The Suzi Bass Awards Guidelines

To qualify for World Premiere consideration:

• The production must be a new play or musical receiving its first full professional production; and
• The production must meet the applicable eligibility requirements in these Guidelines.

World Premiere productions are judged by:

• The appropriate Play or Musical Panel; and
• The World Premiere Panel.

Only the World Premiere Panel determines nominees and votes in the World Premiere Production category.

ADDENDUM G: Judge Code of Conduct

1. Purpose and Applicability

The integrity of the Suzi Bass Awards depends upon fair, independent, informed, and respectful judging. This Code of Conduct establishes the standards of conduct expected of all Judges and members of the Judging Committee participating in the Suzi Bass Awards judging program.

The Suzi Bass Awards Board of Directors approves this Code of Conduct and any amendments to it. The Judging Committee administers the judging program in accordance with the Board-approved Judging Guidelines and policies.

This Code governs conduct. The Judging Guidelines govern the judging process and eligibility requirements. Judge orientation and training materials provide additional guidance but do not supersede this Code or the Judging Guidelines.

2. Professional Conduct

Judges and members of the Judging Committee shall conduct themselves in a manner that supports the integrity, fairness, and credibility of the Suzi Bass Awards.

All participants in the judging program are expected to treat artists, theatre personnel, fellow judges, volunteers, and members of the public with courtesy and respect; engage in civil and professional communication, including when disagreements arise; refrain from abusive, threatening, intimidating, discriminatory, harassing, or degrading conduct; avoid conduct that could reasonably undermine confidence in the fairness or integrity of the judging process; and comply with the Judging Guidelines and other Board-approved policies applicable to the judging program.

Good-faith disagreement about artistic work, judging procedures, organizational decisions, or other matters is not itself inappropriate conduct.

3. Independence and Impartiality

Judges are responsible for their own artistic evaluations.

No Judge, member of the Judging Committee, or other person may direct, pressure, intimidate, or improperly influence a Judge to assign a particular score, support or oppose a recommendation or nomination, or vote for or against an artist or production.

Judges may exchange relevant information and engage in appropriate discussion as permitted by the Judging Guidelines. Such discussion should inform independent judgment rather than attempt to control another Judge’s evaluation.

Judges shall not favor or penalize a theatre, production, artist, or other individual because of a personal, professional, financial, or social relationship.

4. Conduct at Performances

When attending a performance in their capacity as a Suzi Judge, Judges shall behave courteously and professionally and avoid unnecessary disruption to the performance, artists, theatre staff, and audience.

Judges are expected to arrive on time, remain attentive, limit the use of electronic devices, and make reasonable efforts to attend the entire performance.

Judges shall not consume alcohol or otherwise conduct themselves in a manner that impairs their ability to evaluate a production fairly and attentively.

If circumstances cause a Judge to miss a significant portion of a performance or otherwise interfere with the Judge’s ability to evaluate it fairly, the Judge shall promptly notify the Judging Committee.

Judges are responsible for ensuring that guests attending with them understand that their conduct may reflect upon the Suzi Bass Awards.

5. Tickets, Gifts, and Special Treatment

Judges and members of the Judging Committee shall not use their Suzi Bass Awards position for personal gain or solicit gifts, complimentary admission, preferred seating, or other special treatment because of their Suzi affiliation.

A Judge may request a complimentary judging ticket, appropriate seating, or a reasonable accommodation when necessary to fulfill judging responsibilities.

Judges may accept complimentary tickets, invitations, hospitality, or seating offered by a theatre, provided they did not solicit the benefit based upon their Suzi Bass Awards position and acceptance does not create a conflict of interest.

Judges shall not use their Suzi Bass Awards position or relationship with a participating theatre to solicit gifts or contributions for themselves or another organization.

6. Public Comments

Judges shall exercise discretion when discussing eligible productions, artists, or theatres while the judging process is underway.

Judges shall not publicly disclose scores, intended votes, nomination preferences, confidential deliberations, or other nonpublic judging information.

