It says the rules must be clear and transparent. Specifically, it says:

Awards can only be judged fairly, either by the public or a panel, if clear criteria are established at the outset. These must be outlined in the terms and conditions so that entrants, nominators and judges are all clear as to the purpose of the award and how it is to be decided.

My emphasis. Transparency is for the benefit of those involved, not the audience, unless it's a public vote. Now you may think the public has a right to be involved too, but that's not what the guidelines appear to say.

There's nothing that says the panel of judges must be made public. What is the supposed problem that identifying the judges is meant to solve? Your persistence in pursuing this is starting to look self-serving.

I agree that an FOI request is of no great consequence, and the BBC probably receives a considerable number of these. Encouraging an email campaign addressed to a senior manager is a bit more provocative. Funding a folk award isn't one of the things the BBC are "supposed to be doing anyway". It's a bonus. If I were a senior manager in the BBC looking for areas to save money, an award which does not appear to be appreciated by its (presumably) intended audience might be an obvious target to cut.