I completely agree that this procedure is quite convoluted. In any normal circumstance, a protest is filed with the Chief Steward, who then forwards it to the SOM's for a ruling. A different procedure for pit-stop timing is listed in the ECR rules as follows:

ECR Guideline 5.5:
Provisional race results shall be posted at each ECR event within 30 minutes of the race. Audited Provisional Race Results (verification of the required 5 minute pit stops) will be posted on the Internet at www.sedivracing.org. Each ECR competitor/entrant listed on results, has 10 days from the date results are posted to file a protest with the Series Administrator, (for pit stop timing infractions only) who will in turn ask for verification of results through the Series Timing and Scoring person. The decision of the Series Administrator may be protested to the Operating Steward. The competitor shall provide evidence to uphold protest. At the end of the ten day period, points will be posted to the website.

The full series rules can be found at: www.sedivecr.com

To summarize the events in question:
1. The series administrator decided to use 7.5 seconds as the pit traverse time instead of the published 15 seconds, this decision was not announced at the track.
2. The audited provisional results were protested to the administrator for not penalizing all cars that violated the timing requirements stated in ECR 8.1 and 8.2.
3. The administrator overruled that protest.
4. A protest of that decision was then filed with the Series Operating Steward
5. This protest is upheld by the Operating Steward, and the administrator directed to correct the results using the published 15 second traverse time.
6. The ECR committee retroactively rewrites ECR 8.1 so that no cars will be penalized. (over two months after the event).

The short story is several cars violated ECR 8.1 and must be penalized as required in the rules. To not do so penalizes the majority of entrants who did comply with that rule. As I said in another discussion on this same topic, I don't care what the rule is, but it must be enforced strictly and evenly. Further, it should be obvious that it can't be changed after-the-fact. We don't need officials with so little respect for their own rules. This isn't the first time either, I could start an entirely new discussion on the origin of ECR 7.7, which directly conflicts with GCR 6.7.5. Need I ask if the committee ever bothered to clear that with the national office as required in GCR 3.5.1...