● Public sector — Minutes & council meetings

The AI agent for council minutes: transcribe, structure, record the decisions

Transcribing a sitting, ordering the exchanges, finding every resolution voted on and drafting a draft record take hours of work after each council meeting — time taken away from serving the public. Your AI agent absorbs that formatting work. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — the recordings and the debates stay under control. The public officer keeps the decision and approves the minutes.

Free audit (15 min) → See the prices

Hosted in France Recordings protected GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment Human oversight

Updated on 07/09/2026

Deployed in a few weeks

Sitting minutes assistant · hosted in France

Here is the recording of the council meeting of 3 June. Transcribe the sitting, identify the speakers and prepare the record of decisions.

Sitting transcribed (2 hr 14, 9 speakers identified).
7 resolutions identified with their voting result: 5 adopted unanimously, 1 by majority (3 abstentions), 1 deferred.
Minutes structured by item on the agenda and record of decisions ready — for review and completion.
⛓ Source · the sitting recording + the agenda

Draft the record from that, with the official wording of the resolutions.

Draft record written: regulatory heading, list of those present and apologies, a summary account of the debates and the wording of the resolutions with voting results.
I have highlighted 2 passages where the audio was inaudible, to check against the recording.
A document for the department to review, complete and approve before adoption.
✎ Action · draft record ready for review — the public officer approves

Local inference · no data outside the EU

Data hosted in France

Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France

GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight

TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you

The public officer decidesThe AI agent assists, never approves alone

✦ In brief

In a local authority, a Blue Lemon Agent agent transcribes sittings and meetings — council meetings, inter-municipal councils, committees, boards — then produces structured minutes, a record of decisions and a draft record for approval. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: the recordings and the debates 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 after each sitting goes into serving the public. The public officer reviews, completes and approves; nothing is published automatically.

100%

hosted in France in the target architecture

transfer outside the EU in the target architecture

uses ready to deploy on this scope

decision taken without human approval

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.

The context

Why AI matters to local authorities — and why they hesitate

Every council, committee or board has to be reported faithfully: minutes, record of decisions, formal record. It is a transparency duty, but long and repetitive work — and the debates contain personal data to protect.

! The issue

The department is caught between a duty to report sittings faithfully and quickly, and a transcription and drafting load that falls on a handful of officers after each council. Yet most consumer transcription tools amount to entrusting recordings of public debates, the names of elected members and residents mentioned, and sensitive information to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.

✓ Our answer

For a local authority, 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, approval reserved to the public officer and the department: the time saved on formatting is never paid for in lost confidentiality. The aim is not to replace the clerk of the sitting, but to give them back time for review and for serving the public.

The decisive point

The confidentiality of debates: sovereignty & compliance

A recorded sitting contains personal data of elected members and residents. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it, sitting by sitting.

Local inference

The agent can run on a machine at the authority: no recording leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.

Hosting in France

Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — your data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.

Reduced extraterritorial exposure

Architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity for the recordings: our architecture depends on a subcontracting chain and remote access documented for the configuration chosen.

One isolated resource per authority

No pooling of recordings or debates: an environment strictly dedicated to your organisation.

Encryption & controlled access

Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access, strong authentication and logging. Recordings can be deleted once the minutes have been produced.

AI Act: governed deployment

The agent is strictly in support; no record is published 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.

Demonstration

See the agent at work

4 real 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.

Sitting minutes assistant · hosted in France

Four flags this morning, with no request from you.
· Two resolutions from 12 May have no record of transmission to the legality review. One concerns a contract, the other a disposal of property.
· The minutes of the 3 June sitting are unpublished, although your standing orders set a one-month deadline.
· One item has been on the agenda for three sittings and has never been taken.
· The recording of the 8 April sitting was not kept. The minutes were approved; the recording has gone from storage. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · sittings concerned
⛓ Source · resolutions register, transmission receipts, agendas, recording storage

The two resolutions with no transmission — is that serious?

It is the only one of the four that touches whether the acts are enforceable.
What I checked: both resolutions are in the register, signed. No acknowledgement from the prefecture is on file, and nothing in your transmission system mentions them. I went back over the acknowledgements received since January and matched each to its act: these two are the only ones without one over the period.
What that changes: legality review applies to acts that have been transmitted — and the prefect has two months from transmission to refer an act to the administrative court (article L2131-6 of the French local government code). Without a transmission, that clock has not started.
What I have prepared: both acts are in the transmission format, documents attached and classification filled in, ready to go in a single send.
What is yours to do: the send. Transmission is an act of the authority, it is dated and it has effects — so it carries the signature of whoever orders it, and that is exactly what makes its date enforceable. One gesture, and the two-month clock starts.
What I do not say for all that: that these two acts are irregular. I record an absence of trace — the transmission may have happened without the receipt being filed, and that is the first thing to check. resolutions_2-without-trace.pdf2 acts · 2-step verification
⛓ Source · resolutions register, transmission system · art. L2131-6 French local government code

How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?

