Notice of Bylaws Amendment buried in the midst of report?

[Guest Peter Deg]

The bylaws of organization A require 10 days notice to amend the bylaws.  

When notice of the regular meeting went out two weeks before the meeting it included reports of various committees including motions.  One of the motions was from the meeting planning committee and it was to "Amend the bylaws by inserting 'January' so that Bylaws Article VI.a reads 'Regular meetings of A will be held in January, April, July and October."

At the meeting a member raised a point of order that notice was not properly given since it wasn't clear that notice was given- it was buried in a committee report where one would not expect to find a bylaws amendment.  After a ruling that the point was not well taken and an appeal of the chair's decision that was lost, the bylaws were amended.

Organization A doesn't have a bylaws committee. Apparently at some past meetings notice of proposed amendments was noted on the opening page of the meeting packet.

Does notice of a bylaws amendment require more than what was offered to the membership by the Meeting Planning Committee?

[Atul Kapur]

On 7/3/2024 at 12:57 AM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Does notice of a bylaws amendment require more than what was offered to the membership by the Meeting Planning Committee?

In the case of an ambiguity in the bylaws or need for interpretation, it is the organization itself that determines the meaning [ RONR (12th ed.) 56:68(1) "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws" ]

So, you have answered your own question, when you tell us that 

On 7/3/2024 at 12:57 AM, Guest Peter Deg said:

After a ruling that the point was not well taken and an appeal of the chair's decision that was lost

The organization has determined that notice does not require more than was provided.

[Richard Brown]

On 7/2/2024 at 11:57 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Does notice of a bylaws amendment require more than what was offered to the membership by the Meeting Planning Committee?

That is a question which your organization will have to decide for itself. RONR has no details regarding how prominent the notice must be. The manner of deciding whether the notice was sufficient is just what you described as happening in your case. A Point of Order is raised, the chair rules on the Point of Order, and then his ruling may be appealed to the assembly. The decision of the assembly is final. That appears to be what was done and that is indeed the proper process. 

Section 10:44 of RONR (12th ed.) is the relevant section of RONR dealing with previous notice. But, as I stated, it contains no details concerning how prominent that notice must be.
 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/3/2024 at 12:57 AM, Guest Peter Deg said:

The bylaws of organization A require 10 days notice to amend the bylaws.  

When notice of the regular meeting went out two weeks before the meeting it included reports of various committees including motions.  One of the motions was from the meeting planning committee and it was to "Amend the bylaws by inserting 'January' so that Bylaws Article VI.a reads 'Regular meetings of A will be held in January, April, July and October."

At the meeting a member raised a point of order that notice was not properly given since it wasn't clear that notice was given- it was buried in a committee report where one would not expect to find a bylaws amendment.  After a ruling that the point was not well taken and an appeal of the chair's decision that was lost, the bylaws were amended.

Organization A doesn't have a bylaws committee. Apparently at some past meetings notice of proposed amendments was noted on the opening page of the meeting packet.

Does notice of a bylaws amendment require more than what was offered to the membership by the Meeting Planning Committee?

According to RONR, this is a question that can only be answered by your organization, through the process of Point of Order and Appeal.  Since this is what was done, I can't see any remaining unanswered question.  As you stated, the bylaws were amended.

RONR contains no relevant advice on what constitutes "burying" information in a report.  It could be argued that the member in question simply didn't bother to read the entire report.  Or it could be argued that bylaws amendments should be specially emphasized.  But in your particular case, it seems the arguments are over.