We build Agents. You build the Future.
● Public sector — Executive officeThe executive office's AI agent: transcribe, draft, smooth the diary
Transcribing a meeting, writing the minutes with the record of decisions, preparing letters, notes and files, keeping the management diary: this work takes up a considerable share of the office's time without being the heart of the job. Your AI agent absorbs that repetitive load. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — the public service's data stays under control. The public officer keeps the decision.
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Executive assistant · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Here is the recording of this morning's management meeting. Transcribe it and prepare the minutes with the record of decisions.
A 1 hr 12 meeting transcribed. Minutes structured by item on the agenda, with 5 decisions and 7 actions, each with an owner and a deadline.
Two points were left without a clear ruling: I have flagged them “to be confirmed” rather than settling them on your behalf. Document ready for review.
⛓ Source · the meeting recording + the agenda
Two points were left without a clear ruling: I have flagged them “to be confirmed” rather than settling them on your behalf. Document ready for review.
⛓ Source · the meeting recording + the agenda
Good. Prepare a covering letter to the department heads concerned by the actions.
Letter drafted from your service note template, attaching the list of actions filtered by recipient. I have also suggested 3 diary slots for the follow-up meeting, avoiding the unavailabilities already known.
For approval before sending.
✎ Action · letter and slots ready — the public officer approves
For approval before sending.
✎ Action · letter and slots ready — the public officer approves
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Data hosted in France
Hosted in FranceAI model called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option
The service's data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The public officer decidesThe AI agent carries out what you have authorised
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
✦ In brief
In a public service, a Blue Lemon Agent agent assists the executive office: it transcribes meetings, writes the minutes with a record of decisions, prepares letters, notes and summaries and smooths the diary. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, the management's exchanges and documents are never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The time won back goes into supporting decisions and the quality of the service given to the public. Live within a few weeks. Your public-sector staff write to it from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, and your users reach it on WhatsApp Business, the website chat or email — with no account to create and nothing to install. Reaching the administration from the tool people already have means less non-take-up of rights and equal access to the service. These connections are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections set out in your agent's quote.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU with the Sovereign model option (target architecture)
5
uses ready to deploy on this scope
0
decision with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Pricing
Three options, one agent
An executive office agent (transcription, minutes, letters, diary), installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you are organised. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
3,845 € incl. VAT setup
then 365 € incl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
580 € incl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
6,121 € incl. VAT setup
then 485 € incl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,989 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Included in the package: hosting and AI consumption up to the volume of your capacity tier, in documents, exchanges, tokens and storage; beyond that, re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, tracked in your client area as usage statements are issued. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices include VAT at 20%: as a public body that is not VAT-registered, you cannot reclaim it.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting for the package chosen, in France by default, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Use cases
The uses of AI for the executive office
Here are the capabilities included in the agent, then the neighbouring agents that can be added to it. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own and what it submits to a public official, who keeps the decision.
Included in your agent
The 5 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 365 € incl. VAT / month
Transcription & minutes
Transcription of meetings and minutes with a record of decisions and a list of actions — proposed, for the public officer to approve.
Letters, notes & summaries
Writing letters, service notes and summaries from your instructions and your templates, ready for review.
Diary & preparation files
Suggesting slots, preparing meeting files and agendas, avoiding the unavailabilities already known.
The management's memory
Instantly find a resolution, a letter or a note in the internal files and procedures.
Plain language & easy-read draft
Preparation of a plain-language version and a draft easy-read (FALC) transcription, subject to human validation.
Controls and safeguards
These 4 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
Maintain validation, transparency, audit trail and recourse
What the agent must be connected to
This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.
Integrate with authorised tools and the existing sovereign foundation
Other needs our agents cover
Each card says how the matching agent can be obtained today: available, on quote, or not yet in the catalogue.
Assisted drafting of official acts and letters
Orders, resolutions, notes, standard letters. Human approval.
Available View the agent page →Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Accounting agent (summaries, anomalies)
Accounting connection, alerts.
Accounting agent (summaries, anomalies) from 406 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Sorting, indexing and routing incoming mail
Paper and digital mail.
Sorting, indexing and routing incoming mail from 400 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Executive assistant agent
Daily briefing: email digest, calendar, deadlines, suggested replies, preparation of the day’s meetings. You approve every send.
Executive assistant agent from 337 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
Does your need fall outside this?
Build your agent
In 30 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
6 everyday situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data. The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds. The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
The public body in this demonstration
Fictional public bodyVal d'Arcène urban community — fictional public body of 18 municipalities
- Sector
- Inter-municipal public body — 18 municipalities, 74,000 residents; responsible for water and sanitation, waste, economic development, transport and housing
- Headcount
- 340 staff, including an executive secretariat of 2 people — one full-time executive assistant and one part-time — for a chief executive and two deputy chief executives
- Public served
- 18 member municipalities, 74,000 residents and 62 elected members — the executive answers to mayors, elected members, departments and the service users who write in directly
- Order of magnitude
- 168 meetings a year giving rise to minutes, 1,240 letters and memos, 620 searches in the files, 400 e-mails and 74 calls a week to the executive
- Tools in place
- Shared mailbox and calendars, document management system holding 9 years of archives, register of resolutions, office templates — the agent plugs into them read-only, nothing is replaced and nothing is migrated
- Who decides
- The chief executive settles the minutes and signs the memos; the executive assistant approves every output before it leaves; the chair and the executive bureau deliberate
- Room for improvement
- Minutes take 9 days to be circulated; 71 of the 620 searches in the files come up empty; 46 of the 312 actions of a quarter are tracked under a lead who was never designated in the meeting; and the executive mailbox takes 400 e-mails a week for two people
At Val d'Arcène, two people run the secretariat of an executive that steers five areas of responsibility and reports to 18 municipalities. The work gets done, but it gets done late: the minutes of the management meeting arrive as the next one approaches, and a 2021 decision takes twenty minutes to find. The agent runs on local inference on a machine belonging to the body, reads the 9 years of the document management system without ever writing to it, and lets nothing leave without the executive assistant's approval. The exchanges below span a year, from the overhaul of the archives to the review presented to the executive bureau.
This public body, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real service.
Executive assistant · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
I reread your nine years of document management over the weekend — 41,300 files, the 168 meetings of the past year, 1,240 letters and memos — and I draw from it a finding your files were carrying without anyone having the time to establish it.
The gap measured, and it governs everything else: 71 of your 620 documentary searches last year came up empty. The document existed in 64 of those 71 cases — it carried a name that said nothing, it was filed under a responsibility that has since moved to another directorate, or it was only ever attached to an e-mail. These are not lost documents: they are documents nobody has the time to find.
What that costs today, across the three items you measure:
· Drafting minutes accounts for 60 % of the time a meeting takes from your secretariat, session excluded — 3 hours out of the 5 a meeting takes from the notice to circulation.
· Preparing a letter or a memo: 37 %, that is 11 minutes out of the 30 a letter takes from end to end.
· Searching for a decision in the files: 10 %, that is 12 minutes out of the two hours an executive request consumes on average.
What I propose, and it is not an intention — it is already done: I have indexed the 41,300 files on their content, not on their names, and I have rerun the 71 searches that came up empty: 64 found their document overnight, each with its date, its author and the meeting or resolution that produced it. The last 7 exist in none of your files, and for each I tell you who holds it outside.
What that shifts once the index is live: the minutes drop to 15 %, the letter to 10 %, the search to 8 % — 45 minutes, 3 minutes, 9 minutes 36.
The next step, and it takes half an hour: you open the 64 recovered documents and tell me which ones belong in the executive's own file. The executive assistant settles the filing, and the index is live the same evening — indexing renames nothing and moves nothing: your current paths keep working exactly as they do today. secretariat-workload_where-the-time-goes.pdf168 meetings, 1,240 letters, 620 searches of which 71 empty
⛓ Sourced · 9 years of document management, search log, register of resolutions, the 168 meetings of the year
The gap measured, and it governs everything else: 71 of your 620 documentary searches last year came up empty. The document existed in 64 of those 71 cases — it carried a name that said nothing, it was filed under a responsibility that has since moved to another directorate, or it was only ever attached to an e-mail. These are not lost documents: they are documents nobody has the time to find.
