Airspace has been an issue here, in some cases (those for pilots
getting zeros) a big issue. The French Team and Dustin Martin submitted a
protest after their complaint to the meet director regarding their zeros for the
first day were rejected. I'm on the protest committee (or at least I think I
still am). I was called by Franco Rinaldi, the meet director, to come to get
together with the rest of the protest committee on Tuesday morning. As soon as
we came together I immediately protested the presence of non protest committee
members.

It is my understanding that the protest committee runs its own meetings and is
in charge of hearing the protest. The meet director gives the protest committee
the protest and the protest committee is then in charge of the affair. This was
not to be.

Heather, the CIVL steward, very quickly stated that I should not hear this
protest because I had an appearance of bias or a conflict of interest because a
team mate was part of the protest. I agreed to be the alternate protest
committee member in this case and not hear the protest.

I did stay for the rest of the meeting (as I was or am a protest committee
member) and continued to voice my concern that the protest committee not meet
together with the organization members, and CIVL steward present, as they were
parties to the protest and should be treated the same as those making the
protest. That is that they should be brought before the committee to provide any
information that the committee desires with the same standing as the pilots
protesting.

The day was called due to rain. The protest committee held its meeting at a
restaurant (I think near launch) in the afternoon and instead of separating
themselves from the organization (after all the protest is being brought against
the decisions of the organization), the CIVL steward and members of the
organization were sitting with and interacting with the protest committee
without there being an arms length relationship. It is as though the prosecutor
and the judge are sitting together on the same bench and the defendant has to
present their case to both parties that appear to be one party.

I spoke with Luiz and Dustin, both of whom, were called before the combined
protest committee, organization members, and CIVL steward. They both felt
uncomfortable with the presence of these non protest committee members at their
hearing.

I have mentioned the CIVL steward a number of times, because she was an active
party to the issues that caused the protest. She was often acting as though she
was a defacto meet director stating various rules, especially with respect to
airspace. The basis of the case of the protest was statements that she had made
that were interpreted by numerous pilots to provide an exemption (warning only)
for the first day of a Sporting Code section on airspace. If the protest had
been upheld (and it was not) it would have reflected badly on the steward.
Therefore she had a direct personal interest in making sure that the protest
failed.

But whether everyone agrees with this last statement, it is clear that it
appears to be the case that the organization members and steward were directly
interacting with the protest committee during the hearing and not kept at arms
length. This gives the appearance of a kangaroo court. For the CIVL steward to
be so concerned about how it would look if I was hearing the protest, and to not
recognize how it would look if she, viewed as an interested party, were so
tightly integrated with the protest committee, is a failure to see in oneself
what one sees in others.