you both - your answers and context are tremendously helpful and appreciated. I'm definitely going to strike that article from our draft and rely on RONR. The more I dig into this kind of stuff, the more I realize just how many other groups I've been associated with have just thrown Roberts Rules in as their parliamentary authority, but have no clue as to what it entails. I'm definitely trying to avoid that, but obviously have a lot to learn myself.

Well, I guess one way to say it is that we're worried about "shenanigans." - but, I admit, that I tend to overthink things.

I'm working on bylaws for an organization and I'm having a hard time parsing out the details of the term "members present and voting" as described in various sections of Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised. I do understand the general purpose in that it prevents abstentions from counting as negative votes. I wonder, though, if it could have unintended consequences. Given a bylaws article which states: all issues to be voted on shall be decided by a simple majority of qualified members present and voting at the meeting in which the vote takes place, provided a quorum is present. In an extreme hypothetical situation: at a meeting where there is a quorum present, there are 50 members qualified to vote in attendance. An issue comes up for a vote, and 45 people abstain, 3 vote yes, 2 vote no. Would this pass 3 to 2, or is there some overriding part of "majority present and voting" that I am just not understanding? To prevent a situation like this, would the "and voting" need to be struck out? Thanks, Matt