Individuals who want to become members AFTER a by-law change has been proposed.

[JAM]

 Our community women’s club has an outstanding, controversial proposal to amend our by-laws and change the organization name. Since the proposal was passed by the board to be voted on by the membership, we have women asking to become members in order to vote. 
This seems inappropriate to me, but I could use some assistance here. 

[Weldon Merritt]

If the women meet the current criteria for becoming members, why the want to do so is irrelevant, no matter how "inappropriate" it may seem to you. 

[Guest JAM]

The inappropriateness I’m referring to relates to timing. They are become members AFTER the by-law amendment was proposed.  
Seems to me, only the members of record on the day the Board passed the resolution “should” be allowed to vote…?

[J. J.]

On 2/26/2023 at 7:55 AM, Guest JAM said:

The inappropriateness I’m referring to relates to timing. They are become members AFTER the by-law amendment was proposed.  
Seems to me, only the members of record on the day the Board passed the resolution “should” be allowed to vote…?

There is no such rule in RONR.

Members may fully participate upon becoming members, unless the bylaws say otherwise. 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/26/2023 at 6:55 AM, Guest JAM said:

The inappropriateness I’m referring to relates to timing. They are become members AFTER the by-law amendment was proposed.  
Seems to me, only the members of record on the day the Board passed the resolution “should” be allowed to vote…?

So far as RONR is concerned, members have all the rights of membership immediately upon becoming a member, including the right to vote. They are free to exercise such rights with respect to any proposals before the assembly, even if the proposal was initiated prior to the date the person became a member. There is no "waiting period" in RONR.

An organization is free to adopt such rules in its bylaws if it wishes. Many political organizations, for example, will provide in their bylaws that new members are not able to vote on motions relating to endorsing candidates for political office until after a certain period of time. But in the absence of any such rules in your bylaws, the new members are free to vote on this proposal.

Edited February 26, 2023 at 04:34 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

Piling on here, I draw an analogy to this statement in 45:56 (emphasis added)

Quote

right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put.

So a member does not even need to present when the question is put, much less when the question is stated by the chair (which is the analogy to when the board adopted the resolution); the member could also miss all of the debate and still vote if they are present when the vote is taken.

Guest JAM may believe that people are being recruited to "stack" the votes on one side and apparently believes that this tactic is not appropriate in the culture of this organization, but it does not appear to violate any rules.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/26/2023 at 7:55 AM, Guest JAM said:

The inappropriateness I’m referring to relates to timing. They are become members AFTER the by-law amendment was proposed.  
Seems to me, only the members of record on the day the Board passed the resolution “should” be allowed to vote…?

Yes, they become members after it was proposed, but before it will have been adopted.  It's the second vote that actually adopts the change to the bylaws (or, possibly, rejects it).