A. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged violation of this chapter (hereinafter the “complainant”) may file with the city manager’s office (“CMO”) a verified charge, in writing, within 90 calendar days after the alleged violation occurred. The charge shall set forth the facts upon which it is based, shall identify the person charged (hereinafter the “respondent”), and shall be signed by the complainant.

B. The CMO shall furnish the respondent with a copy of the charge via first class United States mail. The respondent may file, not later than 30 days following the CMO’s mailing of the charge to the respondent, a written verified answer to the charge.

C. Within 30 days following receipt of the charge from the complainant, the CMO shall conduct an initial screening of the charge to determine whether the city has jurisdiction over the charge, whether the charge was timely filed, and whether the allegations, if true, would constitute a violation of this chapter.

D. If the CMO determines, based on a review of the charge, that the city does not have jurisdiction, that the charge is untimely, or that the allegations would be insufficient to show a violation of this chapter, the CMO shall dismiss the charge. The decision of the CMO to dismiss the charge, after conducting the initial screening, is final. The CMO shall provide the complainant, the respondent, and the city attorney with written findings concerning the CMO’s determination to dismiss the charge and the charge will be considered closed.

E. If the CMO issues an initial determination that the city has jurisdiction over the charge, the charge was timely filed, and the allegations, if true, would constitute a violation of this chapter, the CMO shall refer the matter to a mediator.

F. The mediator shall review the matter. The mediator shall attempt to assist the complainant and respondent in reaching settlement of the charge in a cooperative manner using restorative justice principles, mediation, conference, conciliation, and persuasion. If the mediator deems that such an attempt is not practicable, the mediator shall refer the matter to an investigator. The investigator shall follow the process described in subsection (I) of this section.

G. If the mediation is successful, the mediator shall facilitate the drafting of an agreement with the complainant and the respondent for the purpose of eliminating the alleged discriminatory practice. The terms of the agreement may require the respondent to refrain in the future from committing discriminatory practices of the type stated in the agreement and to take such affirmative steps as the mediator may require to carry out the purposes of this chapter. If an agreement is entered into, the mediator shall furnish copies to the CMO, the city attorney, the complainant, and the respondent at which time the charge will be considered closed.

H. To the extent permitted by law, except for the terms of the agreement, neither the mediator nor the city manager, nor any employee thereof, shall make public, without the written consent of the complainant and respondent, information concerning efforts in a particular case to eliminate a discriminatory practice through mediation or by conference, conciliation, or persuasion, whether or not there is an agreement. In addition, as stated under Rule 408 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence, such information may not be used as evidence in any judicial proceeding.

I. If the mediator, the complainant, and the respondent cannot reach an agreement, the mediator shall refer the matter to an investigator, who shall attempt to determine the facts relevant to the charge filed under this chapter. The investigator shall, pursuant to administrative policy direction provided by the city manager, conduct an investigation of the charge to determine whether the facts support a finding that a violation of this chapter has occurred. If the investigator determines that a violation of this chapter did not occur, the complainant’s charge will be dismissed, and the matter will be considered closed. If the investigator determines that a violation of this chapter did occur, the investigator shall refer the matter to the city attorney for a determination of whether to file a complaint against the respondent in the Sedona magistrate court.

J. The city attorney’s office will determine whether sufficient facts and evidence exist in order to warrant the initiation of an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. If the city attorney’s office determines that the facts or evidence are insufficient to warrant the initiation of an action, the city attorney will provide written notification to the parties, and the charge will be dismissed. Charges may be dismissed for reasons including: the complaint was untimely filed, the location of the alleged practice was outside of the city’s jurisdiction, insufficient evidence exists to conclude that the violation occurred, or a conciliation agreement has been executed by the parties.

K. In situations involving repeat offenses, the CMO shall immediately refer the matter to an investigator, who shall follow the process described in subsection (I) of this section. If, at the conclusion of the investigation process, the city attorney does not file a complaint in court then the city attorney may refer the charge back to the mediator. The mediator, in his or her discretion, may attempt to assist in resolution of the charge or may close the matter. [Ord. 2015-10 § 1, 9-8-2015; Res. 2015-24 Exh. A, 9-8-2015].