What that costs today, across the three items you measure:
· Drafting minutes accounts for 60 % of the time a meeting takes from your secretariat, session excluded — 3 hours out of the 5 a meeting takes from the notice to circulation.
· Preparing a letter or a memo: 37 %, that is 11 minutes out of the 30 a letter takes from end to end.
· Searching for a decision in the files: 10 %, that is 12 minutes out of the two hours an executive request consumes on average.
What I propose, and it is not an intention — it is already done: I have indexed the 41,300 files on their content, not on their names, and I have rerun the 71 searches that came up empty: 64 found their document overnight, each with its date, its author and the meeting or resolution that produced it. The last 7 exist in none of your files, and for each I tell you who holds it outside.
What that shifts once the index is live: the minutes drop to 15 %, the letter to 10 %, the search to 8 % — 45 minutes, 3 minutes, 9 minutes 36.
The next step, and it takes half an hour: you open the 64 recovered documents and tell me which ones belong in the executive's own file. The executive assistant settles the filing, and the index is live the same evening — indexing renames nothing and moves nothing: your current paths keep working exactly as they do today. secretariat-workload_where-the-time-goes.pdf168 meetings, 1,240 letters, 620 searches of which 71 empty
⛓ Sourced · 9 years of document management, search log, register of resolutions, the 168 meetings of the year
We are not going to rename nine years of files. And a 2021 memo is called “memo_final_reviewed_CE2.docx” — nobody knows what is inside.
Nothing to rename: I read the content, not the name. Take the memo you were looking for last week, and I will show you.
What you were looking for: the 2021 ruling on taking over surface water drainage for the plateau municipalities. Here is what I bring up, and why:
· The ruling memo of 14 September 2021, the one your files call memo_final_reviewed_CE2.docx — identified by its subject, its signature and the meeting that commissioned it, not by its name. That is the one you were looking for.
· The minutes of the management meeting that commissioned it, two weeks earlier, with the name of the person who raised the question.
· The bureau resolution that followed, and the financial sheet attached to it.
· And two letters from mayors referring to it since, one of them from March still without a written reply — I flag it because that is exactly the kind of letter that resurfaces in a meeting.
How I link them: the subject, the date, the people named, the meeting of origin and the cross-references from one document to another. A document comes up with what explains it, never alone.
What searching was costing you: 620 searches a year, 12 minutes on average — and 71 that came up empty. It drops to 9 minutes 36, from 10 % to 8 % of the time of a request, that is 25 hours a year. But the real gain is not there, and I would rather tell you: it was the 71 fruitless searches that were expensive — because a decision you cannot find gets taken again from scratch, and sometimes differently. 64 have been recovered, the other 7 are located outside.
The next step I propose: that I go over recent deposits once a month to record the subject, the meeting of origin and the linked documents. Of the 41,300 files, 11,400 have no usable name — and those are the ones you hunt for on a Friday evening before an executive bureau. Say yes, and the first pass happens this month. executive-memory_what-was-recovered.pdf64 searches out of 71 resolved, 11,400 files with no usable name
⛓ Sourced · the content of the files rather than their names, minutes, register of resolutions, letters from member municipalities
What you were looking for: the 2021 ruling on taking over surface water drainage for the plateau municipalities. Here is what I bring up, and why:
· The ruling memo of 14 September 2021, the one your files call memo_final_reviewed_CE2.docx — identified by its subject, its signature and the meeting that commissioned it, not by its name. That is the one you were looking for.
· The minutes of the management meeting that commissioned it, two weeks earlier, with the name of the person who raised the question.
· The bureau resolution that followed, and the financial sheet attached to it.
· And two letters from mayors referring to it since, one of them from March still without a written reply — I flag it because that is exactly the kind of letter that resurfaces in a meeting.
How I link them: the subject, the date, the people named, the meeting of origin and the cross-references from one document to another. A document comes up with what explains it, never alone.
What searching was costing you: 620 searches a year, 12 minutes on average — and 71 that came up empty. It drops to 9 minutes 36, from 10 % to 8 % of the time of a request, that is 25 hours a year. But the real gain is not there, and I would rather tell you: it was the 71 fruitless searches that were expensive — because a decision you cannot find gets taken again from scratch, and sometimes differently. 64 have been recovered, the other 7 are located outside.
The next step I propose: that I go over recent deposits once a month to record the subject, the meeting of origin and the linked documents. Of the 41,300 files, 11,400 have no usable name — and those are the ones you hunt for on a Friday evening before an executive bureau. Say yes, and the first pass happens this month. executive-memory_what-was-recovered.pdf64 searches out of 71 resolved, 11,400 files with no usable name
⛓ Sourced · the content of the files rather than their names, minutes, register of resolutions, letters from member municipalities
All of that assumes you read our internal rulings, our memos to the chair and the mayors' letters. Where do they go?
With the 100% Sovereign package, they go nowhere. I run on local inference on a machine belonging to the body, and nothing I read leaves your network.
Local inference means the model computes on your own machine: the text of a ruling memo or the recording of a management meeting crosses no external network to be processed. If the body would rather not host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Val d'Arcène — no pooling with another authority, which is the condition for the continuity of your service.
What that changes, point by point:
· Your internal rulings train no model, neither ours nor a third party's. What I learn from Val d'Arcène serves Val d'Arcène.
· I work read-only on the document management system, and the technical account I read through has no right to write — that is sturdier than a promise, because it can be checked with one command.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access — rights follow the job: a project officer opens the minutes of their own project, not the ruling memos nor staff files. 9 roles across your directorates, and the log shows 0 out-of-role access since go-live.
· Meeting recordings are deleted as soon as the minutes are produced, or kept for the period you set — that is the body's decision, and it is taken at go-live.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
· Full log: who asked for what, when, and what was produced.
And the argument that counts before your elected members: a management meeting is precisely where the things not yet settled get said. 0 data out of the body across the 168 meetings of the year, processing in the EU targeted — and you can put that in writing in the memo the executive bureau will ask you for.
What I propose: that I keep up to date the file your data protection officer will ask for — hosting, data processed, retention periods for recordings, who accesses what. It is requested once a year and takes two days to reconstitute; the first version is already written and waiting for you. technical-framework_where-the-executive-rulings-live.pdf100% Sovereign package: local inference, read-only, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, technical account rights, role matrix, first version of the register file
Local inference means the model computes on your own machine: the text of a ruling memo or the recording of a management meeting crosses no external network to be processed. If the body would rather not host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Val d'Arcène — no pooling with another authority, which is the condition for the continuity of your service.
What that changes, point by point:
· Your internal rulings train no model, neither ours nor a third party's. What I learn from Val d'Arcène serves Val d'Arcène.
· I work read-only on the document management system, and the technical account I read through has no right to write — that is sturdier than a promise, because it can be checked with one command.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access — rights follow the job: a project officer opens the minutes of their own project, not the ruling memos nor staff files. 9 roles across your directorates, and the log shows 0 out-of-role access since go-live.
· Meeting recordings are deleted as soon as the minutes are produced, or kept for the period you set — that is the body's decision, and it is taken at go-live.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
· Full log: who asked for what, when, and what was produced.
And the argument that counts before your elected members: a management meeting is precisely where the things not yet settled get said. 0 data out of the body across the 168 meetings of the year, processing in the EU targeted — and you can put that in writing in the memo the executive bureau will ask you for.
What I propose: that I keep up to date the file your data protection officer will ask for — hosting, data processed, retention periods for recordings, who accesses what. It is requested once a year and takes two days to reconstitute; the first version is already written and waiting for you. technical-framework_where-the-executive-rulings-live.pdf100% Sovereign package: local inference, read-only, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, technical account rights, role matrix, first version of the register file
Fictional simulation — not a client result
This morning's management meeting ran one hour forty. Today the minutes come out nine days later, when the next meeting is already upon us.
The record of decisions is available tonight, the draft minutes tomorrow morning — you correct them, you no longer write them.
The record of decisions is the short list of what was settled, point by point; the minutes are the full document that also reports the discussion. The first is what the directorates need the same evening, the second is the memory.
What I produce after your one-hour-forty meeting:
· The record of decisions, in the order of the agenda: 5 decisions taken, each with the exact wording as it was pronounced.
