The reason that our bylaws require a 2/3 vote in favor of any motion that is not supported by the board is to try to avoid hasty decisions.

If you were at the meeting, you will recall that I violated our own rules and ignored a positive vote to close discussion because there appeared to be confusion. This allowed additional debate and clarification to occur. The question was then called again, which resulted in the second vote to end discussion. This passed by a large majority (it may have even been unanimous),

I then asked the members if there was anyone who was not certain about what they were voting on. I had Joe Knecht repeat his motion. While debate had concluded by virtue of the prior vote to end discussion, I continued to allow any questions on the specifics of what we were voting on. It was my goal to make sure that everyone knew what they were voting on, while complying with the results of the vote to end discussion.

After all of that, the vote in favor of the motion wasn't even close.