You're omitting what can happen under the current system, which is at least as troubling as anything you've brought up:

The Chair doesn't like legislation? He can indefinitely extend debate on it.

The Chair doesn't want legislation to go to vote game-side? He can rule that it doesn't affect game-side, even if it does.

The Chair doesn't want legislation included in the Charter? He can rule that it can't be there.

That's too much unchecked power for the Chair. That leaves recall as the only recourse, and recall is an extreme recourse and now also a limited recourse because officials can't just be recalled for any reason. You're massively exaggerating how often the Chair's rulings are going to be overturned, and completely ignoring the potential for abuse inherent in letting the Chair have this much unchecked power.

Another option would be to just remove the Chair's unchecked powers altogether. We could eliminate the Chair's discretion over these matters and instead opt for fixed debate periods, giving the Local Council the power to decide when legislation affects game-side, and letting the Assembly amend the Charter without the Chair's approval. Do you think that would be better than allowing the Assembly to overturn the Chair's rulings?

Alternatively, if you have some constructive suggestion for limiting this check on the Chair's power so it's not overused, I'm all ears. But just leaving the Chair with a massive amount of unchecked power to obstruct any legislation, should he choose to misuse his power, shouldn't be an option.