Category: Uncategorized

By Brock Damjanovich, Communications Manager | Salt Lake County Office of Regional Development

Are we sick of talking about AI yet? Will the AI bubble pop soon? What does the future look like?

These are all questions I simply cannot answer, but it’s our responsibility to ask the hard questions as we attempt to integrate new technology into our workflows, especially if you’re like me and a team of one! I’m not sure if you’ve read the headlines, but I don’t foresee the number of team members on my own team growing any time soon.

So with that framing aside, let’s dive into what ethical integration looks like for government teams of all sizes, but especially small teams like mine. 

Coming to Terms with Falling Behind the AI Curve

Three years ago, it would have made perfect sense for governments of all sizes to draft AI policies and standards before the train picked up speed. But time was tight, resources were thin, and then ChatGPT exploded at the end of 2022. Within two months, it hit 100 million users and became the fastest-growing consumer app in history.

Some agencies now have guardrails. Many don’t. If you’re a PIO or emergency communicator (especially a team of one), this matters. I’ve used AI to draft press releases, summarize public meetings, and sketch crisis messaging. It helps stretch limited capacity, and it raises real questions:

• What happens when public messaging is shaped by new tools that the public doesn’t understand?
• What are our obligations around disclosure, accuracy, and accountability?

These aren’t hypotheticals. They’re shaping how the public sees our work right now.

The Five Ethical Pillars for PIOs

I’ve learned that when discussing AI Ethics, it’s important to address use cases alongside ethics. It helps people understand not only the potential of AI but also how they can incorporate good practices in their workflow from the start.

Think of these pillars as the guardrails that let you move fast without breaking trust. Each pillar includes practical examples so you can plug the ideas into your day-to-day work.

1. Human Oversight – Keep Humans on the Hook

Large language models can produce strong drafts. They cannot exercise judgment. They do not know your community, your elected officials, or your risk tolerance. Treat AI like an intern who works fast and needs editing.

Oh, and AI can lie, and does so with all the confidence in the world.

• Consider the “two humans” rule. One person prompts and edits. A second person signs off for anything public (this should be your subject matter expert), especially during incidents.
  • If you truly are a team of one, use a written checklist as your second set of eyes.
• Define what AI can and cannot touch. Brainstorms and first drafts are okay. Final alerts, legal or HR replies, and sensitive stakeholder messages might require human authorship.
• Require source checks. If AI suggests statistics or quotes, verify them yourself. Paste links into a browser. Call the source if needed.

Example:

You ask AI to draft a shelter-in-place SMS. It writes a polished message that uses jargon. You replace jargon with plain language, confirm the address format, insert the correct time window, and run it through your checklist. Only then do you post to your alerting system.

2. Transparency – One Public Policy Beats 100 Tiny Footnotes.

The public does not need a “written with AI” label on every email and social post. They do need a clear policy that explains how your agency uses AI and how people can raise concerns.

At Salt Lake County, I’ve treated our AI Policy like our Privacy Policy. Available within just a couple of clicks, it is linked right in our social bio!  

• If you have an AI Policy or an AI Use Declaration, put it online in an easily accessible place. State the types of AI you use, the functions they support, and that all public communications are reviewed by people. Include what you will never do, such as feeding private information into public chatbots.
• Disclose when AI involvement is material to public understanding. A general newsletter does not need a tag. A report that uses AI to analyze thousands of comments should say so and explain the human review process.
• Be explainable. Staff who use AI to cluster comments, triage inquiries, or generate drafts should be able to describe how and why the tool influenced the result.

Example:

You publish a public comment summary on a controversial proposal. The header notes that AI assisted with clustering themes and that staff verified each theme against the full record. You link to the methodology and provide a contact for corrections.

3. Bias – Inclusion Isn’t Automatic.

What is a large language model? It predicts the next likely word based on patterns in huge datasets. It does not understand the meaning. If the datasets lean toward one group or one style, outputs will reflect that lean.

