A. Private citizens who wish to obtain criminal process or otherwise register a complaint within Campbell County against another person (including juveniles) shall be afforded the opportunity to voluntarily select, in lieu of criminal prosecution, the option of submitting the dispute to an informal pretrial conference wherein mediation of the complaint will be attempted. The various options of utilizing an arrest warrant, a summons or an invitation to mediation will be thoroughly explained to the complainant by an intake screening officer, whether the office of County Attorney or the Court Designated Worker. The choice of Court process rather than informal mediation shall be decided by the complainant; however, review of the facts involved in the complaint for probable cause shall remain the prerogative of the Prosecutor and the Court.

B. At the time a citizen requests criminal process be issued or indicates the intent to file a complaint, the mediation intake officer will compile a summarization of the allegations involved and will (a) issue a letter to the respondent establishing time, date and location if a mediation hearing is selected; (b) refer the summary and the complainant to the County Attorney's Office if mediation is not elected and it appears there is not sufficient grounds to issue process; (c) prepare a criminal summons or arrest warrant if Court prosecution is indicated and submit the process along with the summary to the County Attorney's Office for review and signature.

C. Participation in the mediation hearings is voluntary on the part of the complainant and the respondent, will be informal and shall not be legally binding or enforceable. Records of the hearing procedures and statements made during the hearing shall be privileged and shall not be admissible or discoverable for any purpose. However, the records and accumulated data respecting the mediation program may be utilized for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating the program.

D. The informal and voluntary nature of mediation hearings limits the scope of the Hearing Officer's authority to establishing non-binding agreements between the disputants. The role and function of the Hearing Officer is such that he is not an officer of the Court, is not authorized to issue process and is not acting as or performing the duties of a Judge.

E. If either the complainant or the respondent is dissatisfied with the results of the mediation hearing, or if either party refuses to submit to a voluntary settlement agreement, or if the agreement is subsequently unfulfilled, the Hearing Officer will refer the complainant back to an Intake Officer for consideration of the issuance of process. The Intake Officer will consult with the County Attorney to determine if Court action should initiate on the case.

F. If, after a mediation hearing, either the complainant or the respondent is dissatisfied with the mediation proceedings or results, either party to the dispute may request that the case be referred to the Courts for a formal hearing. The dissatisfied party shall be referred to an Intake Officer who shall accompany the party to the County Attorney's Office for the purpose of probable cause review of the complaint and the issuance of Court process in appropriate cases. Both the complainant and the respondent shall be advised of the option of requesting Court action at any stage of the mediation process.

G. Any agreement accomplished between the complainant and the respondent is voluntary. Compliance with the agreement is not legally enforceable by either party, the mediation program or the Courts. Relief for non-compliance with the mediation agreement is effected only through initiation of Court process as described in Rule F above.

H. All records of the mediation program shall be privileged and exempt from subpoena and will be deemed confidential except for the program staff and the Chief District Judge for purposes of program review and supervision and will be released to no other person or agency without the written consent of the parties to the dispute or as provided in paragraph C above.

I. Restitution authorized in appropriate circumstances. Restitution is considered appropriate and permissible in circumstances wherein the complainant and respondent voluntarily agree that restitution is applicable and further agree to the amount and schedule of payment. The Hearing Officer will be particularly alert to prevent abuse of the restitution option by either participant.

J. Public Service work alternative. In circumstances wherein restitution is appropriate and voluntarily agreed upon by both parties but where indigency prevents the accomplishment of a reasonable payment agreement, the alternative of public service work is appropriate for consideration by the parties.

K. The policies and procedures controlling the mediation program will be formalized through the issuance of these court rules, court rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, and through day to day review of the program by the County Attorney and the Chief District Judge. Procedures will not be adopted or implemented unless submitted by the Chief District Judge and approved by the Chief Justice.