AI Confidential (PART 2): Navigating Potential Issues When Using Artificial Intelligence Tools in Closed Meetings
In Part 1 of this article, we explored the possibilities, advantages, and legal challenges Texas cities face when using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to aid municipal record-keeping processes and workflows for public meetings. We determined that such AI tools likely comply with legal standards and requirements, so long as cities establish reasonable policies and procedures and act diligently to ensure that the records (most notably, meeting minutes) are accurate and complete in compliance with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code.
Using such tools for closed meetings, however, may be a different story.
Municipalities are generally required to conduct meetings before the public, with limited exceptions outlined in Subchapter D of Texas Government Code 551 (Sections 551.071-551.076 and 551.084-551.089). When a municipality properly enters closed session under one of these exceptions, the confidentiality of those proceedings is strictly protected.
Municipalities are, of course, still legally required to either keep a certified agenda or make a recording of the proceeding of each closed meeting, except for certain private consultations. Tex. Gov’t Code Sec. 551.103. However, municipalities are prohibited from knowingly disclosing the certified agenda or recording of a closed meeting to a member of the public. Tex. Gov’t Code Sec. 551.146. The statute creates criminal liability for unauthorized disclosure of closed meeting information, with violations constituting a Class B misdemeanor under Section 551.146.
For a violation of Section 551.146 to occur, the following elements must be present:
- A member of a governmental body (the actor)
- Knowingly discloses or aids in disclosing
- Information from a closed meeting
- That is not authorized for disclosure under Chapter 551.
It is unclear whether the act of uploading recordings of closed meetings into AI software would violate Sec. 551.103. Currently, the idea that an AI tool may be considered a “member of the public” is a philosophical and legal question for which neither the Texas legislature nor courts have yet to tackle. However, the broader context of the Open Meetings Act and related case law suggests that disclosure restrictions aim to prevent information from reaching individuals who lack authorized access to confidential governmental deliberations.
So, hypothetically, what if an AI company had a practice of storing uploading recordings to a centralized cloud server for AI model training purposes? Might this create potential pathways for information to reach unauthorized individuals, running afoul the requirement to keep such recordings private?
Government entities must carefully consider data security when using third-party services and must ensure confidential information remains protected when using external vendors. The Open Meetings Act’s purpose is to ensure government transparency while protecting legitimately confidential deliberations. Uploading recordings to AI systems potentially undermines this confidentiality protection.
Municipalities should be aware of the specific procedures of any AI tools they use; know where and how its data is stored and utilized; and, importantly, whether any human operators may have access to uploaded content.
For now, when it comes to records of closed meetings and AI notetaking tools, Texas municipalities would be wise to keep the pod bay doors closed.
Please do not rely on this article as legal advice. We can tell you what the law is, but until we know the facts of your given situation, we cannot provide legal guidance. This website is for informational purposes and not for the purposes of providing legal advice.
