Forum: Protest Hearing Procedures
RRS 63.7 Doesn't Require a Hearing
P
Paul ZupanNationality: United States
Certifications:
- International Judge
- National Judge
1
The US Appeals Committee just released their updated Appeals Book for 2017-2020 and a revised version of US Appeal was included. The issue in the appeal is whether a protest committee must hold a hearing on the question of determining what “it believes will provide the fairest result for all boats affected" where a rule in the sailing instructions conflicts with a rule in the notice of race (see RRS ).
The conclusion of the Appeals Committee is that the protest committee is not required to hold a hearing on the question of "fairest result" {see rule ) and therefore none of the other rules of Part 5 governing hearings apply to that process. The protest committee can of course solicit information, opinions and advice from organizers, race officials and/or competitors, but the protest committee can make that decision without holding a hearing under .
A significant issue in the appeal is that a committee's decision as to "fairest result" cannot be deemed an "improper action" for purposes of a request for redress under rule , or an "error" for purposes of requesting a reopening under rule . Once the decision is made, a competitor cannot challenge it with a request to reopen or request for redress.
So it would seem to me that the protest committee should approach this issue cautiously and with some consideration as their decision will be perceived as a bit authoritarian. And the protest committee should post their decision on "fairest result" in a Notice to Competitors, and include a paragraph stating
This decision is from the US Appeals Committee. Is there any disagreement from other MNA's how might apply in this situation? Should this even be a decision made outside of a hearing (i.e.; should be changed)?
The conclusion of the Appeals Committee is that the protest committee is not required to hold a hearing on the question of "fairest result" {see rule ) and therefore none of the other rules of Part 5 governing hearings apply to that process. The protest committee can of course solicit information, opinions and advice from organizers, race officials and/or competitors, but the protest committee can make that decision without holding a hearing under .
A significant issue in the appeal is that a committee's decision as to "fairest result" cannot be deemed an "improper action" for purposes of a request for redress under rule , or an "error" for purposes of requesting a reopening under rule . Once the decision is made, a competitor cannot challenge it with a request to reopen or request for redress.
So it would seem to me that the protest committee should approach this issue cautiously and with some consideration as their decision will be perceived as a bit authoritarian. And the protest committee should post their decision on "fairest result" in a Notice to Competitors, and include a paragraph stating
This decision cannot be deemed an “improper action” for the purpose of requesting redress under rule 62.1(a) (Redress), or an “error” for the purpose of requesting a reopening under rule 66 (Reopening a Hearing).in an attempt to avoid the filing of requests and the resulting friction they are likely to generate.
This decision is from the US Appeals Committee. Is there any disagreement from other MNA's how might apply in this situation? Should this even be a decision made outside of a hearing (i.e.; should be changed)?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
I am not arguing that a PC should not have authority to do this, only that I do not see any basis in the rule for it to do so, especially when, as in Appeal 113, a competitor has filed an RfR. In addition, it appears to violate the underlying premises of the Farrah Hall settlement, which stands for the premise that when a PC makes a decision that affects the position of another boat, the other boat should have the right to participate in the hearing.
I note that rule 63.7 is located in Part 5, Section B, "Hearings and Decisions."
Am I missing something?