Judges should avoid public statements that could reasonably create an appearance that they have prejudged an eligible production or artist or that could undermine confidence in their impartiality.

These expectations apply to conversations in public settings as well as comments made online.

7. Social Media and Electronic Communications

Judges and members of the Judging Committee remain responsible for complying with this Code when communicating through social media, email, messaging platforms, or other electronic means.

Judges shall not use social media or other public communications to disclose confidential judging information, attempt to influence judging outcomes, or make statements about eligible productions or artists that reasonably call their impartiality into question.

Questions concerning eligibility, production credits, substitutions, judging categories, scoring tools, or other judging matters should be directed to the Judging Committee.

Nothing in this Code prohibits Judges from maintaining personal friendships, participating in social activities, or communicating with one another for non-judging purposes. Judges remain responsible for protecting confidential judging information in all settings.

Official group communications concerning the judging process shall take place through the communication platform designated by the Suzi Bass Awards Board of Directors.

Judges shall not disclose or discuss their individual scores with another Judge who has not yet submitted an evaluation of that production. During final balloting, Judges shall not disclose their own ballot choices to other Judges before voting closes.

8. Confidentiality

Judges and members of the Judging Committee may have access to confidential information concerning the judging process, including scores, ballots, deliberations, nominations before public announcement, conflicts of interest, Judge rosters and contact information, and other nonpublic information related to the administration of the judging program.

Confidential information shall be used only for legitimate Suzi Bass Awards purposes and shall not be disclosed except as authorized or required for administration of the judging program.

Individual votes, scores, comments, and deliberations concerning nominations and awards are confidential.

Judge contact information shall not be shared or used for commercial solicitation or other unauthorized purposes.

The obligation to protect confidential judging information continues after a Judge’s service ends.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Judges and members of the Judging Committee shall comply with the Suzi Bass Awards Judge Conflict of Interest Policy in Addendum H.

A Judge shall promptly disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest, or relationship or circumstance that could reasonably create an appearance of partiality, as required by that policy.

When uncertain whether a conflict exists, a Judge should consult the Judging Committee before participating in the evaluation or deliberation at issue.

No person shall be penalized for making a good-faith disclosure of a potential conflict of interest.

10. Respectful Deliberation

Judging discussions may involve strong and differing artistic opinions. Judges are expected to listen to one another, allow differing viewpoints to be expressed, and discuss the work rather than attack or disparage the person expressing an opinion.

Judges may question, challenge, reconsider, and disagree with artistic assessments. They may not intimidate, retaliate against, or improperly pressure another Judge because of that Judge’s scores, opinions, or votes.

No Judge may disclose another Judge’s confidential comments, scores, or votes outside the authorized judging process.

11. Reporting Concerns

A Judge or member of the Judging Committee who believes that this Code may have been violated should report the concern to the Judging Committee.

If the concern involves a member of the Judging Committee, cannot appropriately be addressed by the Judging Committee, or presents a significant organizational or governance issue, it may be referred to the Board of Directors or its designated committee.

Reports should be handled as confidentially as reasonably possible, consistent with a fair review and appropriate action.

No person shall be retaliated against for making a good-faith report of a suspected violation or for participating in a review of such a report.

12. Violations and Disciplinary Action

Violations of this Code may result in appropriate corrective or disciplinary action, including counseling, warning, removal from a particular judging assignment or activity, suspension, or removal from the judging program.

The Judging Committee may address routine matters arising in the administration of the judging program in accordance with Board-approved policies and procedures.

Matters involving serious misconduct, removal from the judging program, unresolved disputes, or appeals shall be referred to the Board of Directors or its designated committee for final determination.

Disciplinary decisions shall be appropriately documented. The person whose conduct is at issue shall be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before final disciplinary action is taken, except when immediate interim action is reasonably necessary to protect individuals or the integrity of the judging process.

The decision of the Board of Directors on any appeal is final.

13. Acknowledgment

By signing below, I acknowledge that I have received and read the Suzi Bass Awards Judge Code of Conduct. I understand that compliance with this Code, the Judging Guidelines, the Judge Conflict of Interest Policy, and other applicable Board-approved policies is a condition of participation in the Suzi Bass Awards judging program.

