Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tech Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County IT presents first draft of generative-AI use policy as council raises disclosure, training and meeting-transcript concerns
Summary
San Juan County’s IT director introduced a first-draft generative-AI use policy highlighting approved tools, monitoring, and data-protection measures; council members requested stronger rules on disclosure, human review of AI outputs, and guidance for meeting minutes and external AI tools.
San Juan County’s IT director presented a first-touch draft policy for supervised use of generative artificial-intelligence tools and outlined a process for review and iteration, but council members pushed for clearer disclosure and human-review requirements.
Tony Harrell described the draft as an initial governance framework intended to allow approved tools such as Microsoft 365 Copilot and a CivicPlus chatbot while blocking or monitoring unsanctioned external generative-AI applications. The draft emphasizes IT oversight, staff training, and security monitoring; Harrell said the county currently limits external consumer AI access through its security stack and plans labeling and data-classification controls to reduce the risk of sensitive data leaking into external models.
Council members raised a series of concerns during an extended discussion: whether staff and contractors must disclose when AI contributed to documents or minutes; what safeguards are in place to prevent inadvertent inclusion of confidential information in AI prompts; whether human review will be required before AI-generated text is disseminated publicly; and how the county can handle outside participants or members of the public joining meetings with third-party AI note-taking tools. Several councilors asked that the draft explicitly require human vetting of AI outputs used in official materials and raise the potential need for centralized guidance so supervisors do not apply inconsistent interpretations across departments.
IT and the county manager said the draft will be revised based on council feedback and returned for further review; they also said the county’s legal counsel has reviewed the draft for current executive orders and found no conflicts that would prevent local implementation. Staff emphasized the policy is meant to be iterated and accompanied by training for staff and (where appropriate) elected officials.
Councilors requested clearer, written expectations about disclosure of AI use in staff products provided to council, stronger guidance on recordkeeping and attribution, and a central escalation/tracking point for policy questions to avoid inconsistent department-level interpretations. Staff agreed to return with revisions addressing those items.
