The text is 'officers are limited to two four-year terms, and after another period of four years can apply again..."
The scrivenors error is that the text that was not supposed to be included: " (specific officer position) is limited to two four-year terms, and after another period of four years can apply again..."
The scrivenors error was never passed. Now the error appears in a new proposed bylaw change but the error is not identified as a change or something new to be voted on along with the highlighted changes in the bylaws up for vote.
The effect is that under the scrivenors error bylaw people can rotate among different officer positions without waiting out for 4 years before they apply for a position again. The true bylaw is that limited people to 2 terms of any officer position, once the 2 terms are up, they have to wait 4 years to apply again to be officer. The erroneous bylaw appears in minutes as rejected.
So the question is whether including that erroneous bylaw sentence in another bylaw proposal legitimized it, even though the erroneous bylaw isn't called out as a change, and was just copied along with the other parts of a section. The changes for the new proposal were highlighted to be voted on, not the erroneous sentence.