Thank you for the input, very much appreciated. Not sure if this clarification makes any difference, there are a few instances in the bylaws that specify 2/3 vote such as suspending or amending constitution/bylaws, and also specifies 2/3 votes in the Rules of Order, to suspend the regular order of business which is parliamentary in nature, so the bylaws do specify some instances (main motions and questions of parliamentary nature) where a simple majority does not apply, so would that give more weight to the argument that "unless otherwise provided for by these by-laws" all decisions would include main motions and questions of parliamentary nature?
I agree, a magic wand would be great to revise the wording, and will bring this suggestion forward however the bylaws were written years ago and change will take time, so until then stuck with trying to interpret the current wording.
Thank you everyone for your valuable insight, these forums are a wealth of information and the takeaway seems to align with what I was thinking, that the voting clause in the bylaws would take precedence.
