Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Intelligence Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kewaunee County committee reviews draft AI policy and asks for narrower, department‑level controls
Summary
Committee discussed a draft county policy restricting audio/visual AI and requiring department‑level accepted‑use plans; members asked for training, department preauthorization, and a rewrite before adoption and asked staff to solicit demonstrations.
County staff presented a draft policy setting boundaries for county use of artificial intelligence and sought committee guidance on permitted uses, supervisory oversight and training.
A staff presenter said the draft is intended as a starting point and would require department heads to create accepted‑use documentation describing how each department would employ AI tools. The draft specifically prohibits use of audio or visual AI and limits routine permitted uses to text‑based tools, while reminding employees that they remain responsible for reviewing and validating any AI‑generated work product.
Committee members raised three recurring concerns: accuracy and bias of AI outputs, inadvertent disclosure of personally identifiable information (including protected health information used by Human Services), and workforce impacts. Supervisor Baker asked whether the policy should start more conservatively; a different supervisor recommended department‑level approvals and training before broader adoption. The presenter confirmed that Human Services and other departments handling sensitive data would be required to avoid entering protected data into external AI tools and that department use cases would be reviewed by the administrator’s office and kept on file.
Members asked for demonstrations and training. The presenter said CloudStrike and Cisco demos had been discussed earlier for cybersecurity and that some vendors will not allow recordings; for AI the presenter offered to arrange demonstrations. Committee members suggested inviting August Neverman (identified by a committee member as someone who has a presentation on the subject) or having internal staff (Jeremy or Ross) provide demonstrations and training.
The committee did not adopt the policy. Members agreed to rewrite the draft to require department‑level preauthorization and training, to further define prohibited data types, and to return the revised policy with demonstrations and additional guidance the following month. Multiple members explicitly said they favored a more restrictive approach than the draft as written.
Ending — Staff will rewrite the draft to add department preauthorization and training requirements, seek demonstrations for the committee, and return the revised policy at a future meeting for further consideration.
