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.
My question is posed such that the questions and issues apply too any parent volunteer in any of those race committee functions.
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.