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.
Doc .. agree .. this would usually seem to be something as a DP or SP in the SI's (but that was not part of Ben's OP scenario).
That said, I think the problem is addressable even if the protest is valid. I've already mentioned the things I'd be careful to take into consideration at that point.
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."
These decisions are not cut and dry. There are huge grey areas.
If filing a protest is the only means to bring this situation to the PRO and RC's attention, such is a reasonable course of action.
Let's assume it is a U10 opti sailor who has been on the water for 5+ hours having sailed 5 races. What would be an appropriate handling of the situation? In the cases that I could envision, we would chat with the youngster and his coach, remind them of the importance of PFD's and staying safe. If this was the first day of a regatta, we would make sure to emphasize that PFD's must be worn at all times when on the water including on floats and walkways.
What are the possible penalties for a competitor?
The rules give no guidance, no heiararchy for the ro or pro. There is a void in the rules here.
The race committe definition appears to be designed to help redress applications with its wide view.
This is just the other side of the coin.
RRS Introduction, Terminology, Race Committee and Technical Committee overturns that principle by saying
The ... committee appointed ... and any other person or committee performing a race/technical committee function.
The purpose of this is to make any action that is a function of a committee, which may be an improper action, into an improper action of the committee so as to give grounds for redress.
I think the wording is unfortunate. It would be better to address the action, rather than the person and say
An action of an individual performing a ... committee function is an action of the committee.
That wouldn't help the present case.
I can't dispute that the individual's action of delivering a protest purporting to be by the race committee is an action of the race committee.
Let me come at the issue from a different direction.
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).
If the race committee as a whole wasn't happy with the protest, then I might suggest that the race committee could withdraw the protest.
That doesn't make any difference to the fact that the protest is based on a report from a person with a Conflict of Interest, and is invalid
I think we are in basic agreement (ref: my #4 in my original comment.)
I have volunteered to make lunch, to stock and launch all of the safety boats, lots of things like that. It never occurred to me that by operation of my holding a clipboard, I was now a race committee member empowered to speak for the race committee, to lodge a protest on behalf of the committee, etc.
But the RRS provides that if you do do some action that is a function of the race committee your action is taken to be an action of the race committee [that it may then be up to the race committee to unwind if they don't like it].
Remarkably, Ang’s first post in this thread aligns with my thoughts in most aspects.
I will delve slightly deeper into a couple of areas.
---
60.4(b)(3)
2001–2004 – but not as a result of a report by a competitor from another boat or other interested party or of information in an invalid protest;
2005–2008 – protest a boat, but not as a result of a report from an interested party or information in an invalid protest or in a request for redress;
2025–2028 – a report from a person with a conflict of interest (other than a representative of the boat herself).
We can see that the rule we have today stems from the 2001–2004 version, which sought to restrict other boats and people not in the race committee from making reports to the race committee.
I too have always thought (and still think) the restriction is against people outside the race committee reporting to the race committee. In other words, a report to the race committee cannot originate from within the race committee.
In which case, to me, RRS 60.4(b)(3) does not invalidate this protest.
(I do accept, though, that the wording is a little ambiguous and I may be wrong!)
---
Did the parent volunteer act incorrectly?
A number of people have jumped on the parent here, hinting at poor sportsmanship/fair play/possible misconduct/malice.
I don’t think necessarily so.
The parent saw a rule breach (in this case, a safety issue) and enforced the rules as they thought was their duty and as they knew how. This isn’t unfair.
Of course, my scenario is deliberately posed to raise the issue of the “conflict of interest” question.
I don’t think it is a problem that the parent has a conflict of interest and that they may even have protested the competitor with a secret underlying goal to advance their own child. If a possible rule breach is tabled before the protest committee, it is fair game. Would they have protested their own kid in the same situation? - - we will never know - - but it's irrelevant.
---
The Race Committee – and any person performing the functions of…
Here’s an interesting one. In another recent thread, we are discussing “language, language, language!”. Perhaps this case illustrates some important points.
Some people here have applied their own understanding of the word “committee,” asserting that in general use, the word *committee* implies a group. True. Other volunteer people have said they don’t feel they are “the race committee” as parent volunteers—again, applying their understanding that the race committee is limited to those members of the management with special roles. They are just small-fry.
Yet, in that other language thread I said this: “If a phrase is defined in RRS then we must use it as defined.”
In racing sailing, a committee may be a single person (PC, TC or RC may all be one person). The RRS Introduction essentially defines the term for use in RRS. So we need to put the “general use” meaning (a group) out of our minds and look at the term “Race Committee” as the Introduction says. It's the name given to the job:
“The race committee appointed under rule 89.2(c) and any other person or committee performing a race committee function.”
The parent volunteer is inarguably a member of the race committee.