· 9 actions, each with its lead, its deadline and the agenda item it comes from.
· The draft minutes, in your usual form, with contributions reported rather than transcribed word for word.
· And 3 points to settle — I will come back to those, because that is where the reliability of the whole document is decided.
The time this shifts: drafting minutes goes from 60 % to 15 % of the time a meeting takes from your secretariat — from 3 hours to 45 minutes. Across 168 meetings a year, that is 378 hours going back to supporting decisions.
And for the directorates, the change shows elsewhere: the minutes are circulated the next morning instead of on the ninth day — an action dated D+1 gets started that week; the same action dated D+9 waits for the next meeting.
The next step I propose: that the record of decisions go to the members of the committee the same evening as the meeting. It is written, laid out and addressed; it waits in your drafts and goes with one click. Across the 42 management meetings of the year, your directors would have had it eight days earlier on average. Give me the go-ahead and the first one goes out after Monday's meeting. management-meeting_record-of-decisions-and-minutes.pdf5 decisions, 9 dated actions, 9 days down to one morning
⛓ Sourced · recording of the meeting, agenda, 42 sets of minutes from the previous year, the body's templates
The record of decisions is the short list of what was settled, point by point; the minutes are the full document that also reports the discussion. The first is what the directorates need the same evening, the second is the memory.
What I produce after your one-hour-forty meeting:
· The record of decisions, in the order of the agenda: 5 decisions taken, each with the exact wording as it was pronounced.
· 9 actions, each with its lead, its deadline and the agenda item it comes from.
· The draft minutes, in your usual form, with contributions reported rather than transcribed word for word.
· And 3 points to settle — I will come back to those, because that is where the reliability of the whole document is decided.
The time this shifts: drafting minutes goes from 60 % to 15 % of the time a meeting takes from your secretariat — from 3 hours to 45 minutes. Across 168 meetings a year, that is 378 hours going back to supporting decisions.
And for the directorates, the change shows elsewhere: the minutes are circulated the next morning instead of on the ninth day — an action dated D+1 gets started that week; the same action dated D+9 waits for the next meeting.
The next step I propose: that the record of decisions go to the members of the committee the same evening as the meeting. It is written, laid out and addressed; it waits in your drafts and goes with one click. Across the 42 management meetings of the year, your directors would have had it eight days earlier on average. Give me the go-ahead and the first one goes out after Monday's meeting. management-meeting_record-of-decisions-and-minutes.pdf5 decisions, 9 dated actions, 9 days down to one morning
⛓ Sourced · recording of the meeting, agenda, 42 sets of minutes from the previous year, the body's templates
And the points where nobody really settled anything? That is what puts us in difficulty: we reread the minutes three months later and the decision was never taken.
I write what was pronounced, and nothing else: whatever was not settled goes back as a point to settle, dated, with the name of the person who must settle it.
This morning's 3 points, and why they are not decisions:
· The timetable for taking over the water networks of the three plateau municipalities: two dates were floated, none chosen. To be settled by the deputy chief executive for technical services, before the bureau of the 12th.
· The split of the waste directorate's operating envelope: the principle is agreed, the amount is not.
· The follow-up to the plateau mayor's letter: a reply was judged necessary, nobody said who would sign it.
What that gives you, and it is measured: over the quarter, 27 points were flagged as unsettled; 24 were settled within four days, in four minutes of end-of-meeting on average. Before, they resurfaced three months later, when the subject came back in a letter.
One rule I hold to, and it protects the executive: what commits carries a name, what searches does not. Decisions, rulings and actions are attributed by name, because they must be. Hesitations, objections and the discussion of the meeting are reported without names, unless the person asks for their contribution to appear in the minutes — and I flag every time someone asked for it in the meeting.
And one thing I advise against, with the mechanism behind it: a per-participant contribution counter. The day “number of contributions” becomes a tracked figure, it becomes a target: people speak for the counter, or keep quiet to stay off it, and the minutes stop describing the meeting and start describing the reaction to the counter. What I propose instead, and what genuinely serves the executive: open actions, their deadline and their age — three figures your tracking table already asks for and that nobody had the time to maintain.
The next step I propose: that the points to settle be read out at the end of the meeting, from my list, before the room empties. Of the 27 in the quarter, 24 would have been settled within the minute rather than within four days. That is four extra minutes of meeting, and three months less drift. points-to-settle_27-of-the-quarter.pdf24 settled within 4 days, the rule on attribution by name
⛓ Sourced · recording of the meeting, action tracking table, minutes of the quarter
This morning's 3 points, and why they are not decisions:
· The timetable for taking over the water networks of the three plateau municipalities: two dates were floated, none chosen. To be settled by the deputy chief executive for technical services, before the bureau of the 12th.
· The split of the waste directorate's operating envelope: the principle is agreed, the amount is not.
· The follow-up to the plateau mayor's letter: a reply was judged necessary, nobody said who would sign it.
What that gives you, and it is measured: over the quarter, 27 points were flagged as unsettled; 24 were settled within four days, in four minutes of end-of-meeting on average. Before, they resurfaced three months later, when the subject came back in a letter.
One rule I hold to, and it protects the executive: what commits carries a name, what searches does not. Decisions, rulings and actions are attributed by name, because they must be. Hesitations, objections and the discussion of the meeting are reported without names, unless the person asks for their contribution to appear in the minutes — and I flag every time someone asked for it in the meeting.
And one thing I advise against, with the mechanism behind it: a per-participant contribution counter. The day “number of contributions” becomes a tracked figure, it becomes a target: people speak for the counter, or keep quiet to stay off it, and the minutes stop describing the meeting and start describing the reaction to the counter. What I propose instead, and what genuinely serves the executive: open actions, their deadline and their age — three figures your tracking table already asks for and that nobody had the time to maintain.
The next step I propose: that the points to settle be read out at the end of the meeting, from my list, before the room empties. Of the 27 in the quarter, 24 would have been settled within the minute rather than within four days. That is four extra minutes of meeting, and three months less drift. points-to-settle_27-of-the-quarter.pdf24 settled within 4 days, the rule on attribution by name
⛓ Sourced · recording of the meeting, action tracking table, minutes of the quarter
Circulation is mine to do, and that is where it stalls: it has to be filtered by recipient, and I do it between two meetings.
The filtering is done, and I am offering you a written circulation mandate, capped, dated and withdrawable with a single word — it is already drafted, waiting for a signature.
What it earns, first, because that is what decides: circulating a set of minutes takes you 35 minutes per meeting, and it comes after the review. Across 168 meetings, that is 98 hours — and above all it is the link that turns minutes “written the next day” into minutes “read on the ninth day”.
What the mandate says, and it fits in six lines:
· Exact scope: the record of decisions and the minutes of internal meetings, listed by name — management meetings, committees and project meetings. Nothing else.
· What stays outside the mandate: any document intended for elected members, member municipalities or a service user, and any ruling memo. Circulated minutes commit the executive — which is why those go out from you, and I hand them to you ready to send, filtered by recipient, within minutes.
· Every send is filtered by recipient: each directorate receives the full record and the list of only the actions that concern it, with their deadlines.
· You receive each morning the record of what went out the day before, on one page. A wrong recipient is caught within the hour, not a week later.
· Term: reviewed after three months, with the record of what it changed. Without an explicit decision at the review, the mandate stops — it is renewal that takes a signature, not termination.
· Withdrawal: one word from you, and direct circulation stops within the minute. Minutes revert to drafts in your mailbox; nothing else changes.
The decision belongs to the chief executive and to you — and it is taken on a text already written, with one signature. You sign, and Monday's record goes out the same evening; the review is already in your diary on the 15th of the third month. circulation-mandate_internal-meetings-capped.pdfCirculation filtered by recipient, 3-month review, withdrawal with one word
✎ Framework · drafted mandate, list of covered meetings, circulation log, action tracking table
What it earns, first, because that is what decides: circulating a set of minutes takes you 35 minutes per meeting, and it comes after the review. Across 168 meetings, that is 98 hours — and above all it is the link that turns minutes “written the next day” into minutes “read on the ninth day”.
