Amending Voting Rights at Business Meeting

[Guest Janet M. Odell]

If there is an amendment to bylaws that affect the voting rights of members, and the amendment passes, does the change become effective immediately? I.E. the officers of a social club decided not to allow 'renters' of households of less than one year voting rights in their club. This is in anticipation of trying to merge two clubs together and some 'vote' counting that took place after the motion to merge was defeated by 3 votes (2/3rds majority was needed to pass).

For example, if I attended the meeting and was a 'renter' who had an association membership card, and voted NO on the motion to allow renters the right to vote, I assume my vote still counted since the current bylaws were in effect. If the majority voted NO and the motion passed, could I then vote on the remainder of the changes brought forward? Or are the bylaw changes 'offical' once a vote is taken on changing them?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If there is an amendment to bylaws that affect the voting rights of members, and the amendment passes, does the change become effective immediately?

Yes.

Once the chair says, "The ayes have it; the motion is adopted," then the new bylaw is as enforceable as any old (unchanged) bylaw.

If the majority voted NO and the motion passed ...

Yikes!

What do you mean?

If the majority voted "no", then how to you figure ANYTHING would pass?

Were you referring to your threshold for adoption of your bylaw amendment?

"... 2/3rds majority was needed to pass ..."

"... the motion to merge was defeated by 3 votes ..."

But where does the "no" come into play? - Even if 2/3 vote "no" (a super-majority), you've got a REJECTED motion, not an ADOPTED ("passed") motion.

I don't get it.

[hmtcastle]

the officers of a social club decided not to allow 'renters' of households of less than one year voting rights in their club.

It's very doubtful that the officers have the authority to make this decision.

[Guest Janet M. Odell]

Clarification. If I am a renter with voting rights when I attend the next business meeting and a motion is made to NOT let renters vote and that motion is PASSED by 2/3rds the majority then I cannot vote on the next motion brought forward at the meeting. I had my voting privileges BEFORE the motion to change the voting rules passed. Comment in forum - Once the chair says, "The ayes have it; the motion is adopted," then the new bylaw is as enforceable as any old (unchanged) bylaw

At the last business meeting, the motion was made to merge the two groups together..one a 501©3 and the other a non-501 ©3 - it was defeated by 3 votes as there they did not get 2/3rd's majority to pass the motion. The officers then later looked at all the votes (ballots) and figured out that at least 3 of the votes made against the motion came from people who rented houses in the community and came up with the idea to change the bylaws so that renters of less than 1 year do not have voting privileges (Sun City Center is a seasonal community). Although the SCC Community Association allows non-owner residents of 4 months or more to vote (according to the CA bylaws), the CA said that clubs can make any rules the wish as part of their bylaws.

So in summary, you have answered my question about once a motion is made and passed, it become effective IMMEDIATELY.

Thank you for your quick response.

[David A Foulkes]

To add a wrinkle into this -- if the bylaws, in the version previous to the adoption of the motion to change voting rights, contained a provision that amendments to the bylaws take effect at adjournment of the meeting at which they are adopted (and I have seen this often), that means the amendment was not in effect immediately, unless some proviso was attached to that effect. Thus, you would have still been a voting member for the remainder of the meeting. Only you can know if this was the case.

[Trina]

...it was defeated by 3 votes as there they did not get 2/3rd's majority to pass the motion. The officers then later looked at all the votes (ballots) and figured out that at least 3 of the votes made against the motion came from people who rented houses in the community and came up with the idea to....

Hey, how were they able to figure this out by looking at ballots, which, by definition, are supposed to be secret? Even if you can't identify how an individual voted, knowing whether votes came from a certain group of members (for example, pass out blue ballots to owners, give green ones to the renters ) still violates the secrecty that should be part of the process.

On what basis were 'the officers' sitting around inspecting the ballots after the result of the vote was announced??

I know this is peripheral to the question you asked in the original post.

[Josh Martin]

The officers then later looked at all the votes (ballots) and figured out that at least 3 of the votes made against the motion came from people who rented houses in the community

If this was possible, it seems the secrecy of the ballot was somehow compromised, which would violate the rights of individual members and make the vote null and void.