Hi John,
given that rule 69 involves the most egregious allegations of a breach of the rules, it seems appropriate that an investigator be appointed if the PC doesn't feel they can get a reasonable answer from the competitors and witnesses. However, for a normal protest or arbitration, an investigator would seem to bypass the very purpose of the hearing. Do you have a use case in mind outside of Rule 69?

I have seen investigators work when there were conflicting reports about parents in the boat  park and the missuse of waterpipes.

They could find some facts and give a recommemdation as to whether to bring a rrs 69.

With small events hard to find someone independent without using onne of the pc which often means youhave to find another third and again independance a problem.

Useful, but brings its own problems.

For an RRS69 report my experience is that the investigator's role is key. I have been involved in more RRS69 situations than I would have wanted. When there was an "extra" judge available, they were the committee's go to as an investigator ( who then was no longer involved in the PC's decisions). In one situation, at a local club series, there were no judges available to serve as investigator. We ended up with a professional journalist whose interviewing skills produced an excellent report for the PC's consideration.

As I understand it, and have used it, the investigator helps the PC to decide whether to hold a hearing under RRS 69 by gathering information about the incident.  They are not getting testimony from witnesses.  Once they have given the PC a written report (an important part of the record) they have no further role in the hearing, except as a possible witness to verify their report.

An investigator that knows the venue and the people involved can be very useful when the PC does not.

The investigator should be briefed by the PC as to what is expected of them, what they can and cannot say or do, etc. before they agree to be an investigator.

Isn't a significant difference that a protest is made by another boat, which is expected to prepare and present their case complete with evidence, whereas a report may be made in any form by any party, and needs someone to gather evidence, put it together and present it?

Jim - I think it will all depend on the report given to the PC.  Some are quite complete and give the PC enough information to decide whether to hold a hearing.  Others require additional information before the PC can decide it the incident has the potential to constitute misconduct.  The investigator's role is only to help the PC get to the point where they can make that decision.  The PC should not be involved in gathering that information as it may bias or create a conflict of interest should the PC decide to hold a hearing.

The addition of an independent investigator is a valuable tool in the PC's belt here.

In the US Sailing Judges' Manual we do say an investigator's qualities are important and list some. The main use is intended in relation to a possible Rule 69 Misconduct hearing.

Deciding to Hold a Hearing
When considering whether to proceed on a charge of misconduct, the PC should first carefully re-read rule 69, Appendix M, the Due Process Checklist and the World Sailing Misconduct Guidance.

On receiving the report, the PC must determine if the allegation is serious and credible enough to warrant a hearing or investigation under rule 69. The allegation needs to be credible, and it must allege a breach of good manners or sportsmanship, unethical behavior, or conduct that may bring the sport into disrepute.

Rule 69.1(b) speaks of bringing the sport into disrepute. A violation of the law involving private behavior that has nothing to do with sailing might not bring the sport into disrepute. On the other hand, a person known to be a competitor who displays obnoxious public behavior does bring the sport into disrepute. If the behavior remains undisciplined, the town, the sponsor and the local club may not wish to host the event in the future.

An investigation is important. When practicable, an investigation is strongly encouraged before a hearing is called. When the Protest Committee hears the results of the investigation, it may decide no hearing is warranted. An incident must be within the PC’s authority to investigate. Note that rules 69.2(c) and 69.2(d) have specific requirements for an investigation.

An Investigator’s qualities are important:
• No conflicts with any parties or likely parties
• Reputation for integrity
• Experience with investigations, does not need to be a law enforcement officer
   o Lawyer
   o Manager or HR of an organization
   o Good questioner, good listener
   o Be knowledgeable in the RRS rules of sailing
   o Takes detailed notes
• Thorough but efficient with time
   o Thoughtful
   o Concise
   o Organized individual
• Prepares good factual reports without their opinion
   o Separately may provide their opinion
• Able to focus on the issues and not be distracted

The goal is to gather information to understand who, where, what, when and how the situation occurred and submit the report to the Protest Committee. The report will enable the PC to decide whether to hold a hearing or not.

Preparing for a Hearing
If the PC decides to hold a hearing, it must follow the procedures described below to protect the rights of the party.

John Quirk's original question seems to ask whether investigators could (or should) be used more widely than for rule 69.  I think that might be useful, but as Jim points out, protests and requests for redress are different in that the issue is brought by a boat and the entire procedure is "adversarial".  That is to say, the parties are expected to state their cases and present whatever evidence they see fit.  The assumption is that each party will present the best case possible, and the protest committee has no responsibility for presenting evidence (other than if a PC member saw the incident).  In contrast, in rule 69 hearings, the protest committee is bringing charges of misconduct against a sailor or supporter.  As John Christman points out, protest committees should take care before they call such hearings, so an investigator is useful to find out if there's any basis to the allegation.  And in the hearing, while the sailor is still expected to produce any evidence in their favor, somebody has to produce the evidence supporting the allegation of misconduct, and there is no "protestor" to do so.  Thus the need for an investigator.  

That's the situation at present, but I wonder if we should look at alternatives, in the case of protest or redress.  In my experience, sailors do not necessarily present the best case they could, and justice is sometimes not served by a presentation by a sailor who is exhausted, ill-prepared, occasionally wet, and sometimes underage.  (Lots of times, I've watched a protestee read the protest for the first time, sitting in the protest room, and when I've asked "Are you prepared for this hearing?" they've said "Yes" while a little voice in my brain is screaming "NO!")  

