Forum: Rules 2 and 69
Intersections between Rule 69 and US Sailing SafeSport
P
Angelo GuarinoCertifications:
- Regional Judge
- Fleet Measurer
0
Following our discussion regarding the indemnity-clause, I was reviewing US Sailing’s Safe Sport Handbook and thinking through how one might handle a variety of reported incidents. It became apparent to me that the intersection of these requirements with Rule 69 can be simultaneously subtle, complex and unclear.
The US Sailing Judge’s Manual (pg 77) only provides the following guidance regarding the intersection of Rule 69 and SafeSport.
The US Sailing Judge’s Manual (pg 77) only provides the following guidance regarding the intersection of Rule 69 and SafeSport.
“If, during the course of a hearing or through any other source, race officials become aware of a suspicion or allegation of physical or emotional misconduct (including bullying, hazing or harassment) or sexual misconduct or sexual abuse, they are required to report the suspicion or allegation.”
From the decision to investigate or not, to proceeding to a 69 hearing or not and the notification requirements of Rule 69 and that "...TSOASA also requires that the notification state the possible penalties”, there are overlapping requirements. Also there may be some actions that a PC “may” do in the RRS, that they “shall” do under SafeSport.
These intersections and potentially superseding demands on the PC are not well defined nor processes well laid-out IMO.
Add to this the sensitive nature, potential for repetitional harm, and the call for confidentially during the investigation and process, there are fewer opportunities for judges to share their experience. Judges might feel spun in circles bouncing between the 2 guidelines when actually confronted with deciding how to process information/report at an event.
Toss in the right to counsel under 69 and I feel there are potential land mines that are uncharted.
For instance ..
- Is it practicable, or fair to a competitor, to forward an incident-report during an event involving a competitor under SafeSport without opening a Rule 69 hearing?
- By definition, do all SafeSport reportable incidents by a competitor at an event meet the RRS 69 standard? If not are there categories that are more or less likely to be both?
Maybe we can try to discover and chart some of this here (obviously without sharing any information from actual incidents) so that we might be better prepared if/when we come face-to-face with it.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
The US Safe Sport code makes adults responsible for reporting actual or suspected Sexual Misconduct or Child Abuse to the Center. Failure to report may be subject to federal or state penalties. In addition US Sailing certified race officials and instructors are responsible to report his or her observations to SafeSport or US Sailing and when appropriate to law enforcement. Further Section F.1 c says "Participants should not investigate or attempt to evaluate the credibility or validity of allegations involving Sexual Misconduct or Child Abuse." That seem to put the brakes on any rule 69 investigation or hearings involving those allegations. Any action under rule 69 would seem to be required to wait until the SafeSport investigation has concluded.
https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SafeSportCode2021_040121_V3.pdf
So, at lease 2 categories of SafeSport incidents .. "Sexual Misconduct or Child Abuse" ... are seemingly incompatible with a Rule 69 process moving forward. So, this is maybe one item that the USSJM might add to their guidance regarding information learned during a hearing. If a Rule 69 hearing was proceeding and information regarding those 2 categories emerge, the hearing should be shut-down it seems.
That said, there are other SafeSport/Rule 69 categories like bullying, hazing, non-sexual harassment that may well fall outside of Sexual Misconduct or Child Abuse.
Adults (not just US Sailing certified race officials) are responsible for reporting any actual or suspected Sexual Misconduct or Child Abuse. The way I read the safe sport law, if you fail to report actual or suspected Sexual Misconduct or Child Abuse you might find yourself occupying the cell next to the perpetrator!
That said, when one reads the USSA SafeSport Handbook, there is an acknowledgement that some behavior does not warrant a SS report (pg 35) .. emphasis added
Before that, the handbook makes a statement (pg 33) ...
Now try to weave that into RRS 69 and how USS Judges must navigate both RRS and SafeSport frameworks.
I acknowledge that for non-judge USS Officials, the line is a much clearer. An RO might witness an incident or receive a report and they can simultaneously make a SafeSport report as well as a report to the PC. The RO does not have to decide whether or not to investigate, call a hearing, etc. It is the PC that must navigate both systems.
However I think when you read the handbook (and as a practical matter) it is much less clear when dealing with the gradients in the other categories… and thus this thread.
I do not think we are mandated to report to SS every report of name calling for investigation by SS for instance, but certainly some instances of name-calling and insult do rise to the level.
Read the SS Handbook on pg 37 and you will see what I mean. SS contemplates investigations and hearings on the local program level.
I would take this to mean that when a protest committee, from its own observation or from information received from any source, including evidence taken during a hearing, become aware of a suspicion or allegation of prohibited conduct they are required to report the suspicion or allegation and are prohibited from investigating under Section X of the SafeSport Code.
SAFESPORT CODE FOR THE U.S. OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC MOVEMENT
and on pg 37 …
PC’s could really use a decision-tree or flow-chart.
If there is a power imbalance the statement would not be true. See SafeSport.
SAFESPORT CODE FOR THE U.S. OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC MOVEMENT
IMHO, that is simply too much to ask.
We should expect that these are the places they would turn and they should have the expectation that they are doing-right by following the guidance provide therein.
We PC's need a better map to navigate our overlapping powers and responsibilities by.
" As a condition of membership in US Sailing and a condition for participation in any US Sailing competition or event, each US Sailing General Member; Non-voting Member; and each athlete, coach, trainer, agent, athlete support person, medical or para-medical person, team staff, official, or other person who participates in US Sailing or US Sailing events, agrees to comply with and be bound by the safe sport rules of the U.S. Center for Safe Sport and to submit, without reservation or condition, to the jurisdiction and rules of the U.S. Center for Safe Sport for the resolution of any alleged violations of those rules, as such rules may be amended from time to time. To the extent any US Sailing Bylaw or Regulation, is inconsistent with the rules of the U.S. Center for Safe Sport, the US Sailing Bylaw or Regulation is hereby superseded."
It is one thing to have a US Sailing ByLaw that might have been written before SafeSport to be superseded by SafeSport.
It is quite another thing to have US Sailing publish a website, and a specific Handbook describing for its members how SafeSport integrates with US Sailing, and then expect that its members are going to know and understand that they should to ignore both resources.
That is simply an unreasonable expectation.
I am simply saying that it is a reasonable expectation to assume that a US Sailing Official will ...
And should the final scoring deadlines be amended to await such determinations?