I agree to conduct myself in accordance with these standards and to protect the fairness, independence, confidentiality, and integrity of the Suzi Bass Awards judging process.

Name: ______________________________________

Signature: ___________________________________

Date: _______________________________________

ADDENDUM H: Judge Conflict of Interest Policy

Purpose

The Suzi Bass Awards depends upon the actual and perceived fairness and impartiality of its judging process. Judges and members of the Judging Committee must avoid conflicts of interest and circumstances that could reasonably create an appearance of partiality.

General Standard

A conflict of interest exists when a Judge or member of the Judging Committee has a personal, professional, financial, or other vested interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the impartial performance of judging responsibilities.

Judges must not participate in judging a production or artistic element when a conflict of interest prevents fair and impartial evaluation.

Examples

A Judge may not evaluate a production in which the Judge is a paid employee or other compensated participant.

Service as a volunteer for a participating theatre does not automatically create a conflict of interest. Personal, professional, financial, or social relationships with a theatre or artist should be evaluated based on whether they could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartial judgment.

Disclosure and Recusal

Judges and members of the Judging Committee shall promptly disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest, or circumstances that could reasonably create an appearance of partiality, to the Judging Committee.

When a conflict requires recusal, the Judge shall not participate in the affected judging decision.

If a potential conflict involves a member of the Judging Committee, the matter may be referred to the Board of Directors or its designated committee when appropriate.

Questions

If in doubt as to whether a situation creates an actual or apparent conflict of interest, a Judge should contact the Judging Committee before participating in the affected evaluation or deliberation.

Good-Faith Disclosure

No Judge or member of the Judging Committee shall be penalized for making a good-faith disclosure of a potential conflict of interest.

Relationship to Other Governing Documents

This Policy is part of the Suzi Bass Awards Judging Guidelines and should be read together with the Judge Code of Conduct and the applicable judging procedures.

Nothing in this Policy authorizes the Board or the Judging Committee, acting in its administrative capacity, to direct or control a Judge's individual artistic judgment.

Acknowledgment

By signing below, I acknowledge that I have received and read the Suzi Bass Awards Judge Conflict of Interest Policy and agree to disclose and appropriately address actual or potential conflicts of interest in accordance with this Policy.

Name: ______________________________________

Signature: ___________________________________

Date: _______________________________________

ADDENDUM I: Judge Orientation and Training Guide

This guide supports judge orientation and annual training. It explains practical expectations, good judging practices, and examples that help Judges apply the Suzi Bass Awards Judging Guidelines, Judge Code of Conduct, and Judge Conflict of Interest Policy. It is instructional and does not independently create or modify eligibility requirements, judging standards, or other substantive rules. If this guide conflicts with the Board-approved Judging Guidelines, Judge Code of Conduct, or Judge Conflict of Interest Policy, those governing documents control.

1. The Judge’s Role

• Judges are responsible for making thoughtful, independent artistic evaluations based on the work presented onstage and the applicable judging criteria.
• Judges should approach each production with an open mind. Personal taste is unavoidable, but judging asks for careful consideration of the quality and effectiveness of the work rather than simply whether a judge liked the production.
• No judge can see everything occurring in a performance. Discussion with fellow judges can broaden understanding, but each judge remains responsible for their own evaluation and score.

2. Before Attending a Production

• Confirm the performance date, time, venue, parking or transportation needs, and any ticket or seating arrangements sufficiently in advance.
• Allow enough time for traffic, parking, ticket pickup, and seating. On-time attendance is important.
• Review the applicable rubric and categories before the performance so you know what elements you are expected to evaluate.
• If you become aware of a possible conflict of interest, contact the Judging Committee before judging the production.
• If you learn information that may affect eligibility or judging — such as an unexpected understudy, program-credit discrepancy, or other production change — provide that information promptly to the Judging Committee rather than attempting to resolve the issue with the theatre yourself.