Maybe protest committees should routinely have "investigators" attached to them.  Things they might do include: Find out if there were neutral observers (e.g., mark-boat crew) who saw the incident; get the mark-rounding order from the race committee; determine whether there is video of the incident; examine boats involved in contact and photograph the damage, if any.  None of that information is readily available to competitors, but it might be useful in finding the facts.  

Thanks for the great comments and inputs - I am of course in a different time zone here in Philippines - hence my belated replies.
My thought behind the post, and as I am of course progressively reading through all WS documents as part of my IJ-IT process, was: it is quite a usual function in other sectors for and to have that express ability to appoint by a given panel, and to fluidize Heartng requests and/or Hearings - adjourn one, while being investigated and to hear another in the meantime (do speciliazed leg-work for the PC) - , or the PC may see a cross-protest pattern emerging (eg Rule 2 etc). I do appreciate that Rul 69 is of the more egregious variety and has a uniquely higher standard of proof etc but  other Rules like Rule 2 also have serious implications as well (with a slightly lower standard of proof bar) or there might be conflict between what the boat is saying and the RO is saying etc - or the boat and RO is saying the same thing but 'somehting just doesn't add up'.. Perhaps the matter is one of a techincal nature - but not sufficiently so for a full Technical Committee to be formed etc (eg the Xmas Tree  thread on the Rules Forum recently).

The readings I have gone through, and found on this particular matter, are:
Review Investigator Appointed 04 Jan 2025
RRS 2025-2028:
69.2 Action by a Protest Committee
(d) When an investigator is appointed, all relevant information gathered by the investigator
N4.3 Prior to a hearing, the hearing panel, to the extent practically possible, shall not act as an investigator of any allegations made under rule 69.
NOT A DEFINED TERM – INVESTIGATOR
61.1 Requesting or Considering Redress
(a) A boat may request redress.
The Case Book for 2025 – 2028:
NO REFERENCE FOUND
Protest Committee Guidelines 2025:
NO REFERENCE FOUND
Judges Manual January 2025:
D.2.8 Appointing an Investigator, rule 69 allegations
G.2.5 Appointing an Investigator, Rules 69.2(c) and (d)
D.2.8 Appointing an Investigator, rule 69 allegations
G.2.5 Appointing an Investigator, Rules 69.2(c) and (d)
·        If possible, the investigator should be familiar with the procedures of rule 69.

·        The investigator is expected to interview separately the parties, the person or persons who reported the incident, witnesses and any other person who might help with the case. The investigator must keep a record of all the evidence obtained from all sources. The record may be in writing or as audio recordings of the interviews.
Note: Major international events have different procedures set by the World Sailing Code of Ethics. The Code addresses the appointment and role of the investigator (known as the Event Disciplinary Investigation Officer)
World Sailing Code of Conduct for World Sailing Race Officials:
NO REFERENCE FOUND
Judicial Board Rules of Procedure Appeals & Reviews of Other Decisions by World Sailing:
NO REFERENCE FOUND
World Sailing Racing Rules Question and Answer Service Q&A
NO REFERENCE FOUND

Keep life and appendix T simple, do not complicate.

My problems at events are time and jury resources, I could not cope with delaying investigations.
Under 69 you have to, but the time itself poses a problem and for weekend events puts hearings after the prizegiveng. An investigator if not actually necessary it is a time thief.

Generally, my problems are that lazy competitors are always wanting to opt out and ask you to protest or help them.
 If we did more they may claim redress saying we did not do enough. 

They say rc had a video have you got it _ no your job
You saw it, you that is PC should protest, no your job.
If we step outside, this is a self policing sport, we will be asked to put in protests find witnesses, and then how independent can we be seen to be.

No an investigator when ready under 69, but not always necessary. 

Let the parties produce their witnesses and evidence, we find facts, but if we cannot we could refer our problem back to the parties for more evidence. This is similar to what happens on appeal when additional facts are required

Simply put, the subject insertion language, could just be: In addition to its express right under rule 69 (69.2 (c)), the protest committee (and the arbitrator under APPENDIX T Arbitration) is also at liberty and discretion to appoint an investigator for any other rule,  when the protest committee (or arbitrator) needs more information to make the decision to call a hearing or for an arbitration meeting, as it sees fit to do so.

John
If a protest is filed we are required to hold a hearing.
If we do not have enough information for an arbitration, we hold a hearing where witnesses are allowed.

As I read this thread, the implications of the "investigator" and words such as "serious" and "egregious" actions ...  what keeps hitting me is the conflict between the idea that RRS 69 is a functional avenue for actions where the appropriate penalty might be a simple warning. 

Gone is the word "gross" from RRS 69, with a seeming  attempt to make RRS 69 something that could be used to address more minor offenses where a stern warning on-the-record is both possible and appropriate. I heard the arguments that, '69 doesn't hamstring the PC to only a DNE like RRS 2'.  

So now our investigator comes back with, yea it seems that Windward did call Leeward a $&@??-ing &$?!€%-ing %#*€¥+ when Leeward luffed Windward HTW. 

With all the cautionary notes in Judges Manuals and other guidance ... how many PC's are going to move forward with with a 69 hearing where they think the "offense" probably will warrant a "warning"? 

In those cases (foul language and maybe other warning-level offenses), might it make more sense to not have an investigator and go straight to a 69 hearing?

I think many (or most) PC's conclude the 'the juice isn't worth the squeeze'