I have never understood why some governing bodies feel the need to specify exact meeting dates, times and locations in their rules or bylaws. To me, that's just an invitation for problems. There will always be some sort of situation -- weather, illness, conflict with some other activity -- that will get in the way, sooner or later, and then you're in a position of being forced to break your own bylaws.
I do, completely, understand the need for bylaws to call for regular meetings. There's a big difference between the type of non-profit agency which has a once-a-year, rubber-stamp board meeting and the type that has an active board which is kept well-informed about the agency's operations. It's completely legitimate for the organizers of an agency (or people who are re-writing the bylaws at some point later) to want to ensure that the board is active and meets frequently. But there are other ways to achieve that without locking in the body to specific dates. You could specify that the board must meet at least six times a year, or at least 12 times a year. (Or you could make that 5 or 11, to give a little wiggle room in case a regular monthly or bi-monthly meeting has to be cancelled.)
I don't understand what benefit there is to putting in a legal requirement that you have to meet at 3:30 p.m. on the fourth Friday in room 110 of the Krelman Building. You're setting yourself up for problems -- and if you do ignore your own bylaws and meet at 3:45 p.m. on the second Wednesday in room 116 of the Krelman Building, there's a possibility that someone could use that to challenge any action you take at the non-compliant meeting. (Not to mention the fact that I completely made up the Krelman Building, and so you'd have a hard time meeting there.)
The same thing goes for governmental and legislative bodies. I've seen times when the members of one government board or committee were unable to attend the meeting of some other committee, acting on a matter of interest to them, because their own committee bylaws required them to meet on the same night. That gets in the way of cooperation between various agencies and levels of government.
As a journalist, of course, I do believe it's vitally important for governing bodies which fall under the Tennessee Open Meetings Act to give the proper and legally-required public notice so that people know when and where they are meeting. Some bodies comply with this requirement by announcing at the beginning of the year that they'll meet at 5:30 p.m. on the second Thursday of each month, and publishing the complete schedule of second-Thursday dates for the year. That does comply with the law, and it saves those bodies the time and trouble of sending out a monthly notice. And, yes, you can always send out a followup public notice saying that Due To Circumstances Beyond Our Control, the meeting has been changed.
My personal opinion, which probably isn't worth much, is that governing bodies don't need to tie themselves down. Yes, it's good to have a regular meeting place and time, but there should also be some flexibility -- as long as any changes are made far enough in advance to give proper public notice. I also think that monthly meeting notices (as opposed to one all-inclusive annual meeting notice) have a better chance of reaching the public.