Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears draft 'Digital Dignity and Privacy' ordinance that would require annual audits, vendor transparency and AI bias reviews
Summary
City staff presented a draft Digital Dignity and Privacy ordinance centered on 10 foundational principles, annual accountability reporting, vendor transparency for "person data stack" initiatives, an advisory board and protections such as whistleblower mechanisms; council asked staff to take the draft to legal for enforceability review.
A staff-led draft ordinance that the city calls "Digital Dignity and Privacy" drew detailed council questions on Feb. 25 as the city seeks to balance technological opportunity with resident rights.
Rich (presented in the meeting as Mr. Gagan/Gagner) framed the ordinance around ten "commandments" including data minimalism, human-centered technology, resident-driven decision-making and transparency. He said the draft would require annual updates and audits and create an advisory board of residents, legal and technical experts to review projects that touch a resident—s "person data stack." The draft also proposes vendor accountability, mandatory AI-bias evaluations for automated systems and whistleblower protections for staff and residents who report violations.
"Citizens' rights and freedoms exist in the digital space as they do in the physical space," the presenter said, framing the principle that the city should preserve traditional civil liberties online.
Council members asked about enforcement and whether inward-facing obligations (for city employees and vendors) can be written with teeth under municipal authority. Staff repeatedly said the draft requires legal review to clarify penalties and enforceability but that the ordinance is intended to be inward-facing (holding the city accountable) as much as outward-regulating third parties.
Council and the presenter discussed advisory-board scope (quarterly meetings recommended), when and how residents would review drafts, and how the proposed annual report would be used to keep the program accountable. The presenter suggested a first reading could be scheduled late March with a goal of a council first reading in early April after legal review and public feedback.
Next steps: staff will take the draft to legal for language on violations and penalties, post the draft publicly for comment, and return with revisions.
