A model ordinance

This is a starting point for a conversation with your council, not a finished bill. Every city is different, and your city attorney will need to adapt the wording to fit your local code before anyone votes on it. Bring this as “here’s roughly what we’re asking for,” not “please pass this exact text.”

Findings and purpose

Automated systems — camera networks, algorithms, software used by a city department — increasingly make or heavily influence decisions that affect residents’ lives: who gets flagged, who gets denied, who gets watched. When no named person reviews these decisions, no one can be held accountable for them. This ordinance establishes that a person, not a system alone, must make and answer for decisions that affect residents.

Definitions

• “Automated decision system” means any software, algorithm, or automated process used by the city or its contractors to make or materially inform a decision affecting a resident.
• “Consequential decision” means a decision that determines a person’s eligibility for a benefit, service, or protection; results in surveillance, enforcement action, or a penalty; or otherwise materially affects a person’s rights, safety, or access to public services.

Operative clause

No department, agency, or contractor of the city may make a consequential decision about a resident using an automated decision system unless:

1. A named, identifiable city employee or official reviews the specific decision before it takes effect;
2. That person is accountable for the decision and can explain the basis for it upon request; and
3. The resident affected has the right to request the name and office of the person who reviewed the decision.

Disclosure

Upon written request, the city shall disclose the name and office (not necessarily home address or personal contact information) of the person who reviewed a consequential decision affecting the requester, within a reasonable time frame to be set by the council.

Right to appeal

A resident affected by a consequential decision has the right to request human review of that decision by someone other than the original reviewer, following the city’s existing appeals process where one exists, or a process established by this ordinance where one does not.

Severability

If any provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remaining provisions remain in full force and effect.

Precedent

Montana’s HB 178 already requires human review of AI-driven decisions made by state agencies — this ordinance applies the same principle at the local level. See the multistate.ai legislation tracker for the broader landscape.

Before you bring this anywhere

• Have a local attorney review and adapt this to your city’s code and existing ordinance format.
• Check whether your city already has a similar disclosure or appeals process this could plug into, rather than duplicate.
• Consider starting with a resolution (a statement of intent) if a full ordinance feels like too large a first step — see what to say at your council meeting either way.