From this thread:
Article 7: Binding Votes: VOTE OVER: Discuss continued
What we voted on, strictly, went like this:
A binding vote cannot be held for a proposition that has been defeated by an earlier vote during the past six months and the same proposition cannot be voted on more often than twice in one year. It is the responsibility of the Committee to determine whether the proposed vote is allowable. If the committee is divided, a straw poll will be taken and a simple majority of the committee members will decide whether the vote is allowable.
After two unvoted changes, the text reads like this:
A binding vote cannot be held for a proposition that has been defeated by an earlier vote during the past six months unless a genuine change of circumstances justifies holding an additional vote. It is the responsibility of the Committee to determine whether the proposed vote is allowable. If the committee is divided, a straw poll will be taken and a simple majority of the committee members will decide whether the vote is allowable.
Regarding the first version of the paragraph, I'm having trouble understanding how the committee could be divided on whether the vote is allowable, if the criteria are matters of fact (was the proposition defeated within the past 6 months, will voting constitute a third vote within the period of a year). So in the first version, I don't see the need for the last sentence.
Regarding the second version of the paragraph (and considering the continuing discussion of the wilko thread), is there a possibility of modifying the suggested change:
... unless a genuine change of circumstances or serious ramifications not previously recognized justify holding an additional vote.
Note: I know passions have run high in that discussion. I am making my observations dispassionately as opposed to advocating for a particular solution. I don't feel I have a firm grasp of all the ethical issues involved, but I am confident we will resolve this problem as we have all others before it -- with respect for all opinions and for the principles underlying the charter.
This would in fact be the only place in the Charter where we stated that one Article must be used to override another Article. A strong argument can be made, I think, that such a provision is not appropriate. If a provision of some other Article is to be over-ridden it should be done through an Amendment process.
Could you spell this out explicitly? What is the Article that must be overriden by another Article, and where do we state it?