Ruby Awards Judging Panel EOI

Submissions are now being accepted. Submissions close at midnight 9 April 2025 (ACST).

Overview

This information is for the Ruby Award judges regarding responsibilities, process, and conduct.

 

Conflict of Interest

Ruby Award judges must ensure their personal or financial interests do not influence or interfere with the performance of their judging role. They must also ensure the interests of family members, friends or associates do not influence the performance of their duties.

 

Judges must:
  • Declare a known conflict of interest as soon as possible for any nomination being judged that they are involved with, have an interest in, or expect to derive any direct or indirect benefit from.
  • Declare any potential or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • Not attempt to influence the views of other judges, participate in discussion or decision making on those nominations where a conflict arises.

Judges must not:
  • Use or disseminate information obtained in the course of official duties to gain a pecuniary or other advantage for themselves, or for any other person.
  • Solicit or accept any benefit, advantage or promise of future advantage for themselves, their immediate family or any associated business concern or trust from persons who are in, or seek to be in, any contractual or special relation with the government.
  • Accept any gift, hospitality or concessional travel offered in connection with the discharge of duties, other than what may be permitted under approved rules and conventions.

Where a conflict of interest is established, the judge will not take part in any discussion or decision-making relating to the nomination in question.

 

Confidentiality

All nominations and all information contained in nominations is confidential. Any printed material or documents relating to nominations and judging should be returned to Arts South Australia staff for confidential disposal following the judging meeting.

It is not appropriate for judges to discuss any aspect of a nomination with a person not involved in the judging process. Information regarding successful nominations may be made available once the nominee has been officially notified. Unsuccessful nominations always remain confidential.

Except where agreed, judges must not make any public comment about the judging process (see also Public Comment section following). If approached by a nominee before or after the judging process, judges are advised to refer the nominee to Arts South Australia staff.

 

Public Comment

As members of the community, judges have a right to make public comment and enter public debate on political and social issues. However, there are circumstances where public comment or debate by judges is not acceptable.

 

Judges public comment is not acceptable when:
  • A public comment made in a private capacity creates a public perception that it is an official comment of the Government or the judging group.
  • A judge is directly involved in advising on or implementation/administration of Government policy, and the public comment would compromise the judge’s ability to do so.
  • A public comment amounts to strong or persistent criticism and creates a perception that the judge is not prepared to implement or administer the policies of the Government.
  • A public comment on departmental administration causes serious disruption to the workplace.
  • A public comment amounts to a personal attack.

 Note: This information will be included in the Ruby Awards Judging Panel Code of Conduct you will be asked to agree to before judging commences.

 

Judging Procedure

Based on feedback from judges in previous years and to reduce the amount of reading required to assess the nominations, a two-step judging process has been adopted. The two-step process is described below.

Should there be a smaller than expected number of nominations across all categories in total, the two-step process will be by-passed, and the full panel will assess all the nominations. This decision will be in consultation with the Judges after the closing date of nominations.

 

Two-step Judging Process 

Step 1: 

Judges will be assigned to two sub-panels to shortlist nominations in the award categories assigned to each sub-panel.  

You will be required to read and assess all the nominations in your assigned award categories. Each sub-panel will meet and decide on the top five nominations in their assigned award categories.  

 

Step 2: 

The full judging panel will then read and assess the shortlisted nominations from each sub-panel and make individual assessments for each of the eleven categories.  

The whole judging panel will then meet to select winners from the shortlisted nominees for each award category. 

 

 

Before the Judging Meeting

Judges should complete their assessment of Ruby Award nominations via the Smarty Grants portal prior to meetings of the judging panel. This will form the basis of decision-making. Ranking may be adjusted in the panel meeting, in light of discussion.

When shortlisting nominations, you will be required to assess each nomination based on the judge’s criteria for the relevant award categories.

 

For information relating to the current award categories and judging criteria please refer to our website.