What the mandate says, and it fits in six lines:
· Exact scope: the record of decisions and the minutes of internal meetings, listed by name — management meetings, committees and project meetings. Nothing else.
· What stays outside the mandate: any document intended for elected members, member municipalities or a service user, and any ruling memo. Circulated minutes commit the executive — which is why those go out from you, and I hand them to you ready to send, filtered by recipient, within minutes.
· Every send is filtered by recipient: each directorate receives the full record and the list of only the actions that concern it, with their deadlines.
· You receive each morning the record of what went out the day before, on one page. A wrong recipient is caught within the hour, not a week later.
· Term: reviewed after three months, with the record of what it changed. Without an explicit decision at the review, the mandate stops — it is renewal that takes a signature, not termination.
· Withdrawal: one word from you, and direct circulation stops within the minute. Minutes revert to drafts in your mailbox; nothing else changes.
The decision belongs to the chief executive and to you — and it is taken on a text already written, with one signature. You sign, and Monday's record goes out the same evening; the review is already in your diary on the 15th of the third month. circulation-mandate_internal-meetings-capped.pdfCirculation filtered by recipient, 3-month review, withdrawal with one word
✎ Framework · drafted mandate, list of covered meetings, circulation log, action tracking table
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Now I need a covering letter to the department heads concerned by the meeting's actions, showing what falls to each of them.
The letter is written, built on your internal memo template, and each recipient receives the list of only the actions that concern them.
What the letter takes over, and where it comes from:
· The form of your internal memo, identical — heading, references, opening and closing formulas. They are the ones the body uses, on a template reviewed with you last month.
· The subject and the reference to the management meeting, with its date.
· The actions filtered by recipient: 4 for the technical services directorate, 3 for the waste directorate, 2 for the finance directorate — each with its deadline and the exact wording of the record.
· One field is waiting for you, and that is deliberate: the signature — the only entry that commits the executive, and it takes ten seconds.
The time this shifts: preparing a letter or a memo goes from 37 % to 10 % of the time it takes — from 11 minutes to 3. Across 1,240 letters and memos a year, that is 165 hours going back to follow-up and to supporting decisions.
What I flag without being asked: two of the nine actions share their deadline with two actions open since March on the same directorate. That is not an objection, it is a calendar fact — I have prepared both versions of the letter: one with the deadlines as they stand, one with the second deadline moved a week later. You choose, and the technical services directorate receives a timetable it can hold.
The next step I propose: that the covering letter build itself after every management meeting, as soon as the record is approved. 42 meetings a year, 42 covering letters: it is the most repetitive document in your secretariat, and the one that goes out latest. Approve the principle once, and every meeting leaves with its covering letters the next morning. covering-letter_actions-by-directorate.pdf9 actions filtered into 3 recipients, 11 minutes down to 3
⛓ Sourced · the body's internal memo template, record of decisions, action tracking table
What the letter takes over, and where it comes from:
· The form of your internal memo, identical — heading, references, opening and closing formulas. They are the ones the body uses, on a template reviewed with you last month.
· The subject and the reference to the management meeting, with its date.
· The actions filtered by recipient: 4 for the technical services directorate, 3 for the waste directorate, 2 for the finance directorate — each with its deadline and the exact wording of the record.
· One field is waiting for you, and that is deliberate: the signature — the only entry that commits the executive, and it takes ten seconds.
The time this shifts: preparing a letter or a memo goes from 37 % to 10 % of the time it takes — from 11 minutes to 3. Across 1,240 letters and memos a year, that is 165 hours going back to follow-up and to supporting decisions.
What I flag without being asked: two of the nine actions share their deadline with two actions open since March on the same directorate. That is not an objection, it is a calendar fact — I have prepared both versions of the letter: one with the deadlines as they stand, one with the second deadline moved a week later. You choose, and the technical services directorate receives a timetable it can hold.
The next step I propose: that the covering letter build itself after every management meeting, as soon as the record is approved. 42 meetings a year, 42 covering letters: it is the most repetitive document in your secretariat, and the one that goes out latest. Approve the principle once, and every meeting leaves with its covering letters the next morning. covering-letter_actions-by-directorate.pdf9 actions filtered into 3 recipients, 11 minutes down to 3
⛓ Sourced · the body's internal memo template, record of decisions, action tracking table
Our letters to service users are written like internal memos. People call us back to ask what they mean, and some never call at all.
The 340 letters you send to service users each year have been reviewed and rewritten in plain language — and each also exists in an easy-read version, which you reread and settle before it is used.
Easy-read means short sentences, one message per sentence, everyday words rather than administrative ones.
What I did across your 340 letters to service users:
· I picked out the 18 recurring formulas that teach the reader nothing — “your request has been forwarded to the competent department”, “failing a reply within the allotted time” — and replaced them with the sentence that says what happens, when, and what the person must do.
· Every letter now carries three things in plain sight: what was decided, the date by which the person will hear back, and the name of the department to contact.
· No easy-read version goes out without your rereading — the 18 rewritten formulas, a little over two hours to settle them all. That is what makes it safe: a shortened sentence that shifts a date or a consequence no longer helps the person, it misleads them, and it is the body that answers for it.
What that gave over the quarter:
· Call-backs from service users asking for a letter to be explained: 96 → 29.
· Letters left unanswered although a document had been requested: 41 out of 214 → 17 out of 227. That is 24 files that moved forward instead of stalling — and non-take-up is exactly that: an open entitlement never claimed because the letter was not understood.
· And 34 letters were sent in easy-read at the person's request, without a single line of information changing.
The next step I propose: that the 18 rewritten formulas go into your templates, for next year's 340 letters as well as for the 900 your directorates send on their own. That is one hour of review for you, and 1,240 letters going out clear without anyone thinking about it again. letters-to-service-users_plain-language-and-settled-easy-read.pdf18 formulas rewritten, 96 call-backs down to 29
⛓ Sourced · 340 letters to service users, call-back log, rereading record for the 18 formulas
Easy-read means short sentences, one message per sentence, everyday words rather than administrative ones.
What I did across your 340 letters to service users:
· I picked out the 18 recurring formulas that teach the reader nothing — “your request has been forwarded to the competent department”, “failing a reply within the allotted time” — and replaced them with the sentence that says what happens, when, and what the person must do.
· Every letter now carries three things in plain sight: what was decided, the date by which the person will hear back, and the name of the department to contact.
· No easy-read version goes out without your rereading — the 18 rewritten formulas, a little over two hours to settle them all. That is what makes it safe: a shortened sentence that shifts a date or a consequence no longer helps the person, it misleads them, and it is the body that answers for it.
What that gave over the quarter:
· Call-backs from service users asking for a letter to be explained: 96 → 29.
· Letters left unanswered although a document had been requested: 41 out of 214 → 17 out of 227. That is 24 files that moved forward instead of stalling — and non-take-up is exactly that: an open entitlement never claimed because the letter was not understood.
· And 34 letters were sent in easy-read at the person's request, without a single line of information changing.
The next step I propose: that the 18 rewritten formulas go into your templates, for next year's 340 letters as well as for the 900 your directorates send on their own. That is one hour of review for you, and 1,240 letters going out clear without anyone thinking about it again. letters-to-service-users_plain-language-and-settled-easy-read.pdf18 formulas rewritten, 96 call-backs down to 29
⛓ Sourced · 340 letters to service users, call-back log, rereading record for the 18 formulas
Next week's executive bureau expects a note on taking over the water networks. That is the kind of note I prepare at the weekend.
The note is written, and it carries three scenarios already costed from your own documents — the bureau will decide on figures, not on an impression.
A briefing note is the short document that sets a question before those who must decide it: what is at stake, what the papers say, and the possible routes.
What the note establishes first, from your own documents:
· The history of the file since 2021 — the ruling memo, the resolution that followed, the two letters from mayors, and the March letter still without a written reply.
· The state of the three networks concerned, as it emerges from your operator's reports, each figure pointing back to its page.
· What the resolutions in force already allow, and what would require a new resolution.
What I do on top, and what nobody has the time to do: I put three timetable scenarios on the table, each costed from the data in your reports — phased capital spending, induced running costs, the date on which each municipality is taken over:
· A — all three networks taken over in a single year: the cost falls on one budget, and all three municipalities are served the same year.
