So here's my problem with this split idea:
First, training is part of "competitive FAF" and I don't understand why the management of said team would fall under the dude that seems to be getting elected to run polls and be a nice guy. The person responsible for trainer management should be a player that has a coherent vision on how to improve players as well as an understanding of reducing the massive quantity of noise in the game to drive home the point of focusing on the fundamentals for new players.
Second, splitting management of anything like matchmaker seems like a complete recipe for disaster as people with entirely different visions of what the end product are keep smashing into each other in PMs and then carrying out said argument into developer circles to get their idea implemented over the other guy's. You elect me as "competitive councillor" and penguin as "player councillor" and I say this whole notion of a matchmaker queue with 4 billion options is a terrible idea for user experience and should never get integrated. How do we settle that?
So what does this leave us with? It leaves us with a "competitive councillor" that has control over any real levers of change in the current PC sphere and a new PC that is entirely neutered and relies on hopefully getting people to do things because a poll they made said X or Y. It doesn't help that part of the reason that the PC position gives the illusion of only caring about top players is because these are the people that care enough to actually help implement some sort of change or policy. Covering FAF events, talking about the best implementation of something for the game, helping reach out to improve lower rated players, hosting tournaments, or doing frankly anything related to community volunteering is highly correlated with people that have invested the time into getting a decent skill. So in the end the PC position is always going to converge into the toxic elitist echochamber narrative because that's just the reality of who wants to give back to the community broadly speaking. Even FAF developers themselves are bare minimum 1000 or 1200 rated and they probably have the lowest mean rating of all FAF contributive teams.
Now, does that mean polling to gather input is bad? No. But it also doesn't mean it's the solution to every problem. Nor does it mean you need a Council position entirely devoted to it, particularly when there is no real authority to give out to the role that makes any sense.