In addition, some companies or individuals might be trying to use outside influence to intentionally bias AI outputs. Be aware of AI chatbots or software that is intentionally biased, as well as AI that is accidentally biased. Some examples of AI bias include:

• Google Gemini’s image generator overcorrected on race. Google paused people-image generation after historically inaccurate depictions sparked backlash and then detailed fixes.
• Amazon’s hiring AI downgraded women – An internal tool trained on past resumes learned to penalize terms linked to women and was scrapped.
• Elon Musk and Grok: attempts to steer a chatbot’s politics – Reporting and company statements describe controversial prompt changes, “unauthorized” edits, and pledges to retrain or make system prompts public. Useful case study in how leadership and internal settings can shape model bias.

In practice

• Edit for inclusion. Replace formal phrasing with plain language. Choose examples that match your local community.
• Human review for non-English content. Do not rely on AI alone for translations or dialect nuances.
  • However, it’s a whole lot better than a tool like Google Translate, because if you are able to have an AI translation revised by a human, then you can feed that back into the AI for improved future translations that learn from your agency’s language preferences.
• Maintain a style sheet. Include reading-level targets, preferred terms, and phrases to avoid.

Example
You generate a first draft of a heat advisory post in English and Spanish. The Spanish draft sounds stiff and uses idioms that do not fit your audience. You ask a bilingual staffer or trusted partner to correct tone and vocabulary before posting. Then feed it back into the AI to improve future outputs!

4. Data Privacy – If You Wouldn’t Publish It, Don’t Paste It.

AI is only as safe as what you feed it. Once you put information into a tool, you may not control where it goes. This is why data privacy sits at the center of ethical AI for PIOs.

What counts as PII
Personally identifiable information (PII) is any data that can identify a person. That includes names, home or email addresses, phone numbers, photos, account numbers, license plates, IP addresses, birth month plus ZIP code, and combinations of details that reveal identity. 

• Do not paste PII into public chatbots. This includes raw emails from constituents, 311 tickets, hotline logs, screenshots of social media messages, and staff rosters.
• Redact or synthesize. Replace real names and details with neutral placeholders before prompting.
• Give preference to approved enterprise or government instances. Use tools with clear data retention policies and opt out of allowing models to train on your content when possible.
• Check outputs before sharing. Make sure summaries do not pull identifiable details back into the text.

Example
You need a quick summary of 50 emails about a road closure. You remove names, addresses, and unique references, then paste only the redacted text. The output lists top concerns without identifying anyone. If you choose to replace names with aliases, you could reintegrate the data with the original PII after the output (outside of the AI tool, of course).

5. Environmental Sustainability – Using AI Thoughtfully

AI lives in data centers that use electricity and water for cooling. As usage grows, so do emissions and resource use. Credibility matters when you ask the public to conserve or to adopt resilience measures.

• Choose the lightest tool that does the job. Use short prompts instead of many regenerations. Use batch tasks instead of constant retries.
• Include sustainability in procurement. Ask vendors about energy and water practices and  for public reporting.
• Avoid vanity use. If a human can write a two-sentence update faster than you can prompt, skip AI.

Example
For a simple calendar post, you write it yourself. For a major after-action report with hundreds of inputs, you use AI to cluster themes in one batch run, then conduct a human review.

Or as I always say – if you happen to be dating an AI chatbot (I certainly am not judging), then maybe give them the weekend off. 

A Simple AI Usage Checklist

• Is a person in charge of the final words?
• Did someone verify facts and links?
• Did we avoid PII or redact it first?
• Does the message meet plain-language and inclusion guidelines?
• If AI materially shaped the outcome, is that explained somewhere that the public can find?
• Do we have a record of prompt, draft, edits, and approval?

Tools do not build trust. People do.

AI can help a one-person PIO move faster, but trust still moves at the speed of people. 