· B — phased over three years: cost spread out, and the third municipality waits two years longer than the first.
· C — two stages, the two most degraded networks first: this is the scenario that first serves the 2,200 service users hit by last year's most frequent interruptions.
None of the three is my opinion: they are three calculations made from your reports, and the bureau can ask me for a fourth in session, costed before the item closes. The decision belongs to the executive bureau, and it is the resolution that makes it binding on all — and I hand it to them documented, with every figure pointing back to its source.
The next step I propose: that the same note be built for the five files that come back to every bureau — water, waste, transport, housing, economic development. They are prepared the evening before, from the papers filed, and you only review what has moved since the last session. briefing-note_taking-over-the-water-networks.pdf3 costed scenarios, every figure pointing back to its source
⛓ Sourced · memos and resolutions since 2021, operator's reports, letters from member municipalities
A briefing note is the short document that sets a question before those who must decide it: what is at stake, what the papers say, and the possible routes.
What the note establishes first, from your own documents:
· The history of the file since 2021 — the ruling memo, the resolution that followed, the two letters from mayors, and the March letter still without a written reply.
· The state of the three networks concerned, as it emerges from your operator's reports, each figure pointing back to its page.
· What the resolutions in force already allow, and what would require a new resolution.
What I do on top, and what nobody has the time to do: I put three timetable scenarios on the table, each costed from the data in your reports — phased capital spending, induced running costs, the date on which each municipality is taken over:
· A — all three networks taken over in a single year: the cost falls on one budget, and all three municipalities are served the same year.
· B — phased over three years: cost spread out, and the third municipality waits two years longer than the first.
· C — two stages, the two most degraded networks first: this is the scenario that first serves the 2,200 service users hit by last year's most frequent interruptions.
None of the three is my opinion: they are three calculations made from your reports, and the bureau can ask me for a fourth in session, costed before the item closes. The decision belongs to the executive bureau, and it is the resolution that makes it binding on all — and I hand it to them documented, with every figure pointing back to its source.
The next step I propose: that the same note be built for the five files that come back to every bureau — water, waste, transport, housing, economic development. They are prepared the evening before, from the papers filed, and you only review what has moved since the last session. briefing-note_taking-over-the-water-networks.pdf3 costed scenarios, every figure pointing back to its source
⛓ Sourced · memos and resolutions since 2021, operator's reports, letters from member municipalities
Fictional simulation — not a client result
The chief executive's diary is the black spot: three slots to find for a follow-up meeting, and six diaries and two site visits to check.
The three slots are offered, they account for the six diaries, the two site visits and the travel time — and the preparation pack is ready for each of them.
What I check before offering a date:
· The six diaries concerned, and the known unavailabilities — booked leave, statutory meetings, duty rotas.
· The site visits of the day: I do not offer a 2 p.m. slot at headquarters when the chief executive is coming out of a 1.30 p.m. meeting in a plateau municipality. Over the quarter, 11 appointments had been booked in that situation and had to be moved.
· The load of the week: I do not place a follow-up meeting the day before an executive bureau, unless you ask me to.
What I hand over with each slot: the preparation pack — the proposed agenda, the minutes of the two previous sessions on the same subject, the open actions and their age, and the documents cited. It is ready the evening before, not on the morning itself.
What that gave over the quarter:
· Slot searches: 74 requests, 74 proposals in under a minute, against 18 minutes on average by hand.
· Meetings moved after the event: 19 → 4, and the 4 come from outside cancellations, not from a diary clash.
· Meetings opened without a preparation pack: 23 → 0.
The next step I propose: that the five statutory meetings of the year be booked twelve months ahead, with their preparation packs opened as soon as the notice goes out. Your six directors then block their dates before other meetings take them — it is the only way the executive bureau stops being prepared at the weekend. diary-and-preparation-packs_the-quarter.pdf74 proposals in under a minute, 23 meetings without a pack down to 0
⛓ Sourced · shared calendars, agendas, minutes of previous sessions, action tracking table
What I check before offering a date:
· The six diaries concerned, and the known unavailabilities — booked leave, statutory meetings, duty rotas.
· The site visits of the day: I do not offer a 2 p.m. slot at headquarters when the chief executive is coming out of a 1.30 p.m. meeting in a plateau municipality. Over the quarter, 11 appointments had been booked in that situation and had to be moved.
· The load of the week: I do not place a follow-up meeting the day before an executive bureau, unless you ask me to.
What I hand over with each slot: the preparation pack — the proposed agenda, the minutes of the two previous sessions on the same subject, the open actions and their age, and the documents cited. It is ready the evening before, not on the morning itself.
What that gave over the quarter:
· Slot searches: 74 requests, 74 proposals in under a minute, against 18 minutes on average by hand.
· Meetings moved after the event: 19 → 4, and the 4 come from outside cancellations, not from a diary clash.
· Meetings opened without a preparation pack: 23 → 0.
The next step I propose: that the five statutory meetings of the year be booked twelve months ahead, with their preparation packs opened as soon as the notice goes out. Your six directors then block their dates before other meetings take them — it is the only way the executive bureau stops being prepared at the weekend. diary-and-preparation-packs_the-quarter.pdf74 proposals in under a minute, 23 meetings without a pack down to 0
⛓ Sourced · shared calendars, agendas, minutes of previous sessions, action tracking table
The executive mailbox takes 400 e-mails a week. Between the two of us we do nothing but sort, and there is always a deadline that slips through.
The 400 are sorted every morning, 214 have a draft reply ready, and no deadline slips: they are extracted and dated.
The sort, as it is done:
· 112 fall within the six recurring topics — appointment requests, document requests, invitations, service users' questions, supplier approaches, mailing lists. Draft reply ready for each, sourced from your own documents.
· 102 are file follow-up e-mails: I attach them to the file concerned and bring up the document they refer to, which saves rereading the whole thread.
· 64 carry a deadline — a reply expected, a statutory time limit, a committee date. They are extracted, dated and placed in your deadline table, with a reminder three days ahead.
· 78 are to be routed to a directorate: forwarded with the subject noted, and one line in the morning record.
· 44 call for the chief executive's ruling, and those come at the top of the morning page, not in the middle of the 400.
What that gave over the quarter:
· Secretariat sorting time: 6 hours a week → 1 hour.
· Deadlines missed: 14 in the quarter → 1, and that one came from a document a third party had not sent — I had flagged it twice.
· Average time to first reply to a service user's e-mail: 11 days → 2 days.
The next step I propose: that the six recurring topics go out directly after approval once and for all, as with the internal minutes. 112 e-mails a week, a reply within the hour instead of the day after next — and you only review the other 288. The mandate is written on the same model as the circulation one: capped, dated, withdrawable with a single word. mailbox-and-calls_400-e-mails-74-calls.pdf6 hours of sorting down to 1, 14 missed deadlines down to 1
⛓ Sourced · executive mailbox, deadline table, reply log for the quarter
The sort, as it is done:
· 112 fall within the six recurring topics — appointment requests, document requests, invitations, service users' questions, supplier approaches, mailing lists. Draft reply ready for each, sourced from your own documents.
· 102 are file follow-up e-mails: I attach them to the file concerned and bring up the document they refer to, which saves rereading the whole thread.
· 64 carry a deadline — a reply expected, a statutory time limit, a committee date. They are extracted, dated and placed in your deadline table, with a reminder three days ahead.
· 78 are to be routed to a directorate: forwarded with the subject noted, and one line in the morning record.
· 44 call for the chief executive's ruling, and those come at the top of the morning page, not in the middle of the 400.
What that gave over the quarter:
· Secretariat sorting time: 6 hours a week → 1 hour.
· Deadlines missed: 14 in the quarter → 1, and that one came from a document a third party had not sent — I had flagged it twice.
· Average time to first reply to a service user's e-mail: 11 days → 2 days.
The next step I propose: that the six recurring topics go out directly after approval once and for all, as with the internal minutes. 112 e-mails a week, a reply within the hour instead of the day after next — and you only review the other 288. The mandate is written on the same model as the circulation one: capped, dated, withdrawable with a single word. mailbox-and-calls_400-e-mails-74-calls.pdf6 hours of sorting down to 1, 14 missed deadlines down to 1
⛓ Sourced · executive mailbox, deadline table, reply log for the quarter
That leaves the calls. The switchboard puts through anything touching “the executive”, including service users simply looking for a department.
