The past few days, people have been discussing a charter amendment proposed to the Church Body here:
The essence of it is that the Vice Chancellor gets his vote back, and that in the case of a tie, a Chancellor Emeritus will step in and vote to break the tie. The proposed text of the Amendment is:
2. Vice-Chancellor
D.The Vice Chancellor shall have a vote on the High Council.
E. At the beginning of each election term the new High Council shall select an active CE by majority vote to fulfill the role of a tie breaking vote in the event of a deadlocked vote in the High Council.
Discussion has been deeply divided, with two opposing parties. Some are for this amendment, and others are against it. The discussion is quite interesting, so I recommend you read it… and throw in your own two cents as well.
We need to think long term here rather than just giving Elf a vote again. There were a LOT of valid concerns raised back when the MoE position was originally suggested in regards to having 7 voting HC members. On top of that it would mean that 2/7 members were no longer chosen by our membership, but instead were picked to back up other views. Why should it matter even to other alliances that you don’t have an actual vote? In the past both Wes and I have acted on behalf of the HC in various things from treaty negotiation, war planning (think October last year when without holding any HC position. I personally lead war planning and coordinations for most of the alliances on our side during our war against MQ with only my two positions being Chancellor Emeritus and CCC Commanding General). Saying that people won’t listen to you and that you are unable to do things if you don’t have a vote is just plain daft 
What matters is that you’re active on IRC (and so people know you) and that you’re competent. Without those two requirements it doesn’t matter if you’ve been in the HC for years nobody will listen to you (Les Paul Supreme)
I must echo Kyriakos’ concerns for this amendment. If it passes, not only does it rescind what the Church Body
just voted to enact, but it would require 7 active members to run the High Council. Please do not vote for this amendment on emotional reasons, but really consider what you’re voting for here. If we are concerned about alliance activity and election turn outs, making the required active government larger will only lead to more bureaucracy and not to an actual solution.
Given the concerns of so few people running for government positions, it just does not seem logical to me to address issues of inactivity by forcefully requiring a larger government. (Britishdude)
I know there are others in the CCC who, while they may not necessarily desire the position will do a good job at it and should be able to take over without too much of an issue. 
CCC Standard Online 