Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kewaunee County tables draft AI policy, seeks department-level approvals and training
Summary
Committee reviewed a draft artificial intelligence use policy that would restrict AI to text-only tools, require department-level use cases and prohibit audio/visual AI. Members asked for training, tighter restrictions and a rewrite; committee asked staff to seek an outside demonstration and return with a revised policy.
County staff presented a draft policy for use of artificial intelligence by county departments, proposing department-level accepted-use documents, prohibiting audio and visual AI, and limiting most permitted uses to text-based tools.
A staff member presenting the draft told the committee, “It's not the be all end all. ... it is a tool that could be misused, built accidentally or intentionally and caused some problems,” and outlined a plan for department heads to document approved use cases and for supervisors to ensure employees validate AI-generated work before making it official.
The nut graf: The policy aims to protect personally identifiable information and protected health information while allowing limited productivity uses such as drafting non-sensitive correspondence or summarizing materials; it would require department-level preauthorization for use cases and training for staff.
Committee concerns focused on accuracy, bias and the risk of staff relying on AI instead of primary-source research. Supervisor Baker asked, “Who's the 1 to say that the information you're getting is correct or incorrect?” and the presenter and other staff answered that employees remain responsible for verifying AI outputs and would be expected to back up AI-generated results with primary sources.
Members repeatedly requested mandatory training before expanded use and suggested a more restrictive default approach. The committee also agreed to seek demonstrations and outside expertise: August Neverman was suggested as a possible presenter for an educational session.
Ending: The committee asked staff to rewrite the draft to add department-level preauthorization and training requirements and to return next month with a revised policy and, if available, demonstrations or educational presentations. The committee did not adopt the policy at the meeting.