If we keep humans in the loop, publish clear rules for how we use AI, check our drafts for bias, protect privacy as if it were evidence, and mind the footprint of the tools we choose, we’ll earn the right to use them when it counts. 

The public won’t judge our prompts; they’ll judge our judgment. Let’s show them that speed and integrity can live in the same message.

Last but not least, if you’re just getting started with AI, learn from the people who’ve already done the hard work. The GovAI Coalition, run by the City of San Jose, curates practical playbooks, model policies, procurement checklists, and much more for public agencies. 

By Laura Magness, Communications Director | Midvale City

As government communicators, we know how often our work intersects with elected officials, whether we are drafting a newsletter, designing a flyer, or posting updates on social media. A new Utah law, HB 551 – Elected Official Publicity Amendments, signed by Governor Cox this spring, changes how we handle certain communications. It took effect May 7, 2025.

What HB 551 Means

HB 551 limits the use of public funds for publicity featuring elected officials during the 60 days before a caucus, convention, or election.

Specifically, the law restricts:

• Printed mass communications, defined as mailed materials that:
  • Contain identical or substantially similar content
  • Are mailed to more than 500 recipients in a calendar year
• These materials cannot:
  • Highlight an elected official’s name in the largest font
  • Include their photo, image, or likeness

This ensures taxpayer dollars are not used for campaign-style promotions.

What is Still Allowed

HB 551 allows:

• Direct responses to constituent questions
• Communications between public officials
• Press releases issued to media outlets
• Mailings required by law

The day-to-day business of government communication continues, just with extra attention during election season.

Printed vs. Digital Communications and Interpretation

The law explicitly applies to printed mass communications, as defined above. Digital communications, such as emails, social media posts, and website content, are not specifically regulated under the statutory definition of “mass communication.”

That said, many agencies treat digital communications featuring elected officials thoughtfully. Public-funded digital content could still be perceived as publicity or promotion. To reduce risk, it is recommended to review digital communications with your agency’s legal counsel when they feature elected officials during the 60-day window.

In short:

• Printed mass communications must strictly follow the law
• Digital communications are not explicitly restricted, but caution and legal review are advised

Why This Matters for PIOs

Small design choices, such as font size, photo placement, or timing, can make the difference between compliant and non-compliant communications. Even something as simple as a headshot on a flyer or newsletter may require review.

Legal Interpretation

Every agency may interpret the law differently, and not every situation is clear-cut. Consult your attorney before moving forward on projects that could be affected.

---

Quick Reference for HB 551

What You Cannot Do (within 60 days of a caucus, convention, or election)

• Use public funds for printed mass communications that:
  • Show an elected official’s name in the largest font
  • Include their photo, image, or likeness

What is Still Allowed

• Responding directly to a constituent inquiry
• Communicating with another public official
• Issuing press releases to media outlets
• Mailings required by law

Tips for PIOs

• Double-check fonts, images, and layouts on printed materials
• Be mindful of timing, especially during the 60-day window
• Flag projects featuring elected officials for legal review
• For digital communications, consult legal counsel if unsure

---

Timing Notes

Many of you already navigated HB 551 during the primary elections. For those using Ranked Choice Voting, compliance begins 60 days before the General Election, since no primary was held. That said, we all must follow HB 551 for the General Election.

The 60-day window began on September 4, 2025. From this date forward, any printed mass communication featuring an elected official’s name – or their photo, image, or likeness must be reviewed carefully. Digital communications should also be reviewed when public funds are used, even though the law does not specifically regulate them.

Want to share your story or tips with the community? We’d love to hear from you! The Utah PIO Blog is always looking for members who want to contribute and connect with others in our field.

Quick recap

The meeting began with administrative matters including introductions and technical setup for a presentation, followed by an overview of the Utah PIO Association’s activities and upcoming events. The main focus was a detailed discussion of a complex incident that occurred in South Salt Lake in April, involving multiple challenges and requiring coordinated emergency response efforts.

