Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks staff, city attorney to draft AI disclosure policy for staff, vendors and presenters
Summary
After an extended debate about scope, definitions and enforceability, the commission directed the city manager and city attorney to draft proposed AI disclosure policies and a code amendment for review, with several commissioners stressing disclosure (not prohibition), training and liability protections.
Commissioners spent the longest portion of the meeting debating whether the city should require disclosure when city staff, elected officials, vendors or presenters use generative or other AI in materials submitted for commission consideration.
An item sponsor said the proposal was intended to direct the city manager and city attorney to draft policies and a chapter‑74 code amendment requiring disclosure of AI use by staff, elected officials and anyone submitting materials to the commission, particularly in quasi‑judicial matters. Proponents framed the policy as a transparency and accuracy measure rather than a ban.
City Attorney Larissa explained how recent judicial guidance has focused on disclosure rather than prohibition and that disclosure gives decision‑makers an opportunity to verify sources and assess credibility. She cited examples in other jurisdictions and court actions that prompted disclosure rules for filings, and warned that disclosure also assigns responsibility to the person using or presenting AI‑assisted work product.
Commissioners expressed a range of concerns: whether the city can regulate campaign materials (many said it cannot because of First Amendment limits), how to define AI practically (commissioners noted that commonplace tools such as search engines or spelling/grammar checks include AI elements), whether disclosure would be enforced and what penalties — if any — would apply, and how to avoid discouraging staff from using productivity tools. Several commissioners asked staff to draft a policy that focuses on materials that inform official decisions rather than casual uses such as email drafts or search queries.
There was general agreement to proceed with staff and city‑attorney drafting of guidance and a code amendment for future consideration, with the commission emphasizing disclosure for materials that are submitted as authoritative evidence in quasi‑judicial or high‑stakes decisions. No ordinance was adopted at this meeting.
