I believe our situation is covered by the scenario described immediately above by J. Katz -- and that the amendment was out of order. (To answer a previous question -- a point of order WAS raised about whether the amendment could be considered. The member who proposed it read an opinion from a member who is an attorney that said it was proper, and the chair did not challenge that.)
To be specific, this matter pertains to the membership process. Currently, membership can be either single or joint between spouses, with applicants required to meet several criteria such as financial qualification before a vote by the board In the past, if a single member became married or a non-member spouse wanted to become a member, the "new" spouse needed to go through the same process. The proposed change to the bylaw would have allowed the couple to avoid the full process for the new/or newly added spouse. The couple could request spousal membership in writing, undergo a simple review and then go to the board for a vote. The reasoning is that the spouse of a member in good standing is best welcomed rather than subjected to judgement and scrutiny. A member objected to this change; he stated there is nothing special about these spouses and they should undergo the full "investigation" as he termed it. After lengthy discussion, the member's amendment to require the full application process for joining spouses passed on a heavily split vote. My belief is that this was not within scope of what was presented to the full membership -- it is the opposite of what was proposed. Our membership did not have the proper notice for this change to what was distributed to them in advance of the vote.