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' 

This leaves the golden question. When is a rule 2 a rrs 69.

This is important when ws shackled us to a dne for rule 2, a big mistake, do they not trust us.

We are driven to alternatives.

Who decides what rule has been broken, we the jury always choose the rules broken.

I was at an event the other year when the jury chair asked for one f word if a boat wanted a rrs 2 or a report under 69, the coach wanted a dne so went for rule 2. He got his dne, but in the incident the jury gave his competitor a dne for the breach. The jury chair (NOT PART OF THE HEARING ) was not happy, but the JURY PREVILED AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS TO RECONSIDER.

So where are we?

Well rrs 60.4(3) says it is invalid as far as it alleges a breach of rrs 69.

Rrs69.1(c) says rrs 69 matters shall be dealt with under this rule and shall not be grounds for a protest.

So we now know we can declare a rrs 2 invalid if we see it as a 69, there is a paragraph in the standard protest wording.

A new view, but a legal one.
 The rrs misconduct guide does not even mention the issue suggesting I believe you deal with rrs 2 first.

What a mess if a warning is best and dne excessive.

Interesting.? 
I await comments or criticism,!

Would the protest committee's appointment of an investigator to gather evidence break rule 63.1(a)(4)?

Rule 63.1(a)(4) requires that all parties are allowed to have a representative present throughout the hearing of the evidence.

Rule 63.1(a)(4) Rights of Parties
(a) All parties to a hearing shall be (4) allowed to have a representative present throughout the hearing of the evidence but, in a protest involving a breach of a rule of Part 2, 3 or 4, representatives of boats shall have been on board at the time of the incident unless there is good reason for the protest committee to decide otherwise.

Mark
A great point and  the difference to rrs 69 procedure. 

I know we have debated about this aspect in another thread, but as Rule 69 is in the above thread (and Rule 2), the PC in a given country would have to really contemplate Rule 69.2 (g) - "However, if the standard of proof in this rule conflicts with the laws of a country, the national authority may, with the approval of World Sailing, change it with a prescription to this rule.". In the Philippines here, those are as below (as a PC here, we would seek guidance from the MNA for this):
Standards of Proof Under Philippines Law:
1.      Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – criminal cases

2.      Preponderance of Evidence – civil cases.

3.      Substantial Evidence - Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Proceedings – Government agencies, such as the Civil Service Commission.

4.      Clear and Convincing Evidence - Specific Legal Matters – Used in cases such as petitions for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title.

5.      Probable Cause - Issuance of Arrest Warrants – In determining whether to issue an arrest warrant, a judge must find probable cause.

6.      Prima Facie Evidence - Creation of Presumption – Certain statutes establish that if a party proves specific facts, a presumption arises that may shift the burden to the other party to refute it.
A bit different even again under, say, Islamic Law of Evidence (Shariah and Common law).

Ben, 
Very good point and, yes, the word ‘serious’ is not specifically used in Rule 69 (in fact, it is only used elsewhere in RRS as ‘serious damage’) – I should have searched-checked, and just saw it in an above thread. 
That being said, Rule 69 is defined as being ‘an act of misconduct’, and provides some definition to that, further citing: ‘breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour’… conduct that may bring, or has brought, the sport into disrepute’; as  such, one could reasonably conclude that these are serious matters (not ones that are minor or frivolous), and with somewhat varying degrees of seriousness within thosed defined parameters.

For the record, I support Michael's opinions on this matter.

Generall speaking, I 'm sure the sailing world prefers the rules and procedures to be as simple to understand and follow as possible. Lets keep it simple. We don't need "investigators" iwhen dealing with Protests and Requests. The  basics of the protest rules have worked fine for decades and decades. Don't try to fix something that isn't broke!!

The problem is that some are seeing the disparity between Rule 2 and Rule 69 penalties as a means to give out warnings for poor sportsmanship. Mike said: 

Let's look only at sportsmanship for the moment, since that is the only breach common to both rules...

Rule 2 specifies that a clearly established breach of sportsmanship should land a DNE.  To be consistent with Rule 2, when a protest committee handling a R69 case is comfortably satisfied that there has been the same breach of good sportsmanship, it should also apply a DNE.

Anything else is dumb!

Surely Rule 2 sets a standard of what is appropriate for a clearly established (or greater) breach of sportsmanship.

The Rule 2 protestor should know that if their protest is upheld the other boat will get a DNE.  Simple as that.  Perhaps if more protestors knew that they wouldn't be as active with their pens.  Likewise, all sailors should know that if they are found clearly guilty of bad sportsmanship they will get a DNE.  Perhaps if more realised that, they would be more careful with their conduct!  Go figure!  We just need some consistent PCs!

OK - Let's say the 'sportsmanship' case evades Rule 2, and goes straight to R69.  Before holding the hearing, the PC may need some more information to help them decide whether to go ahead.  They appoint an investigator.  The PC then will apply the tests (Realistic Prospect/Interests of Sport).  If, after all that, the PC think the breach only deserves a warning, it probably should NOT hold the hearing!!!  Just give an informal warning (Misconduct Guidance 20.4) and close the case.

If on the other hand, after the investigation and realistic prospect/interest of sports tests the PC decides to go ahead, it's probably because the breach was bad enough that it deserved a DNE!!!

If we're going to be consistent (with Rule 2), I don't see a time where a R69 sportsmanship penalty can be 'a warning'.

However, a 'warning' may well be appropriate for other kinds of misconduct, e.g. conduct that is a breach of good manners, or unethical behaviour; or conduct that may bring, or has brought, the sport into disrepute.  

John,

I'm saying that sportsmanship under Rule 2 and rule 69 should be aligned. Not mismatched. Only people wrong perceive a mismatch.

But let's not forget that R69 DNE may not work in all cases where a person is part of a crew. R69 is applied to individuals. 

Ben re: RRS 2 v RRS 69

I agree, it's not an either/or rather a different conclusion of the nature of the action ... and these actions might live in both worlds.  

Let's just consider language for the moment. 

If that language was simple foul insult that did not effect the fairness of the competition or actions of other boats on the water ... then that seems to me to be a rule 69 and not a rule 2.

However, if the foul language was used to confuse or intimidate the other competitor into a specific action or inaction on the race course, then I could see that being BOTH rule 2 and rule 69. 

Anyway ... that's how I've thought of it.