I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: the resolutions register, transmission receipts, agendas from one sitting to the next, publication dates against your standing orders, and recording storage.
Routing follows your organisation: the two resolutions to the chief executive and the mayor, because an untransmitted act is not a secretariat matter; the unpublished minutes to the committee services team; the item never taken to the chief executive, who prepares the agenda; the missing recording to the storage administrator.
With a chase: 24 h on the resolutions, 7 days on the rest. Then a monthly summary to the chief executive: by sitting, never by councillor.

And I do not stop at the flag: whatever could be prepared already is. Both resolutions are in the transmission format; the draft minutes are written, with their four blanks each named; the item never taken comes back with the sitting that deferred it and the date of that deferral; the missing recording is located to the minute in the storage log. On a single sitting, that is three hours of searching handed back to the secretariat.
What is left to sign is short, and it is what counts: transmitting, publishing, settling the text of a resolution. Those three gestures commit the authority and carry a date — that is what makes them enforceable, and that is why they carry a signature. You approve, they go within the minute.
And I read what you have opened to me, service by service, every access logged and withdrawable on a word: nothing leaves the authority.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds

The sitting has just ended. What can you produce right now?

The decisions list, in twenty minutes — and it is checkable line by line.
What it contains: the 9 resolutions taken, their subject, the outcome of each vote and its composition — for, against, abstentions — and the timestamp of each vote in the recording.
What is flagged rather than resolved:
· One resolution was voted after an oral amendment. The amended text exists nowhere in writing; I set it down as spoken, marked "to be confirmed".
· One vote records 23 votes cast for 27 present, and the recording does not establish whether the other 4 were absent at the moment of the vote or did not take part.
What I did about those 4 votes: I isolated the roll call in the recording — it stops at 23 names, at 1 h 47 min 12 s — and matched it against the attendance sheet and the departures noted during the sitting. Two of the four councillors had left the room before the item was taken; the other two were present. Only two situations remain to be established, not four.
What the clerk closes in two lines: the difference between "did not take part" and "absent" has consequences, and it is established rather than inferred — two boxes, and the count is settled.
The list goes to the clerk of the sitting, with those two points at the top. decisions-list_9-resolutions.pdf9 resolutions · 2 points to confirm
⛓ Source · sitting recording, attendance sheet, agenda

Do oral amendments happen often?

Eleven times across the last twelve sittings — which is what makes the same-evening list useful.
What usually happens: the amendment is spoken, voted, and the final text is reconstructed several days later, from memory or from notes. Across those eleven cases, three final texts differ from what the recording contains.
What those gaps are not: falsifications. They are good-faith rewordings made days later by someone who understood the intention — and the intention is not the text that was voted.
What I hand over the same evening: the spoken text, word for word, timestamped, set beside the original wording with the differences highlighted, and marked "to be confirmed". On the three divergent cases the difference came down each time to a single sentence — and that sentence changed the scope of the measure.
What makes the text is the clerk's confirmation, while they still remember: a voted amendment is what the council adopted, not what a tool transcribed. Twenty minutes the same evening, instead of a reconstruction from memory five days later. oral-amendments_12-sittings.pdf11 amendments · 3 diverging texts
✎ Support · 11 oral amendments, 3 gaps found — confirmation stays with the clerk

Prepare the minutes of the June sitting.

Draft written, and it carries four blanks — handed back to you ready to settle.
What is established: heading, those present and apologising from the attendance sheet, proxies, a summary of the debates with timestamps, and the wording of the nine resolutions with their votes.
The four blanks, and what I did on each:
· The text of the amended resolution — set down word for word, timestamped, beside the original wording, marked to be confirmed.
· The count on vote 4 — 23 cast for 27 present; the roll call is isolated and the departures from the sitting matched, leaving only two situations to establish.
· An inaudible contribution of forty seconds — bounded to the second, replayed through three levels of filtering, and flagged with its timestamp rather than guessed.
· The name of a speaker the recording does not identify with certainty: I give you the two possible names and what argues for each.
What remains is to settle them — a minute per blank, and the minutes are complete. Minutes are evidence of what was said: a flagged blank is corrected in a minute; a plausible error is never seen. draft-minutes_june_4-blanks.pdf9 resolutions · 4 blanks flagged
⛓ Source · timestamped recording, attendance sheet, proxies register

The unidentified name — can you really not guess?

