YC2017

It was a general verbal announcement that we would hold a meeting to vote on revised by-laws. 

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Does "update" mean that you presented an entirely new set of bylaws to replace the old ones? If so, amendments are in order while it is being considered, since notice of a revision is notice that everything may change.  If not, and you gave notice of the specific changes you wished to make, it appears to me to be unlikely that the addition of the Missions Committee would be within the scope of notice.  

That said, it sounds like the question posed is whether, after the amendment was made, the now-amended motion should have been presented to the assembly.  It is the chair's obligation to make sure the assembly knows what it is voting on.  It is also the chair's job to state the motion, as amended, prior to the vote.  However, if that was not done, and no timely objection was raised, it is now too late to raise a point of order.

Joshua, to answer your question about "update". No, it was not an entirely new set of bylaws just changes throughout. We did give our voters a copy of the original bylaws as well as another copy with highlighted changes. So I'm understanding that the verbal amendment would not be within the scope of notice; however, I believe I understand that it is now too late to raise a point of order. Is my understanding correct?

What reference can I use from RROO?

Thank you all for your replies. 

Thank you all for your replies.  For further clarification as requested.  Here's the history and the process through the vote....We had a team that was tasked to update the by-laws. We updated the by-laws and gave the required notification to the assembly as to when a vote would be taken.  During the discussion portion before the vote was called for the by-laws, one individual asked for the by-laws to be amended to add the Missions Committee. It was agreed that the standing Missions Committee would be added to the by-laws document. No further discussion on any issues and then the moderator called for a vote. The by-laws with the one amendment passed with over the 2/3 requirement. Hope this helps.

Our non-profit brought a motion for a vote to change our by-laws. During the decision portion, an amendment was made then we proceeded to vote on the by-law change. The by-law vote carried by over 2/3 vote as required by our by-laws. If the by-laws were changed as recommended by the amendment, was this a legal vote or not. If not, the by-law change would need to be re-voted?

For more information on the one amendment, one group wanted to add a new standing committee to the by-laws. It was stated that the new committee with certain members would be added to the by-laws (and it was). It has been stated that we should NOT have voted until the amended document was represented. 

This is the new standing committee to be amended to the by-laws:  “Section 8 -- Missions Committee - The missions committee shall consist of the chairman of deacons, chairperson of the finance committee, the ladies’ organization director, and men’ organization director.”

Just FYI - the duties of the committee are described in their job description.  

Can you clarify and point me to the reference in Roberts Rule of Order. How would we proceed?