Bob; very clever but a product of lousy by laws.
SL,
I agree.
Bob
My two cents, and more.
Keep in mind that the tactic may not have been a product of "lousy by laws." The bylaws may have prohibited this sort of approach, yet knowingly or not, the board may have approved it anyway. I'm not saying this is what happened, but it could have. Human nature.
Here are some additional insights from my experience as a lawyer and personal experience in club politics. I am talking here about a private, member-owned club in the USA, not a business. You may say that all of this is implicit, but I think it needs stating.
From the legal side, you must start with the governing law of the appropriate jurisdiction, which is normally going to be the nonprofit corporation law of the state of incorporation of the club. That law will govern what's required and permitted in the club's basic governing document (charter, articles of incorporation, or the like) and its bylaws. Ideally you'll have a well thought out and well drafted charter and bylaws that are consistent with state law. Unfortunately, in my view, reality will rarely approach the ideal. Why not? Human nature.
Then, whatever the quality of the charter and bylaws, you've got to have a membership and leadership that are interested in reading, understanding, and following the charter and bylaws both in letter and spirit. Again, given human nature, this ideal is rarely approached. There's a point made above about the importance of requiring a membership approval (2/3 or even just majority) for an assessment. But what happens if the board decides an assessment would likely not pass? Maybe they'll just go ahead and institute a temporary dues increase -- not requiring membership approval -- to cover the expense. Not only has the board violated the spirit of the rules, but likely also the letter. Yet if there's not sufficient interest in the membership to threaten or file a lawsuit, the deed is done. It's one thing for a member to vote against an assessment, yet another to muster the interest, energy and resources to go after leaders who are bent on achieveing their goal regardless.
I have absolutely no problem with proxies. Proxy voting serves a legitimate purpose. The difficulties described in some of the comments above have to do with the execution of the process, which, again, depends on the integrity of the leaders who've designed and who implement the proxy process. I've personally been involved in what I would call a "proxy contest" at a club in which a group of members initiated a vote on a change in the bylaws that challenged the position of a substantial portion of the leadership group and won, barely. Both sides used proxies, of course, but without the proxy process I don't believe the members group would have had a chance. So, let's not forget that the proxy process should and can work both ways.