Why is this important? There needs to be a pathway back to the race committee for an improper action claim against any person performing a race committee function. If a parent volunteer at the launch ramp misidentifies a boat failing to sign in, that would be an improper action and subject to redress. But “improper action of a volunteer parent”, quite rightly, isn't grounds for redress, is it?!
In short, any function which may result in a penalty (linked to a rule), could be said to be a 'race committee function'. Perhaps giving out lunchboxes and free t-shirts...no. Sign-in/sign-out, absolutely.
---
In summary, then, I think that this scenario, while not ideal for all the reasons mentioned, is technically viable. The protest could well stand as valid and actionable.
Jim Champ has already said this is an internal RC management issue, rather than RRS. I tend to agree.
In the RC team briefing at the beginning of the event, the PRO should be clear that all penalty actions / protests should go through the PRO or that only certain protests may bypass. This would make it clear what can come from a conflicted volunteer and what cannot.
Good chat.
(b) A protest is invalid also if it is from a committee and is based on information from
(b) is the parent or guardian of a competitor.
(c) has a close personal interest in a decision.
The moral hazard of a person with a conflict of interest, particularly a parent or Support Person of a competitor is no different whether that person is appointed to the originjal race committee, is performing duties assigned by the race committee, is deemed to be of the race committee by RRS Introduction, Terminology Race Committee, or is unconnected with the race committee.
Such a person may selectively report a breach of the rules by one competitor and not by another.
Without addressing the integrity or otherwise of the person,at the very least this may, strongly, to use the words of RRS Definitions Conflict of Interest, reasonably appear to have a personal or financial interest which could affect that person’s ability to be impartial
(a) A protest is invalid
(1) if it does not comply with the definition Protest or rule 60.2 or 60.3,
(b) A protest is invalid also if it is from a committee and is based on information from
The rest would be repeating Mark’s answer, which in part this already is.
One person that may be on the RC team does not constitute a race committee. Since it was a person that posted the request, it does not satisfy the requirements of the Definition or the Rule.
Report An account of a situation, event, etc. brought by one person to another...
The volunteer is indeed a person with a conflict of interest, support person, close personal interest etc. That is not disputed. (Actually an intended aspect of the scenario.)
The crux here is whether a 'report' can be made to oneself. Does the use of that word imply only a restriction on outside information which is passed to the RC?
Can I report to myself? Can the RC report to the RC? The meaning supplied above suggests no. A report is a directional flow of information. From and to.
What would we think if we took the CoI out of the equation for a moment? A protest is invalid also if it is from a committee and is based on information from a report from a person.
This would only make sense to apply to a report from outside the RC.
In which case it could be argued that, 60.4(b)(3), by use of that word, applies to the passing of information from outside the committee to the committee. The parent volunteer as part of the committee is not restricted by virtue of the definition of the word 'report'. (In which case, the suggested additional words 'and a member of the committee' are not required.)
(I don't think it's relevant that the volunteer was not assigned directly to check PFD use. Safety is probably everyone's job.)
-----------------
I think we have hit upon another instance where either can be right. The rule isn't 100% solid one way or another. At least, I would happily accept either interpretation.
Hence my post!
From a practical stance, we are bound to have Conflict of Interest in the RC at some events. It is unavoidable and un-policeable. If we apply 60.4(b)(3) to a 'report' originating from within the RC itself, do we invalidate many important RC protests at those events which use parent volunteers?
That doesn't seem to be the point of the rule and I submit that it's an unworkable outcome.
Also, I don't see this parent acting in their capacity as a "support person" to their child as they stand on the shore tagging kids in/out of the water as a member of the RC and watching for PFDs for all their safety.
Many of us wear many hats.
I saw the information I generated in those capacities as the information and record of the RC/TC, and not a report to myself from a person/competitor with a COI.
I'd suggest... no we are not. Those are classified as the RC's "own observations and records" (see RRS 90.3(c)).
Also note that RRS 60.4(b)(3) applies to "committee" not just "race committee". It has to work for tech comms as well.
For instance, if as the TC/Measurer I received a report from a competitor that a boat is breaking a class rule, I would not use the information in that report as the basis of a TC protest. I would investigate the issue myself and generate the TC's "own observation and record" and decide how to proceed.
Here again, I want to underline, the bylaws of both the J105 class and our local fleet require that the Fleet Measurer be a member of the J105 class and member of the fleet. The fleet bylaws make the Measurer the TechComm. This is true for many of the OD classes out there. Those TC's/Measurers are all persons with competitor COI.
Therefore, we must be able to distinguish between a committee's self-generated observations/information/record, by people acting as a member of that committee, and reports received from outside-persons.
I think the analogy here is if another parent was out in a rib (not a volunteer) and gave a report to the this same RC-parent ... then that would be definitely invalid. .. as based on a report from a person with a COI.