Here's a sample case.
*Facts*
At a youth event, a parent volunteer assigned to the launch (sign-in/sign-out) area witnesses a competitor in the same class as their child removing their PFD a few hundred metres from the slipway as they return after a hot day's sailing. (The SIs require PFDs to be worn at all times while afloat.)
The parent volunteer (having recently read the RRS Introduction and RRS 60.1) eagerly enters the online hearing request form and, within the time limit, submits a protest against that competitor, marking the request as a 'Race Committee Protest'. The online system automatically posts the protest on the Official Notice Board.
If the competitor is penalised, the volunteer's own child will gain an important place in the competition.
*Questions*
1. Is the protest valid?
a) Is the parent volunteer a member of the race committee?
b) Does the restriction of RRS 60.4(b)(3) apply?
2. What should the protest committee consider / How should the protest committee handle the case?
3. Has the parent volunteer acted incorrectly in any way?
My view (been there!) is that the protest is invalid under RRS 60.4(b)(3).
In the past I have put a warning on the event messaging system / Notice to Competitors that the behaviour is unacceptable and I will get the PC to check that the behaviour is not repeated.
I believe the protest should proceed.
It is not our fault "race committee" is defined so widley, and we suffer from it when competitors speak to check in of safety boats and they say or do something.
Your points 1.1 and 3.
There is no doubt that the parent is a member of the RC, but I don't think that this single person is the Committee who is able to submit a protest under 60.1. So I would say No, invalid.
That deconstructs to ...
"Race Committee: .. any other person performing a race committee function.
The RC can be "any other person" ... "person" being singular.
I wouldn't be disturbed by an enthusiastic parent overstepping the mark, but if I saw a protest that wasn't authorised by someone I knew was authoritative on the race committee, I'd ask the race committee if it was a race committee protest, (and who their representative was going to be.).
The parent is a Support Person and has a conflict of interest.
The protest, even if endorsed by the race committee, is invalid because it is based on a report from a person with a conflict of interest.
However the protest committee may have no reason to be aware of the conflict of interest, and possibly neither is the race committee. The rules, very sensibly, do not require members of the race committee to be free of conflicts of interest and only members of the protest committee are required to declare conflict of interest in a hearing.
I would not normally enquire of a representative or witness of a committee that was protesting whether the had a conflict of interest.
If no evidence of a conflict of interest is brought before the protest committee they are likely to conclude that the protest is valid and continue to hear and decide it.
If the protest committee concludes that the protest is invalid it can still proceed under RRS 69.
As you have so often stated, the RRS is an open rules set. Where in the RRS do you find the above restriction?
My question is posed such that the questions and issues apply too any parent volunteer in any of those race committee functions.
However, to respond with Ben Harding's comment that if this were a parent on a mark-boat instead in mind, then I think I agree with Ang's points above. I will add that while this protest may appear petty to some, if it were a valid protest, and brought facts to light, then I feel strongly that a violation of safety rules (by a minor) may in fact be more important than a violation of the rules of sportsmanship or fair sailing. There is no room for a minor to interpret the "unwritten intent" of a safety rule as someone suggested.
Lastly, when hearing this protest (after validity), I would take specific note of the conflicts of interest when hearing testimony and determining facts found. For this reason, the parent would have done well to involve others both at time of sighting and at time of filing if their goal is to hold the competitor to task here.
2. The hearing will decide whether it meets criteria of being valid proceed.
3. If it does, the protest will be heard according to the formal process. Each side will state their case. Witnesses for either side may be called by the “litigants” if they choose to do so.
4. The jury will convene “in camera” and decide the outcome.
Now to my opinion as a club certified judge.
We can assume that that child is there because he/she is contending that the fact that they broke a rule and that rule is pretty unambiguous. The life belt was either removed or it was not. The determination of the outcome will depend, as it often does, on the credibility of the parties and their witnesses outcome.
The burden rests on the protestor to make their case. Because they will benefit (indirectly) from the outcome I would focus on the credibility of their witnesses.
If the protester has no witnesses and the child is credible, with or without witnesses, I would dismiss the protest.
If the protester’s case was rock solid I would ask my fellow jury members consider whether there is Rule 69 sanction that comes into play.
Safety first, last, always.
As a matter of protocol, RC volunteers to let the PRO know of any incident which might be contrary to the rules and let the PRO decide whether a protest is warranted.
Requiring PFDs is a no brainer and should be a rule and in my opinion be subject to a DP.
Such arrangements provide for safety, avoiding conflict of interest and a dose of doing the right thing.
I submit that its always wrong to present an individual action as having been made by a committee. A committee is about collective responsibility.That's not RRS, that's "the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use."