Of the 74 weekly calls put through to the executive, 41 did not concern it — I handle or route them, and your two lines now only ring for the other 33.
What I do with the 74:
· 23 are service users looking for a department — waste, water, transport, housing. They get the answer or the competent department, with the name, the number and the opening hours. They had no business reaching the executive, and they got there because it was the only number they had.
· 18 are appointment requests: I qualify the purpose, offer three slots on the ranges you have opened, and set up the preparation pack.
· 33 are for the executive — elected members, mayors, partners, departments: I take the message with the purpose, the number and the urgency stated by the caller, and I file it on the morning page. A mayor's call is flagged within the minute, never held for a record.
And I say so from the first sentence: I am a digital assistant of the urban community, not an officer. This is not an option you could switch off: the European regulation on artificial intelligence requires that anyone interacting with an AI system be informed. The caller can ask for a person at any time, and I transfer.
What that gives, measured over the quarter: interruptions to the secretariat go from 74 to 33 a week. That is not time saved on work, it is time saved on interruption — and it is the costliest kind when you are drafting minutes or a briefing note.
The next step I propose: that the 23 service user calls stop reaching the executive at all, and go to the competent department from the switchboard. I am giving the switchboard the routing table I built from those 23 calls, with the reasons actually heard — it is written, it fits on one page, and it hands those calls back to the department that knows the answer. executive-calls_74-a-week-sorted.pdf41 calls handed back to departments, 33 qualified messages
⛓ Sourced · log of calls put through to the executive, organisation chart, shared calendars
What I do with the 74:
· 23 are service users looking for a department — waste, water, transport, housing. They get the answer or the competent department, with the name, the number and the opening hours. They had no business reaching the executive, and they got there because it was the only number they had.
· 18 are appointment requests: I qualify the purpose, offer three slots on the ranges you have opened, and set up the preparation pack.
· 33 are for the executive — elected members, mayors, partners, departments: I take the message with the purpose, the number and the urgency stated by the caller, and I file it on the morning page. A mayor's call is flagged within the minute, never held for a record.
And I say so from the first sentence: I am a digital assistant of the urban community, not an officer. This is not an option you could switch off: the European regulation on artificial intelligence requires that anyone interacting with an AI system be informed. The caller can ask for a person at any time, and I transfer.
What that gives, measured over the quarter: interruptions to the secretariat go from 74 to 33 a week. That is not time saved on work, it is time saved on interruption — and it is the costliest kind when you are drafting minutes or a briefing note.
The next step I propose: that the 23 service user calls stop reaching the executive at all, and go to the competent department from the switchboard. I am giving the switchboard the routing table I built from those 23 calls, with the reasons actually heard — it is written, it fits on one page, and it hands those calls back to the department that knows the answer. executive-calls_74-a-week-sorted.pdf41 calls handed back to departments, 33 qualified messages
⛓ Sourced · log of calls put through to the executive, organisation chart, shared calendars
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A decision taken this morning at the management committee is not a decision, and your record sheet has only two boxes.
What the meeting produced: the committee settled the timetable for the waste consultation, « subject to the opinion of the community board of 8 October ». It has an owner, a deadline and an immediate effect on three departments — and it can be overturned on the 8th.
The point that had not yet been taken into account in your record template: it distinguishes decisions, which are settled, from actions, which are to be done. Nothing in it says where a settled but conditional decision goes. I did not settle it on my own — and the record is not waiting: it is transcribed, the 9 actions are assigned and dated, the board briefing pack is built.
Three ways of doing it. Enter it as a decision, with the reservation in the wording: it is visible to everyone, but a hurried reader sees a settled decision and launches the contracts. Enter it as an action owned by the director general until the board's opinion: no one takes it as settled, but the three departments concerned no longer see it and lose three weeks. Create a third category, « conditional decision », with its condition, its lifting date and its owner: everyone sees what there is to see, at the price of one more column in the record.
I recommend the third. It is the only one that lets the three departments prepare without committing, and your record already carries a deadline column: the lifting date goes in it without changing the layout at all.
You can also give me another one — for instance: a conditional decision stays in the record as a decision, and I remind the owner the day before the meeting that is to lift it.
Shall I remember it for the next meetings? Across the 168 meetings I re-read, 27 decisions carried a reservation of this kind, and 6 were never taken up again after the meeting that was to lift them. If you approve, I will file them this way without bringing them to you one by one, and I will give you the count at every committee. conditional-decision_three-ways.pdf1 meeting · 3 ways of doing it · 27 comparable cases
⛓ Sourced · management committee meeting, decision-record template, 168 meetings re-read and 27 decisions subject to a reservation
What the meeting produced: the committee settled the timetable for the waste consultation, « subject to the opinion of the community board of 8 October ». It has an owner, a deadline and an immediate effect on three departments — and it can be overturned on the 8th.
The point that had not yet been taken into account in your record template: it distinguishes decisions, which are settled, from actions, which are to be done. Nothing in it says where a settled but conditional decision goes. I did not settle it on my own — and the record is not waiting: it is transcribed, the 9 actions are assigned and dated, the board briefing pack is built.
Three ways of doing it. Enter it as a decision, with the reservation in the wording: it is visible to everyone, but a hurried reader sees a settled decision and launches the contracts. Enter it as an action owned by the director general until the board's opinion: no one takes it as settled, but the three departments concerned no longer see it and lose three weeks. Create a third category, « conditional decision », with its condition, its lifting date and its owner: everyone sees what there is to see, at the price of one more column in the record.
I recommend the third. It is the only one that lets the three departments prepare without committing, and your record already carries a deadline column: the lifting date goes in it without changing the layout at all.
You can also give me another one — for instance: a conditional decision stays in the record as a decision, and I remind the owner the day before the meeting that is to lift it.
Shall I remember it for the next meetings? Across the 168 meetings I re-read, 27 decisions carried a reservation of this kind, and 6 were never taken up again after the meeting that was to lift them. If you approve, I will file them this way without bringing them to you one by one, and I will give you the count at every committee. conditional-decision_three-ways.pdf1 meeting · 3 ways of doing it · 27 comparable cases
⛓ Sourced · management committee meeting, decision-record template, 168 meetings re-read and 27 decisions subject to a reservation
The third one. But the lifting date must be that of the meeting due to rule, not a date we choose. And yes, keep it.
Written as you have just said it, and it carries your correction.
The rule, in one sentence: a decision taken subject to a reservation is entered in the record as a conditional decision, with its condition in plain words, its owner, and the date of the meeting due to lift it — never a date chosen by the secretariat.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: a date chosen by us becomes a deadline no one answers for. The date of the meeting, on the other hand, is carried by an agenda — it can be checked, and it moves with the meeting.
What it changes today: the waste-consultation timetable is in the record as a conditional decision, lifting expected at the board of 8 October, owned by the deputy director general for waste. The three departments received it at 12:15, and the record went out to the committee members in the same minute.
And the 6 decisions never taken up again: I have listed them for you, each with its originating meeting, the meeting that was to lift it and what it committed. You decide which ones go back on the agenda; I put none back myself.
What lets you go back on it: the rule is entered in your record template under its name, with its date, the executive assistant who approved it and the meeting that gave rise to it. You remove it with one line, and the record goes back to two categories.
✎ Rule approved · decision-record template, entry « conditional decision », approved on 24/09 by the executive assistant
The rule, in one sentence: a decision taken subject to a reservation is entered in the record as a conditional decision, with its condition in plain words, its owner, and the date of the meeting due to lift it — never a date chosen by the secretariat.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: a date chosen by us becomes a deadline no one answers for. The date of the meeting, on the other hand, is carried by an agenda — it can be checked, and it moves with the meeting.
What it changes today: the waste-consultation timetable is in the record as a conditional decision, lifting expected at the board of 8 October, owned by the deputy director general for waste. The three departments received it at 12:15, and the record went out to the committee members in the same minute.
And the 6 decisions never taken up again: I have listed them for you, each with its originating meeting, the meeting that was to lift it and what it committed. You decide which ones go back on the agenda; I put none back myself.
