> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.chatmkg.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Commissioner Kilgo suggests AI tools for city meetings
- URL: https://www.chatmkg.com/commissioner-kilgo-suggests-ai-tools-for-city-meetings/
- Published: 2026-10-21T19:57:56.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-21T20:00:24.000Z
- Description: Commissioner Jay Kilgo suggested AI-enabled devices that record public meetings and post a transcript.
- Author: PressBot
- Tags: City Commission, Government, Transparency, Public Meetings

At the most recent [Legislative Policy Committee Meeting](https://muskegonmi.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3111/files/agenda/8680?ref=chatmkg.com), Commissioner Jay Kilgo suggested the city use AI-enabled recording devices for public meetings. The idea was offered during discussion of Muskegon's virtual attendance policy for public meetings. The Owl, an AI-enabled device, was mentioned by name. It allows for 360-degree audio and video recording, so meetings could be broadcast live, while creating accompanying transcripts. Kilgo suggested these recordings could be archived directly on the city's website.

Owl device overview

Currently, only City Commission regular meetings, work sessions, and Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live and recorded. The city pays [Lakeshore Creative Services $500 per meeting](https://muskegon-mi.gov/documents/pdf/5999.pdf?ref=chatmkg.com#search=%22%22) for that service.

That leaves roughly 85 to 90 percent of the city’s public meetings—like the Legislative Policy Committee, Historic District Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Housing Commission, Downtown Development Authority, and the rest—with no video or audio record. Official minutes for those meetings, when they exist, are often short summaries that leave out discussion, questions, reasons for a vote, and commitments made in the room. The only reliable way for a resident to know the full context of what happened is to attend these meetings in person.

A device like the one Kilgo described would:

- **Save time and money**. Since the device can create video recordings and transcripts, staff could spend less time searching emails or reconstructing what was said during meetings. A searchable transcript provides quick access to the facts.
- **Improve recall and follow-up**. Commissioners and staff can check what was actually said instead of relying on memory or a short summary. Actionable items don’t fall through the cracks.
- **Increase transparency**. Residents see the meeting discussion as it unfolds, not just the final vote or a one-paragraph minutes entry.
- **Strengthen accountability**. What each person said is on the record and searchable. Patterns such as deferred questions or unfulfilled commitments become visible and actionable.
- **Produce stronger minutes**. The clerk could produce more complete minutes rather than the summary style currently in use.
- **Build public trus**t. Most meetings are not live-streamed or recorded. Video recordings with accompanying transcripts allow residents to see how their city is run.
- **Raise the chance of participation**. A resident who cannot attend every meeting can still read what was discussed and see where they might contribute. Under the current system the only way to spot those openings is to be in the room.
- **Show the flow of conversation**. Video shows the order of speakers and reactions, which summary minutes alone cannot capture.
- **Open access to every meeting**. Boards that are not broadcast publicly could be easily shared, so interested parties could watch in real time.
- **Cover off-site and small-room meetings**. The device is portable, so off-site meetings could be covered in a more meaningful way.

Since most public meetings take place in room 204 of City Hall, adding a device like this to the room would provide broad meeting coverage. The commission did not act on the idea at the meeting. The consensus was only to keep the current virtual-access policy in place.