Identify when AI prompts and outputs are public records, apply the correct retention schedule to AI-generated content, and produce a records retention map covering every AI use case in the city.
official drafts that become the basis for final action (staff reports, ordinances, resolutions, public notices)
legal analysis or attorney-client communications
financial records (budget narratives, grant applications, fiscal analyses)
관련 스킬
personnel records (HR documents, disciplinary memos, performance evaluations)
enforcement records (code enforcement summaries, citation support documents)
research and policy synthesis (issue briefs, option memos, benchmarking reports)
meeting records (minutes drafts, agenda summaries, action item logs)
Apply the existing retention schedule for that category. The AI-generated nature of a document does not change its retention category. A staff report drafted with AI assistance has the same retention period as a manually drafted staff report. An AI-assisted constituent letter has the same retention period as a manually written constituent letter. Apply the schedule to the content and function of the document, not to the method of production.
Flag use cases where the AI prompt or conversation log itself may be a public record. Under Washington State Archives guidance (June 2024) and consistent interpretations in other states, prompts and AI outputs "containing information relating to the conduct of government" are public records. Flag any prompt that: references a specific city matter, resident, employee, or pending decision; contains city data or documents; or was used to develop an official work product.
Identify use cases where AI output could become evidence in litigation or an administrative proceeding. These include: disciplinary actions, code enforcement decisions, procurement evaluations, benefits determinations, and any matter with a known or anticipated legal challenge. For these, apply litigation hold rules immediately if a hold is in effect, and flag them as requiring hold analysis before normal disposition.
Assess vendor records access. For each AI tool in use, determine: (a) whether the vendor retains conversation logs and for how long; (b) whether the city's contract requires the vendor to produce those logs in response to a public records request; (c) whether employees can retrieve their own conversation history from the tool to respond to a records request; (d) whether the vendor's data use terms permit or restrict production.
Produce a retention map: for each use case, identify the document type it produces, the applicable retention period and trigger event, where the record is stored (city system, vendor system, or both), and the retrieval method if a records request arrives.
Do not hide uncertainty. If the correct retention category is ambiguous, state the ambiguity and recommend city attorney or state archives consultation. If a vendor contract does not address records production obligations, flag that as a gap requiring contract amendment.
End with a clear action list: use cases fully covered by the existing schedule, use cases with gaps or ambiguities requiring resolution, vendor contracts needing review or amendment, and any employee training needed on prompt retention and retrieval.
Always flag:
AI tools where the vendor holds conversation logs and the city lacks a contractual right to retrieve them for records requests
use cases involving individual rights (enforcement, discipline, benefits) where the AI output or prompt may be required as evidence in a legal challenge
prompts that contain city government information and have not been captured in any retention system
employees using personal AI accounts for official city work — conversation logs on those accounts cannot be retrieved by the city and are not under city records control
use cases not covered by any existing schedule item, which require schedule amendment or state archives guidance
any litigation hold in effect that extends normal retention periods for specific records series
federal program records with retention requirements longer than the state schedule (grant records are commonly three to seven years from closeout)
Your output should usually include:
retention map table (use case / document type / retention period / trigger event / custody location / retrieval method)
Cities using Microsoft Copilot or Microsoft 365 AI features: conversation logs are typically held in Microsoft's tenant under the city's enterprise agreement; the city controls data retention settings and can configure retention policies in the Microsoft 365 Compliance Center; the city's data agreement generally provides for records production. Verify current configuration with your IT provider.
Cities using free-tier or personal AI accounts: the city has no contractual relationship with the vendor, no control over data retention, and no reliable mechanism to retrieve conversation logs for a records request. These use cases represent an uncontrolled records gap. Transitioning to city-purchased accounts is the correct remediation.
States with specific AI records guidance (Washington State): follow state archives and MRSC guidance directly. As of June 2024, Washington State Archives has confirmed that AI prompts and outputs relating to the conduct of government are public records subject to retention requirements. Apply the functional category of the record to determine the schedule.
States without specific AI records guidance: apply the functional category approach (step 4 above) and consult with the city attorney and state archives or state municipal league for confirmation. The absence of specific AI guidance does not mean AI records are exempt — general public records law applies.
Writing standards:
Use plain English before jargon.
Distinguish facts, assumptions, options, and recommendations.
If the task affects legal authority, procurement, meetings, elections, personnel, or public notice, say so explicitly.