What lets you go back on it: the rule is entered in your record template under its name, with its date, the executive assistant who approved it and the meeting that gave rise to it. You remove it with one line, and the record goes back to two categories.
✎ Rule approved · decision-record template, entry « conditional decision », approved on 24/09 by the executive assistant
Fictional simulation — not a client result
The executive bureau will ask what this has given us after a year. I need a figure the chief executive can defend in front of elected members.
568 hours returned to the executive secretariat over the year — more than sixteen weeks of a full-time officer's work — and the calculation is yours, it fits in three lines.
The calculation, item by item, so that you can redo it:
· Minutes: 168 meetings a year, drafting brought from 3 hours to 45 minutes — 60 % → 15 % of the time the meeting takes from the secretariat — that is 378 hours.
· Letters and memos: 1,240 a year, 11 minutes brought down to 3 — 37 % → 10 % — that is 165 hours.
· Searching for a decision in the files: 620 a year, 12 minutes brought down to 9 minutes 36 — 10 % → 8 % — that is 25 hours.
What those hours are, and it is what defends itself best before elected members: officer time returned to the service, at unchanged headcount — no post cut, no post created. It is the sturdiest argument you can carry into the chamber: it is disputed neither by the staff nor by the opposition, and it can be checked against your own logs.
What those hours became, according to your own records:
· Circulation of minutes: 9 days → the next morning, and the record of decisions the same evening as the meeting.
· Unsettled points settled within four days: 24 out of 27, against subjects that used to resurface three months later.
· Deadlines missed: 14 a quarter → 1.
· Time to first reply to a service user's e-mail: 11 days → 2 days.
· Documentary searches with no result: 71 out of 620 → 0 out of 640, and 7 documents located outside the body.
· Call-backs from service users asking for a letter to be explained: 96 → 29, and 24 files that moved forward instead of stalling for want of a reply. That one is not counted in hours, and it is perhaps the only one your elected members will remember.
What I propose for the session: the calculation page is written and fits on one side — three lines of arithmetic, six waiting times, three framework measures. Hand it to the bureau members as it stands with the notice: a figure read the day before is discussed better than a figure discovered in session. yearly-review_568-hours-returned-to-the-secretariat.pdf60→15, 37→10, 10→8, and the calculation redoable on one side
⛓ Sourced · production log, action tracking table, deadline table, search log
The calculation, item by item, so that you can redo it:
· Minutes: 168 meetings a year, drafting brought from 3 hours to 45 minutes — 60 % → 15 % of the time the meeting takes from the secretariat — that is 378 hours.
· Letters and memos: 1,240 a year, 11 minutes brought down to 3 — 37 % → 10 % — that is 165 hours.
· Searching for a decision in the files: 620 a year, 12 minutes brought down to 9 minutes 36 — 10 % → 8 % — that is 25 hours.
What those hours are, and it is what defends itself best before elected members: officer time returned to the service, at unchanged headcount — no post cut, no post created. It is the sturdiest argument you can carry into the chamber: it is disputed neither by the staff nor by the opposition, and it can be checked against your own logs.
What those hours became, according to your own records:
· Circulation of minutes: 9 days → the next morning, and the record of decisions the same evening as the meeting.
· Unsettled points settled within four days: 24 out of 27, against subjects that used to resurface three months later.
· Deadlines missed: 14 a quarter → 1.
· Time to first reply to a service user's e-mail: 11 days → 2 days.
· Documentary searches with no result: 71 out of 620 → 0 out of 640, and 7 documents located outside the body.
· Call-backs from service users asking for a letter to be explained: 96 → 29, and 24 files that moved forward instead of stalling for want of a reply. That one is not counted in hours, and it is perhaps the only one your elected members will remember.
What I propose for the session: the calculation page is written and fits on one side — three lines of arithmetic, six waiting times, three framework measures. Hand it to the bureau members as it stands with the notice: a figure read the day before is discussed better than a figure discovered in session. yearly-review_568-hours-returned-to-the-secretariat.pdf60→15, 37→10, 10→8, and the calculation redoable on one side
⛓ Sourced · production log, action tracking table, deadline table, search log
And when you get it wrong? An action assigned to the wrong director is a wasted meeting and a director who digs in.
It happened, I counted it, and I publish it to you: out of the 312 actions of the first quarter, 46 were tracked under a lead who was not the right one — 14.7 %. That is the figure I publish about myself, and it is better that you have it from me than from a director in session.
The real cause, measured and not supposed: in 38 of the 46 cases, the meeting had designated nobody — the action was decided, the lead was not, and I inferred it from the subject rather than asking for it. It was not a listening error: it was an inference where a question was needed. The other 8 concerned actions genuinely shared between two directorates.
What I did with it, and it is measured: I no longer assign an action the meeting has not assigned. It is entered as “lead to be designated”, it appears in the list of points to settle read out at the end of the meeting, and the chief executive settles it in seconds, before the room empties.
The following quarter: 9 actions wrongly assigned out of 340 — 2.6 %. And the 9 are actions genuinely shared between two directorates, plus one single inference.
The rule that holds everything else together: what the meeting did not say, I do not write — I flag it and I date it. A decision floated does not become “decided”, an amount discussed does not become “settled”: I record the point to settle, the name of the person who must settle it, and the deadline that makes it useful. Over the quarter, 27 points recorded, 24 settled within four days. That is what makes 2.6 % a figure you can rely on.
And the protection that matters to the executive: across 1,408 outputs over two quarters, 1,408 were approved by a person before going out — and all 55 corrections were made before sending, none after.
What I propose now: that the 8 genuinely shared actions become a heading of the record — “action across two directorates”, with a named lead and a named contributor. Of the 9 gaps of the second quarter, 8 already fell under that heading — it is the same correction, taken one notch further.
And the category you approved on 24/09 is running: 5 conditional decisions since then, each with its condition in plain words and the date of the meeting due to lift it, 4 lifted at the planned meeting, the fifth deferred with its meeting — no conditional decision lost between two committees. The count is given to you at every committee. assigned-actions_46-then-9.pdf14.7 % → 2.6 %, measured cause, 1,408 human approvals
⛓ Sourced · action tracking table over two quarters, meeting recordings, approval log
The real cause, measured and not supposed: in 38 of the 46 cases, the meeting had designated nobody — the action was decided, the lead was not, and I inferred it from the subject rather than asking for it. It was not a listening error: it was an inference where a question was needed. The other 8 concerned actions genuinely shared between two directorates.
What I did with it, and it is measured: I no longer assign an action the meeting has not assigned. It is entered as “lead to be designated”, it appears in the list of points to settle read out at the end of the meeting, and the chief executive settles it in seconds, before the room empties.
The following quarter: 9 actions wrongly assigned out of 340 — 2.6 %. And the 9 are actions genuinely shared between two directorates, plus one single inference.
The rule that holds everything else together: what the meeting did not say, I do not write — I flag it and I date it. A decision floated does not become “decided”, an amount discussed does not become “settled”: I record the point to settle, the name of the person who must settle it, and the deadline that makes it useful. Over the quarter, 27 points recorded, 24 settled within four days. That is what makes 2.6 % a figure you can rely on.
And the protection that matters to the executive: across 1,408 outputs over two quarters, 1,408 were approved by a person before going out — and all 55 corrections were made before sending, none after.
What I propose now: that the 8 genuinely shared actions become a heading of the record — “action across two directorates”, with a named lead and a named contributor. Of the 9 gaps of the second quarter, 8 already fell under that heading — it is the same correction, taken one notch further.
And the category you approved on 24/09 is running: 5 conditional decisions since then, each with its condition in plain words and the date of the meeting due to lift it, 4 lifted at the planned meeting, the fifth deferred with its meeting — no conditional decision lost between two committees. The count is given to you at every committee. assigned-actions_46-then-9.pdf14.7 % → 2.6 %, measured cause, 1,408 human approvals
⛓ Sourced · action tracking table over two quarters, meeting recordings, approval log
Last question, and it is the one that will decide the bureau: what do you do on your own, and if in a year we want to stop, how stuck are we?
Three automatic actions, not one more, each withdrawable with a single word — and a way out that can be checked before deliberating, not after.
