handouts at a meeting

[Guest Joan Campbell]

I am the secretary for my organization. We recently voted on an amendment to our constitution. The notification of the vote and recommendation of the Board had previously been sent out to the organization before the meeting. At this meeting a hand-out was distributed to guide the discussion. This document was not sent out to the entire organization before the meeting. A motion was made to discuss the amendment. A discussion happened then voting took place, and the amendment was not approved. A few days later the person who had proposed the amendment is calling the vote "illegal" because the hand-out was not distributed before the meeting. My question is does his claim have any validity?

[Chris Harrison]

Nothing in RONR would render it "illegal" (though your bylaws may say something on the subject).

[Gary Novosielski]

I am the secretary for my organization. We recently voted on an amendment to our constitution. The notification of the vote and recommendation of the Board had previously been sent out to the organization before the meeting. At this meeting a hand-out was distributed to guide the discussion. This document was not sent out to the entire organization before the meeting. A motion was made to discuss the amendment. A discussion happened then voting took place, and the amendment was not approved. A few days later the person who had proposed the amendment is calling the vote "illegal" because the hand-out was not distributed before the meeting. My question is does his claim have any validity?

No.

And even if it did, he'd be foolish to raise it. The amendment was defeated. If he had succeeded in having the vote declared "illegal" (a term RONR does not use in this context) then the amendment would still remain unapproved, because instead of being defeated, it would then be not voted-on at all. So the results would be the same, and from his point of view he has gained nothing. Improper notice is a valid reason to object to a vote, but the result would not be to pass the motion, it would simply prevent the vote from taking place at all.

However, since he is doing his complaining outside of the meeting a few days later, it has no parliamentary significance. Nothing can be done until the next meeting, anyway. He can try again then and make sure the amendment is well-publicized in advance.