Awards Nominee Eligibility, Conduct and Exclusion Policy

1. Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to protect the integrity, reputation and values of the awards and to ensure that participation is appropriate for an event intended to recognise positive contributions within the community. The awards are intended to celebrate individuals, businesses, organisations and groups whose conduct and contribution are consistent with the spirit of the awards. This policy establishes the circumstances in which a nomination or nominee may be refused, removed or deemed ineligible.

2. General Principle

We want the awards to be inclusive and to encourage the community to nominate people who deserve recognition.We recognise that nobody is perfect, that people can make mistakes, that opinions differ and that disagreements between individuals are a normal part of life. We will not exclude somebody simply because a member of our team does not personally like them, has disagreed with them, has had a personality clash with them, or holds a different opinion from them. Personal preference, personal disputes or subjective dislike are not sufficient grounds for exclusion.
Any decision made under this policy must be based on legitimate and relevant considerations relating to conduct, behaviour, reputation, eligibility or the integrity of the awards.

3. Grounds for Refusal or Exclusion

We reserve the right, at our reasonable discretion, to refuse a nomination, remove a nominee from consideration, refuse finalist status or withdraw a finalist or winner where there are credible and relevant concerns regarding conduct or suitability.

3.1 Discriminatory, Hateful or Extreme Conduct

A nominee may be refused or excluded where they:
• Have publicly promoted or expressed views which are hateful, discriminatory or seriously offensive towards individuals or groups.
• Have promoted or endorsed conduct which is contrary to the fundamental values of equality, dignity and respect.
• Have a substantial and demonstrable public association with extremist, hateful or discriminatory activity.

3.2 Abusive, Threatening or Inappropriate Conduct

A nominee may be refused or excluded where they:
• Have engaged in abusive, threatening, intimidating, harassing or seriously inappropriate behaviour.
• Have repeatedly behaved in an unacceptable manner towards members of our team, volunteers, sponsors, nominees or members of the public.
• Have made credible threats or engaged in conduct which causes genuine concern for the safety or wellbeing of those involved in the awards.

3.3 Conduct Involving Supporters or Followers

A nominee may also be considered under this policy where their followers, supporters, representatives or associated individuals have engaged in repeated abuse, harassment, intimidation or targeted hostility towards our team or volunteers. This will not automatically apply simply because an individual has followers who have expressed an opinion. Consideration will be given to the circumstances, including whether the nominee has encouraged, endorsed, participated in, knowingly facilitated or failed to take reasonable steps to discourage such behaviour where they were aware of it.

3.4 Public Reputation and Conduct

A nominee may be excluded where there is a significant and well established public record of conduct which is fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose or values of the awards. This is not intended to mean that a nominee must have an entirely unblemished history. The existence of controversy, criticism, an unpopular opinion or a past mistake will not, by itself, automatically result in exclusion. The nature, seriousness, relevance, recency and circumstances of the conduct will be considered.

3.5 Conduct Bringing the Awards into Disrepute

We may refuse or withdraw recognition where there are reasonable grounds to believe that including the nominee would create a significant and legitimate risk of bringing the awards, the organising organisation, sponsors, volunteers or other participants into serious disrepute.

3.6 Misleading or Dishonest Nominations

A nomination may be rejected where information has been deliberately falsified, materially misrepresented or submitted in an attempt to manipulate the nomination process.

4. This Provision Is an Absolute Last Resort

This policy is not intended to be used routinely and will not be used as a mechanism to remove nominees simply because they are unpopular with members of the organising team. Any decision to exercise this provision must be considered carefully and proportionately. The existence of a personal disagreement, previous argument, personality clash, dislike or difference of opinion is not sufficient justification for exclusion. Where a member of the organising team has a personal relationship, dispute or conflict of interest involving a nominee, they must not make or influence the decision regarding that nominee.

5. Evidence and Reasonable Grounds

Decisions under this policy should be based on credible and relevant information.

This may include:
• Information provided as part of the nomination.
• Publicly available information.
• Direct reports or documented incidents.
• Information held by the organising organisation which is relevant to the decision.
• Evidence of conduct towards the organising team, volunteers, sponsors or participants.
• Other reliable information reasonably available to the organisers.
We will not ordinarily act solely on the basis of unverified gossip, anonymous allegations without supporting information or personal opinion. We are not required to establish criminal liability or reach the standard of proof required by a court before taking an eligibility decision. The purpose of this policy is to determine suitability for participation in the awards, not to make findings of criminal or civil liability.

6. Proportionality

Any action taken under this policy will be proportionate to the circumstances.

Depending on the circumstances, this may include:
• Allowing the nomination to proceed without intervention.
• Seeking clarification or further information.
• Rejecting an individual nomination where it does not meet the nomination requirements.
• Removing a nominee from consideration.
• Refusing finalist status.
• Withdrawing finalist or winner status where significant information comes to light after selection.
The most serious measures will only be considered where the circumstances justify them.

7. Conflicts of Interest

No member of the organising team, assessment team or judging panel should participate in a decision concerning a nominee where they have a personal conflict of interest which could reasonably affect, or be perceived to affect, their impartiality.

This includes circumstances involving:
• A personal dispute.
• A close personal relationship.
• A family relationship.
• A significant business relationship.
• Previous dealings which could reasonably create a conflict.
Where appropriate, the individual concerned will be excluded from the decision making process.

8. Confidentiality

Where a decision is made under this policy, information relating to the reasons for that decision will be treated sensitively and shared only with those who need to know.
We will not publicly disclose personal, confidential or sensitive information simply to justify an eligibility decision. We will, however, provide such information where we are legally required to do so.

9. No Obligation to Provide a Platform

Being nominated for an award does not create an entitlement to participate. The organisers retain the right to determine whether an individual, business, organisation or group is appropriate to be associated with the awards. This is particularly important where participation could reasonably compromise the safety of volunteers, sponsors or participants, or materially undermine the integrity or reputation of the awards.

10. Final Decision

The organisers reserve the right to make the final decision regarding eligibility under this policy. Decisions will be made fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the principles set out above. The organisers are not required to enter into public debate regarding individual eligibility decisions. Where a decision is challenged, the organisers may review the circumstances and any relevant information provided, but the final determination of eligibility remains with the organisers.

11. Review of This Policy

This policy will be reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains appropriate, proportionate and consistent with the purpose and values of the awards.

Our Commitment

We want to be absolutely clear about why this policy exists.
It is not there to keep people out. It is there to protect the awards when there is a genuinely serious reason why someone should not be included.
We want people to be able to nominate freely, we want healthy debate and we recognise that people will not always agree with one another.
But we also have a responsibility to our volunteers, sponsors, nominees and the wider community.
For that reason, this provision will be used only where there is a legitimate, evidenced and significant concern, and only as an absolute last resort.

Nobody will be excluded simply because someone on our team does not like them.