The three actions:
· I prepare the record of decisions and the draft minutes after every recorded meeting. And the reverse holds too: if a participant refuses the recording, I produce nothing from that session, and I say so before it starts.
· I bring up the executive's morning page each working day: e-mails to rule on, deadlines within three days, open actions running late, call messages. It goes only to you and the chief executive, and it carries no assessment of anyone.
· I index recent deposits in the document management system. A document removed from a file disappears from the index at the same hour — I keep no copy of what the body has decided to erase.
Everything else waits for a decision, and it is written into the mandate: nothing goes to elected members, member municipalities or a service user without your sending it, no ruling memo is circulated, no appointment is booked outside the ranges you open. Across 1,408 outputs, those rules held 1,408 times.
And if an elected member asks for an activity indicator — that is a legitimate request: I produce it, and I bring you what makes it lawful: prior information of the staff, a written purpose, a retention period. I propose it by directorate rather than by person, and I tell you why: on a secretariat of two people, a “by service” indicator still points at someone — I tell you before, not after, and the choice belongs to the chief executive in full knowledge.
Now the way out, since it is what will decide:
· The index is deleted, and it contained none of your documents — only what is needed to find them where they are. Your nine years of files have not moved by one byte: same folders, same names, same rights.
· The rewritten templates, the 18 plain-language formulas and the easy-read versions you have settled belong to the body — they are made of its own material, they stay in its files, readable without us.
· Minutes, records and notes are already with you, in your usual office formats — there is nothing to export, they have never been anywhere else.
· No migration on the way in, therefore no migration on the way out: your mailbox, your calendars and your document management system are not replaced, and no format belongs to us.
· The subscription is annual, with no tacit renewal — it is renewal that takes a decision, not termination.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we check that the secretariat works exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol is written, it fits on one page, and the date that costs you least is the first Thursday of August — no body sits that week. The bureau will know what the promise is worth before having committed a second year. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-what-is-logged.pdf3 reversible actions, 1,408 human approvals technical-framework_where-the-executive-rulings-live.pdfReversibility: 0 migration in, 0 migration out
✎ Framework · settings of the automatic actions, circulation log, export formats, dry-run exit protocol
The three actions:
· I prepare the record of decisions and the draft minutes after every recorded meeting. And the reverse holds too: if a participant refuses the recording, I produce nothing from that session, and I say so before it starts.
· I bring up the executive's morning page each working day: e-mails to rule on, deadlines within three days, open actions running late, call messages. It goes only to you and the chief executive, and it carries no assessment of anyone.
· I index recent deposits in the document management system. A document removed from a file disappears from the index at the same hour — I keep no copy of what the body has decided to erase.
Everything else waits for a decision, and it is written into the mandate: nothing goes to elected members, member municipalities or a service user without your sending it, no ruling memo is circulated, no appointment is booked outside the ranges you open. Across 1,408 outputs, those rules held 1,408 times.
And if an elected member asks for an activity indicator — that is a legitimate request: I produce it, and I bring you what makes it lawful: prior information of the staff, a written purpose, a retention period. I propose it by directorate rather than by person, and I tell you why: on a secretariat of two people, a “by service” indicator still points at someone — I tell you before, not after, and the choice belongs to the chief executive in full knowledge.
Now the way out, since it is what will decide:
· The index is deleted, and it contained none of your documents — only what is needed to find them where they are. Your nine years of files have not moved by one byte: same folders, same names, same rights.
· The rewritten templates, the 18 plain-language formulas and the easy-read versions you have settled belong to the body — they are made of its own material, they stay in its files, readable without us.
· Minutes, records and notes are already with you, in your usual office formats — there is nothing to export, they have never been anywhere else.
· No migration on the way in, therefore no migration on the way out: your mailbox, your calendars and your document management system are not replaced, and no format belongs to us.
· The subscription is annual, with no tacit renewal — it is renewal that takes a decision, not termination.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we check that the secretariat works exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol is written, it fits on one page, and the date that costs you least is the first Thursday of August — no body sits that week. The bureau will know what the promise is worth before having committed a second year. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-what-is-logged.pdf3 reversible actions, 1,408 human approvals technical-framework_where-the-executive-rulings-live.pdfReversibility: 0 migration in, 0 migration out
✎ Framework · settings of the automatic actions, circulation log, export formats, dry-run exit protocol
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
30 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
The context
Why AI matters to the executive office — and why the public sector hesitates
Management expects quick minutes, carefully written letters and a diary under control. But this work takes up a mechanically growing amount of time — and the exchanges involved are among the most sensitive in the organisation.
! The issue
The executive office is caught between a demand for responsiveness (minutes the same day, letters without delay, a diary with no slips) and a documentary load that keeps growing. Yet most consumer AI tools amount to entrusting deliberations, internal decisions, personal data of staff and of the public to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
For a public service, AI is only of interest if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, decisions reserved to the public officer: the time saved in the office is never paid for in lost confidentiality, nor in a break in continuity or equal treatment. The aim is not to replace the office, but to give it back time to support decisions.
The decisive point
The confidentiality of management exchanges: sovereignty & compliance
The executive office handles the most sensitive information in the organisation. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it, meeting after meeting.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine at the service: no recording and no document leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For management exchanges, the architecture aims to reduce exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702; being located in France or in the European Union does not, on its own, guarantee immunitythe American hyperscalers have no access to them, even when hosted in Europe.
One isolated resource per entity
No pooling of data: an environment strictly dedicated to your authority or your organisation.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no document is circulated automatically; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For the most sensitive data, SecNumCloud and HDS options are available depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
The gain
How much time can an executive office win back?
By automating the transcription of meetings and everyday drafting, an office can aim for a significant reduction in the time spent on minutes and letters — reinvested in supporting decisions and in the quality of the service.
Writing the minutes of a meeting
Preparing a letter or a note
Finding a decision in the files
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to a public service
With 100% Sovereign, management exchanges never leave the serviceData hosted in France on an isolated resource; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, no recording and no document entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawDeployment objective: processing and access within the European Union for management exchanges; architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The public officer keeps the decisionThe agent produces minutes, letters and summaries that can be checked; no circulation is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityTranscription & minutes: monitoring, updates and logging.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Is the transcription of meetings confidential?
Yes. The processing takes place in France, on an isolated resource or on local inference, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The recordings can be deleted once the minutes have been produced, according to your retention policy.
What is the real time saving on minutes?
On transcribing meetings and everyday drafting, a significant share of the time is won back. The exact figure is measured by a pilot on your own meetings; the markers shown are illustrative.
Does the agent integrate with the email and the diary?
Yes, with the organisation's main office tools (email, diary, document management). It complements them with no migration imposed; we adapt the integration to your environment.
Does the agent decide in place of the office?
No. The AI agent assists, the public officer decides. It proposes minutes, letters and slots; nothing is circulated or sent automatically. Human review and approval remain systematic, in line with the AI Act.
How is the personal data of staff and of the public protected?
The data stays in France, under French law, with encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access and logging. The architecture is designed for the GDPR and stays covered by an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
Does the agent state that it is an artificial intelligence?
Yes, from the very first interaction, and this is not a configuration option: since 2 August 2026, Article 50(1) of the European AI Regulation requires that any person interacting with an AI system be informed, unless this is obvious. The announcement is built into the greeting, in the other party’s language, and they can ask for a human at any time.
How long does it take to deploy the agent?
A few weeks as a rule, after a meeting with our sales team that identifies the most useful use, then a phase of design, integration and testing before going live and training the officers.
Which tools can users use to reach the agent?
The ones they already have. The agent answers on WhatsApp Business, the website chat and email: users have no account to create and no application to install. This is a lever for access to the service — WhatsApp and the telephone reach people an online form never does, which reduces the non-take-up of rights and serves equal access. Internally, your public-sector staff talk to the agent from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, without switching tools. Oversight runs from a web dashboard. These connectors rely on open standards, including the MCP protocol; they are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections set out in your agent's quote. Only the fees charged by the platforms themselves — WhatsApp Business bills per conversation — are passed on at actual cost, with no margin, outside the subscription.
Related roles
Other professions in office work and drafting
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your management team
30 minutes to identify the most useful use — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.