3. At the Theatre

• Judges represent the Suzi Bass Awards while attending in that capacity. Be courteous to box-office personnel, front-of-house staff, artists, patrons, and other guests.
• Do not use your status as a judge to seek preferential treatment. If seating or another reasonable accommodation is necessary to perform your judging responsibilities, it is appropriate to ask for assistance.
• Cell phones should be silenced or turned off during the performance. If an urgent situation requires you to monitor your phone, sit where you can leave with minimal disruption.
• Remain attentive throughout the performance. Alcohol may be consumed where appropriate, but moderation is particularly important when judging.
• If circumstances require you to leave a performance and you miss a meaningful portion of it, notify the Judging Committee as soon as possible.
• Guests attending with a judge should understand that their behavior may reflect on the organization.

4. Talking About a Production

• Be especially careful about discussing a production in the lobby, theatre, nearby restaurants, coffee shops, parking areas, or other places where artists, theatre staff, or patrons may overhear.
• Even enthusiastic praise can create expectations about recommendation, nomination, or awards. Negative comments can create an appearance of bias.
• A simple response such as “Thank you for having me” is usually enough when someone asks what you thought of a production. If pressed for an evaluation, explain that you cannot discuss your judging assessment.
• Do not reveal scores, intended votes, nomination preferences, or the substance of confidential judging discussions.

5. Social Media and Online Discussion

• Judges may use social media and participate in the theatre community, but should exercise discretion when posting about productions they are judging.
• Do not post comments that reveal, or could reasonably be understood as revealing, your evaluation of an eligible production, artist, or production element while the judging process is underway.
• Questions about eligibility, credits, understudies, judging categories, or similar issues should be directed to the Judging Committee rather than raised publicly or directed to the theatre.
• Judges remain responsible for maintaining confidentiality and appropriate boundaries in all judging-related communications. This does not prevent judges from maintaining ordinary friendships, social relationships, or non-judging social communications.

6. Sharing Information With Other Judges

• Judges may share useful factual information that helps other judges evaluate eligible work. A judge may also alert other judges to a production they believe contains work worthy of serious consideration, provided the communication does not advocate for a particular nomination or tell other judges how the work should be evaluated. For example, “I think this production is worth seeing” is appropriate; “I think this actor should be nominated” is not.
• Do not discourage another judge from seeing or fairly considering a production because you personally disliked it.
• Do not tell another judge how to score a production, pressure another judge to vote a particular way, or attempt to manipulate a recommendation, nomination, or award outcome.
• Helpful discussion expands another judge’s understanding; inappropriate discussion attempts to determine another judge’s judgment.

Official Judge Communication Platform

The Suzi Bass Awards maintains an approved official communication platform for judges, which should be used for official group communications concerning the judging process.

The approved platform may be used to share factual and logistical information helpful to the judging process, including scheduling and attendance matters, performance changes, understudies, ticket or box-office issues, and similar practical information.

Examples of Appropriate Communications

• Sharing factual information about a performance, such as an understudy or significant cast change.
• Alerting judges to scheduling, ticketing, box-office, or attendance issues.
• Alerting other judges that a production may warrant their independent consideration without advocating for a particular nomination or evaluation.
• Asking procedural questions.

Examples of Inappropriate Communications

• Sharing or discussing individual scores before they are submitted.
• Telling another judge how a production, performer, director, designer, or other potential nominee should be scored.
• Advocating that another judge support or oppose a particular potential nominee.
• Using group communications to attempt to influence another judge’s independent artistic evaluation.
• Judges who are uncertain whether a communication is appropriate should contact the Judging Committee privately for guidance.

7. Evaluating the Work

• Carry your own weight. Complete your required evaluations and form your own views.
• Listen to other judges. Another judge may have noticed an element of the performance that you missed or understood it differently.
• Distinguish between personal preference and artistic assessment. A production does not need to match your taste to contain excellent work.
• Consider each eligible element on its own merits and in the context of the production as a whole.
• Use the judging rubric and applicable criteria consistently throughout the season.

