Let us say there is a school board member (don't get stuck on school board could be anything) that decided there should be a moratorium for 5 years on approving ANY charter schools on wetlands (don't get stuck on wetlands, think 'land not suited for development'). Even though there is already a rule against ANY schools on wetlands, if the board gets a super majority, they can over-rule the rule. A couple of schools have slipped through with the super majority vote.
The member puts her moratorium idea before the school board and they (almost unanimously) hand it over to a committee to be discussed and for a public hearing. However, we all know that there are charter school connected members on the school board, so the moratorium very likely might not pass. Meantime, while all this is going on.... The school board member with the moratorium idea decides in the interim, to okay a charter school to be built on wetlands. Her reasoning has something to do with that "the community wants it." The school board professionals who find land for schools are against putting this particular school on wetlands and have advised against it. This does not deter the school board member from her stance. So even though she is advocating on a position (a moratorium), she is is at the same time, going to vote in opposition to the position advocated by the moratorium.
What do you think?