The session concluded with lessons learned from the incident, emphasizing the importance of effective communication, preparedness, and the need for clear protocols during emergencies.

Association Announcements

• Utah PIO Association members to sign up for the upcoming conference in September.
• The Utah PIO Association held a meeting in South Salt Lake, welcoming members and introducing their board members. Laura Magness, PIO Association President, encouraged attendees to join the association online at utapio.org and attend the upcoming September conference, which costs $300 and plus hotel accommodations.

Summary of South Salt Lake Incident Review

Crisis Communication and Team Advocacy

Julie discussed a complex incident on April 27 that involved multiple challenges, including fire, storm drains, power outages, and gas leaks, but fortunate circumstances, such as the incident occurring on a Sunday afternoon with no active businesses, minimized casualties and evacuations.

She emphasized the importance of communication during crises and shared her journey advocating for effective communication within her organization, highlighting the need for smaller entities to prioritize and fight for communication resources despite the challenges. Julie also introduced her team and other departmental supports, including the police department’s communication outreach function and media relations, and expressed hope for sharing lessons learned and fostering growth through collective experiences.

South Salt Lake Emergency Response

Julie provided an overview of South Salt Lake’s history, services, and current developments, emphasizing its status as a fully functioning city with a strong sense of local control.

She then detailed a significant incident on April 27th involving a vehicle fire that led to gas leaks and evacuations, describing the complex response involving multiple stakeholders including fire departments, police, gas companies, and public works.

The event highlighted the challenges of managing utilities in a small city with shared infrastructure, and the successful coordination of emergency services to contain the situation and provide shelter for affected residents.

Incident Response and Public Safety

Julie discussed the immediate impacts of a recent incident, including a hard closure on West Temple and some lane restrictions. She emphasized the importance of direct communication and being late but correct rather than hurried and wrong. Julie highlighted the teamwork and quick response of all involved in keeping the public safe. She also mentioned the use of IPAWS for alerts and the need for detailed evacuation instructions.

Emergency Communication and Shelter Planning

Julie discussed the importance of careful communication when referring to shelters, emphasizing that they should be specifically designated for evacuation zones. She highlighted the need to build networks and relationships before emergencies occur, suggesting that having an emergency manager or trained staff can be beneficial. Rachael also stressed the importance of having a designated communication channel for crises and encouraged attendees to reach out to colleagues and organizations for support.

Emergency Preparedness and Communication Strategies

Julie shared lessons learned from a recent incident, emphasizing the importance of selecting a primary channel for information updates and being concise in messaging. She advised using a group text or a dedicated tool like Titan HST for internal communications.

Julie also stressed the need to prepare a “go bag” with essentials like food, water, and warm clothing, and to organize contacts and logins for emergencies. She recommended having a prearranged contract with a boarding company like UDK for business board-ups and suggested setting up a shelter with the American Red Cross if evacuation is expected to last more than two hours.

Emergency Communication Strategy Discussion

Julie discussed the challenges and wins of setting up a JIC/JIS, highlighting the rapid information flow and the advantage of having all necessary stakeholders present. She explained her strategy for managing media and public communication during an incident, emphasizing the importance of being slow and correct to avoid releasing inaccurate information.

Julie also touched on the use of emergency alert systems and the need for direct communication with residents, mentioning the development of a new software for utility account holders. The conversation ended with a brief discussion about a bomb threat incident in another city, reinforcing the value of slow and accurate communication.

South Salt Lake Presentation Recommendations/Takeaways

• Create an emergency go-bag with essentials like warm clothing, food, water, pen, paper, and charging equipment.
• Organize and update contact lists and login information for various platforms.
• Establish relationships with the American Red Cross and complete necessary paperwork for potential shelter setups.
• Consider implementing a single internal communication channel strategy for emergencies.
• Practice using alternative devices (e.g. phones) for website updates during emergencies.
• Update your media staging procedures for evolving emergency situations.
• Establish predictable update schedules with media during emergencies.