8. Panel Discussion and Deliberation

• Year-end discussion is an important part of the judging process. Judges should arrive prepared to discuss the work they evaluated and to listen seriously to the observations of others.
• Active listening is expected. One person should speak at a time, and discussion should remain civil and focused on the artistic work and applicable criteria.
• Scores provide an important starting point for discussion. Panel deliberation allows judges to consider the cumulative evaluations, revisit the strongest potential nominees, and discuss differences in their assessments in accordance with the Judging Guidelines.
• Disagreement is expected and can be productive. Judges should question ideas and artistic assessments without attacking the person expressing them.
• Individual votes, comments, and deliberations are confidential.

9. Conflicts of Interest and Impartiality

• Judges are part of Atlanta’s theatre community and may know artists, work with theatres, volunteer, donate, or maintain friendships within the community. Those relationships do not automatically prevent someone from serving as a judge.
• A conflict arises when a judge has an interest or relationship that could impair, or reasonably appear to impair, impartial judgment under the applicable Conflict of Interest policy.
• Disclose possible conflicts promptly to the Judging Committee. Do not decide silently that a potential conflict is unimportant.
• Never favor or penalize an artist or theatre because of a personal, professional, financial, or social relationship.

10. Confidentiality

• Keep scores, ballots, nomination discussions, final-award deliberations, and individual judges’ comments and votes confidential.
• Do not tell an artist that you voted for them or identify judges who did or did not support a particular nomination or award.
• Judge rosters and contact information should be used appropriately and should not be shared for commercial solicitation.
• Confidentiality allows judges to deliberate candidly and protects the integrity of the awards process.

11. When You Are Unsure

• Ask the Judging Committee. Questions about eligibility, judging procedures, conflicts, unusual circumstances at a performance, or application of the Code of Conduct should be raised promptly.
• Do not attempt to obtain an eligibility ruling from a participating theatre or resolve a judging-policy question through social media or informal public discussion.
• When a situation is not expressly addressed, use the core principles of fairness, independence, confidentiality, respect, and integrity.

12. A Useful Standard

• Ask yourself whether your conduct would help maintain the confidence of artists, theatres, fellow judges, and the public in the fairness and integrity of the Suzi Bass Awards judging process.
• The goal is not uniformity of opinion. Strong judging depends on independent judgment, informed discussion, respectful disagreement, and confidence that every eligible production and artist receives fair consideration.

Orientation Discussion Scenarios

The following scenarios can be used in annual orientation to discuss how the principles above apply in practice.

A theatre representative asks, “Do you think we’ll be recommended?”

Do not predict or disclose a judging outcome. Thank them for the performance and explain that you cannot discuss your evaluation.

You strongly disliked a production, but another judge recommends that colleagues see it.

Do not discourage other judges from attending or evaluating it. Different judges may identify excellent work that you did not.

You notice that the program lists live musicians, but the music appears to be recorded.

Report the factual concern to the Judging Committee. Do not raise an eligibility accusation with the theatre or on social media.

During deliberations, another judge praises an actor you scored much lower.

Listen to the reasoning, explain your own assessment, and remain open to reconsidering what you observed. Do not change a judgment merely to achieve agreement.

You know one of the artists personally.

Consider the applicable conflict-of-interest requirements and disclose the relationship to the Judging Committee if there is any question about whether it could affect, or appear to affect, impartiality.

Documents Judges Should Know

• Suzi Bass Awards Judging Guidelines
• Suzi Bass Awards Judge Code of Conduct
• Suzi Bass Awards Judge Conflict of Interest Policy
• Current judging rubrics, scoring tools, schedules, and procedures provided by the Judging Committee

ADDENDUM J: Panel Deliberation Procedures

1. Purpose

Panel deliberations provide Judges with the opportunity to discuss eligible productions, share artistic perspectives, and determine nominations in accordance with the Judging Guidelines, Processes, and Standards.

The purpose of panel deliberations is to ensure a fair, orderly, and consistent process while preserving the independent artistic judgment of each Judge.

2. Moderator

The Judging Committee shall designate a moderator for each panel deliberation.

