Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Minutes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Durham select board approves AI-assisted minutes subscription
Summary
The New Durham Board of Selectmen voted to subscribe to an AI-assisted minutes service to help clear a backlog and meet RSA distribution timelines; members stressed that human proofreading remains necessary and discussed licensing and costs before approving the annual $2,988 subscription.
The New Durham Board of Selectmen voted to purchase an AI-assisted meeting-minutes service after a presentation and discussion about a persistent minutes backlog.
The board’s clerk demonstrated AI-generated minutes and said the tool reduced her editing time substantially but still requires careful proofreading because it sometimes misspells names or omits legal conditions. "It does a great job, but I still spend at least two hours on each seven minutes," the clerk said, describing how the AI draft speeds the initial work but cannot be released without review.
Chair Rudy Rosiello moved to subscribe to the service and announced the annual cost as $2,988. Members discussed license tiers (the clerk recommended a license that covers up to 10 meetings) and whether a single minute taker could manage additional workload; the board’s view was that the service would be an interim tool while staff caught up on outstanding minutes.
Board members emphasized compliance with RSA requirements for minutes distribution and the need for a human to proofread and correct AI output. A member warned that AI can produce inaccurate information: "AI is like an intern...they just come up with an event like this," a staff participant said, urging oversight of any AI-produced text.
After brief discussion the motion was seconded and the board approved the subscription (motion announced passed, tally read as 3 to nothing). The board directed staff to proceed with licensing and indicated they would continue to review how minutes are posted and audited.
The action follows a pattern the board described of being behind on minutes and seeking a process to meet statutory draft-distribution timelines. The clerk and members said they would use the AI output as a draft that must be reviewed and corrected before final posting.
