Commissioner Carolina Mejia shared a draft ordinance with her seatmates during a Tuesday morning work session at The Atrium.
The draft ordinance does not propose the county expand surveillance, introduce any particular technologies or endorse any specific vendor or platform, Mejia said.
“It establishes guardrails so that AI enabled tools cannot quietly or incrementally expand without this board’s knowledge and approval,” Mejia said.
It is about recognizing that technology has changed faster than our policies, and that tools capable of inference, prediction and biometric analysis require a higher level of transparency and intentional governance than traditional equipment.”
AI broadly refers to technologies or machines that can perform complex tasks by simulating human reasoning and decision-making. Mejia shared her proposal at a time when some Washington state lawmakers are seeking to regulate the technology. In contrast, the Trump administration has taken a hands-off approach to the multi-billion dollar industry.
On Tuesday, Mejia said AI is increasingly becoming embedded in everyday systems, from cameras to analytical platforms and automated decision tools.
“The real risk is not a single technology, in my belief, but normalization of the systems,” Mejia said. “This happens when systems become so routine that no one can clearly say who approved them, what data they collect, how long the data is kept or who ultimately controls it.”
The board voted unanimously to direct the county manager to work with Prosecuting Attorney Jon Tunheim, the Information Technology department and any appropriate stakeholders to bring a proposal back to the board.
When reached for comment, Mejia told The Olympian that she began thinking about and researching this issue on a local level over the past several months.
As a member of the National Association of Counties, Mejia said she has had conversations with colleagues across the country. She said she wanted to propose an ordinance given current events and the fear felt in the community.
“The motivation comes from the rapid pace at which artificial intelligence enabled technologies are being integrated into government systems nationwide, often without clear local policy frameworks in place,” Mejia said.
My goal is to ensure that Thurston County is proactive rather than reactive; setting clear expectations around transparency, accountability, and civil liberties before new technologies are acquired, rather than after concerns arise.”
Mejia pointed to the now decommissioned Flock cameras in Olympia as one example of the type of AI-enabled surveillance she wants to regulate. Flock cameras automatically read license plates and record car details in a searchable database used by law enforcement.
The City of Olympia stopped using Flock cameras in December, citing community concerns about data collection, access and privacy protections.
Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley has expressed a willingness to work in concert with the “laws and societal values” of local jurisdictions, according to a post on the company’s website.
In an interview with Politico published last month, Langley said local jurisdictions can regulate how long data is stored and who it may be shared with rather than outright banning the technology.
“I view my job as building tools and then giving those which we elect democratically the control to decide how they’re implemented,” Langley told Politico.
Mejia said her draft ordinance was informed by a combination of publically available resources.
Among them is the Washington State Technology Services guidance on generative AI use by state agencies and the Washington State Attorney General’s AI Task Force interim recommendations.
Mejia also referenced local government surveillance and technology oversight frameworks adopted in other jurisdictions, including Seattle and Oakland, California, she said. What comes next?
Mejia called the draft ordinance a phase one proposal that has yet to be reviewed by county staff.
It’s unclear how long it may take staff to review the draft and return to the board with an actionable proposal. The motion the board approved on Tuesday did not include a deadline.
When asked about a timeline, Mejia said she was not sure when the board would vote on an ordinance.
“These tools are powerful, and that means the decisions around them deserve time, transparency, and thoughtful public discussion,” Mejia said. “I am extremely grateful to the board for approving initial direction for staff to start working on this.”
A still in-progress phase two proposal will focus on “implementation and privacy” Mejia told The Olympian. That includes how data is minimized, stored, retained and protected, ensuring private vendors cannot control or repurpose public data.
“Phase two is where we explicitly address concerns about private companies controlling public surveillance data,” Mejia told her seatmates on Tuesday.
Mejia told The Olympian she may bring her phase two proposal after the Washington state legislative session ends. She said she has had conversations with state Sen. Yasmin Trudeau (D-Tacoma) about AI regulation and expects her to propose bills that will align with her phase two proposal.
On Tuesday, Commissioner Emily Clouse told her seatmates she too was working on a similar county-level proposal around AI surveillance regulation.
Though she supported Mejia’s proposal, she questioned why the ordinance puts the onus on the board to approve such technologies.
“I think this is good, however, I think it puts a lot of responsibility on the board to be technical experts when things come forward, because it does give board authority to approve this technology use at our discretion,” Clouse said.
Clouse also said she would like to see enforcement and compliance policies strengthened in the ordinance.
“The term that I’ve been kind of using and hearing from the community is it seems like a ‘voluntary compliance’ type of agreement ...,” Clouse said.
If there’s operational discretion or voluntary compliance, then how are we actually ensuring that this ordinance is being followed in good faith, and we don’t just see technologies coming forward and getting approved or being used because there’s a clause in there that allows for that?”
Mejia said the board has a responsibility to ask questions to ensure proper policies and procedures are followed.
“This is just in addition to our already internal processes for systems,” Mejia said. What does the proposed draft ordinance say?
The proposed ordinance states the county finds AI-enabled surveillance technologies can assist government operations but may also create risks to privacy, civil liberties, racial equity, democratic participation and public trust.
“The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that county acquisition and use of such technologies is transparent, accountable, ethical, narrowly tailored and consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements,” the draft ordinance states.
It defines AI surveillance technology as any software, system or device that uses AI, machine learning, algorithmic processes or automated analytics to collect, analyze, interpret or infer information about individuals or groups.
Such information includes biometric identification, behavioral analysis, predictive analytics and automated decision systems.
Specifically, it would bar all county offices and departments from the following uses: * Deploying real-time facial recognition in public spaces. * Using AI surveillance technology to profile, target or discriminate based on protected characteristics. * Implementing predictive policing systems directed at individuals or communities. * Conducting covert, AI-enabled surveillance absent sheriff approval. * Sharing surveillance data with external entities except as authorized by the board or required by law.
Offices and departments that seek board approval for AI-enabled surveillance technology would need to submit a “surveillance impact report,” according to the draft ordinance. This report would need to include the following items: * A detailed description of the technology, its capabilities, limitations and intended use. * An assessment of potential privacy, civil rights, racial equity impacts and the company’s data privacy practices and policies. * Data collection, retention, access and sharing policies. * Fiscal analysis including all costs associated with acquisition, maintenance, training and operation, such as public records requests and potential fees. * Alternatives considered. * Proposed mitigation measures. * A departmental deployment and usage policy. * An oversight and performance evaluation plan.
Offices and departments that obtain such technologies would also need to submit an “annual surveillance report,” per the draft. This report would need to include the following items. * A list of deployed technologies and their purposes. * A summary of audits and accuracy or bias testing. * Data access or sharing events. * Any complaints, misuse incidents or public-records requests. * Total costs incurred. * Planned modifications or expansions.
The proposal also calls for an internal audit of the company that provides the technology. That audit would review privacy practices and policies, including but not limited to any purposeful or accidental sharing incidents.
Additionally, the draft ordinance states county offices and departments must only collect the minimum amount of surveillance data necessary and that data may only be maintained for the shortest period necessary.
Lastly, the draft ordinance requires the county’s IT department to implement “robust security measures,” such as encryption, access controls, documentation policies and prohibitions on secondary uses without board approval.
© 2026 The Olympian (Olympia, Wash.). Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