The moderator is responsible for conducting the meeting in an orderly, impartial, and respectful manner.

The moderator may ask questions to clarify or facilitate discussion but, unless serving as a Judge on the panel, shall not offer personal artistic opinions or advocate for or against any potential nominee.

The moderator shall:

• facilitate discussion;
• recognize Judges wishing to speak;
• encourage participation by all Judges;
• keep discussion focused on the productions under consideration and the published judging criteria;
• ensure that differing viewpoints may be expressed without intimidation or improper pressure;
• address procedural questions or refer them to the Judging Committee when appropriate; and
• help ensure that the panel follows the Judging Guidelines, Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest Policy, and these procedures.

3. Preparation for Deliberations

Judges should arrive prepared to discuss the eligible work they evaluated during the season. Cumulative average scores in each category provide the starting point for consideration, consistent with the Judging Guidelines.

Judges remain responsible for their own artistic evaluations. Panel discussion may inform a Judge’s understanding of the work but may not be used to pressure or direct another Judge’s judgment.

4. Discussion Procedures

Discussion shall focus on eligible productions, artists, production elements, the applicable judging criteria, and the cumulative scoring record.

Judges shall be given a reasonable opportunity to express differing artistic perspectives. Disagreement is expected and may be productive when conducted respectfully.

Judges may question, challenge, reconsider, and disagree with artistic assessments. Discussion should address the work and the applicable criteria rather than the person expressing an opinion.

No Judge, moderator, member of the Judging Committee, or other participant may direct, pressure, intimidate, or improperly influence another Judge to support or oppose a particular nominee.

5. Conflicts of Interest and Recusal

Judges and members of the Judging Committee shall comply with the Judge Conflict of Interest Policy in Addendum H.

A Judge who has an actual or potential conflict of interest affecting a production, artist, or category shall disclose the conflict as required by that policy. When recusal is required, the Judge shall not participate in the affected deliberation or nomination decision.

6. Determining Nominees

After appropriate discussion, the panel shall determine the nominees in each category in accordance with the Judging Guidelines and any Board-approved nomination procedures.

Cumulative scores are the starting point for consideration but do not replace panel deliberation. The purpose of discussion is to allow Judges to consider the cumulative evaluations, revisit the strongest potential nominees, and consider relevant artistic perspectives before nominees are determined.

Any voting, ranking, threshold, tie-breaking, or other method used to determine nominees shall be applied consistently within the panel and in accordance with Board-approved procedures.

7. Confidentiality

Panel deliberations are confidential.

Individual scores, votes, comments, nomination preferences, and the substance of deliberations shall not be disclosed outside the authorized judging process.

Judges may not identify another Judge as having supported or opposed a particular nominee or disclose another Judge’s comments, scores, or votes.

8. Conduct During Deliberations

Participants shall comply with the Judge Code of Conduct in Addendum G.

Judges shall listen to one another, allow differing viewpoints to be expressed, and communicate in a civil and professional manner. Personal attacks, intimidation, retaliation, harassment, or degrading conduct are not permitted.

Good-faith disagreement about artistic work, judging procedures, or nomination decisions is not itself inappropriate conduct.

9. Questions and Procedural Issues

Questions concerning eligibility, conflicts of interest, scoring records, nomination procedures, or application of the Judging Guidelines shall be directed to the moderator or the Judging Committee.

The moderator may pause discussion when necessary to obtain clarification of a procedural or eligibility issue before deliberation continues.

Concerns regarding conduct during deliberations shall be addressed in accordance with the Judge Code of Conduct.

10. Relationship to Other Governing Documents

These procedures are part of the Suzi Bass Awards Judging Guidelines and should be read together with the Judging Guidelines, Judge Code of Conduct, Judge Conflict of Interest Policy, and applicable Board-approved judging procedures.

Nothing in these procedures authorizes the moderator, the Judging Committee, or the Board of Directors, acting in an administrative capacity, to direct or control a Judge’s individual artistic judgment.

For orientation and training use. Board-approved policies and Guidelines control.