I can, and that is exactly why I do not.
What I could do: match the voice against other contributions in the sitting, look at who was present, and offer the most likely name. I would be right most of the time.
What it would cost the time I was wrong: minutes attribute a public position to an elected member. A wrong attribution in a document that stands as evidence is not a typo — it is corrected by a rectifying resolution, and it has already circulated.
What I do instead: I give the timestamp — 1 h 42 min 18 s — and the three seconds before it, where another member addresses the speaker. Anyone who was in the chamber will identify them in ten seconds.

And an observation: across the last twelve sittings, 29 contributions have no identified author in the published minutes. They are not flagged as such: they are simply attributed to "the council" or written without a subject. That is not unlawful, and it removes half the information from the public.
✎ Support · timestamp supplied — identification belongs to whoever was in the chamber

Have we ever resolved anything on leisure centre charges?

Four times since 2019, and the last one partly contradicts the one before.
· Resolution 2019-047 — income-banded charging introduced, five bands.
· Resolution 2021-118 — annual indexed uprating.
· Resolution 2023-032 — moved to six bands.
· Resolution 2025-091 — exceptional uprating, and suspension of automatic indexation for 2026.
The point that matters: the 2021 resolution provides for automatic indexation; the 2025 one suspends it for 2026 only. It therefore resumes in 2027, absent a further resolution — and nothing on file suggests anybody has noted that.
What I have computed so the question is put on figures: indexation applied on 1 January 2027 under the formula in the 2021 resolution, set out band by band across the six bands in force, and beside it the case of a continued freeze. Both columns are ready; one figure is missing, the reference index, which is not published until November — I recompute on the day it appears.
What the text says and what the authority decides are two things: absent a further resolution, indexation applies of itself. The item is ready to be proposed for an autumn sitting, with both cases costed. charging_4-resolutions.pdf4 resolutions · 1 date falling in 2027
⛓ Source · 4 resolutions, 2019 to 2025

Are there other resolutions with a forgotten date?

Seven, and two fall this year.
What I looked for: resolutions containing a duration, a review clause, a temporary suspension or a pilot. Across 340 resolutions since 2019, 23 contain one; 7 reach their date with no further resolution addressing them.
· Two dates in 2026 — a three-year agreement and an eighteen-month pilot.
· Three in 2027, two in 2028.
What that avoids: an agreement reaching its term with nobody having seen it coming, or a pilot continuing with no basis.
What I have prepared for each of the seven: the briefing note, the reference to the original resolution with its number and date, the exact expiry, and the two possible courses — renew or let lapse — each with what it entails. For the two 2026 dates, the draft resolution is written.
What is yours to do: the tabling. The agenda is set by the mayor — I hand the note to the chief executive who prepares it, and the item goes on in one line.
And a chase at three months, then at one month, while nothing is tabled. resolutions_7-dates.pdf340 resolutions · 23 with a date · 7 unaddressed
✎ Proposal · 7 dates tracked — the agenda stays set by the mayor

Local inference · no data outside the EU

Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →

Use cases

The facets of the minutes agent in a local authority

Each facet corresponds to a task the agent takes on, in support and subject to your approval. The department reviews, completes and adopts.

Included in your agent The 5 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.

From 595 € incl. VAT / month

Transcribing a sitting

Transcription of the council or the meeting, in the room or by video, with speakers identified — from the recording or the audio feed.

Structured minutes

An account organised by item on the agenda, with a summary of the debates ready for review.

Record of decisions

Extraction of the resolutions voted on with their voting result (adopted, by majority, abstentions, deferred).

Draft formal record

A draft record generated from your templates and the official wording of the resolutions — reviewed and approved by the department before adoption.

Memory of the resolutions

Instantly find a past decision, the wording of a resolution or a point already debated in the history of sittings.

Controls and safeguards These 3 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 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 where the matching agent stands: available, on quote, or still being architected.

Letters & notifications

To draft the letters, summonses and notifications of decisions sent out after the sitting, a dedicated agent takes it on.

On quote 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.

Meeting summary + action tracking agent

Transcription, CRM/tasks.

Meeting summary + action tracking agent from 437 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

Meeting note-taking agent

Transcription, summary, actions.

Meeting note-taking agent from 392 € 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 652 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

Does your need fall outside this?

In 15 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.

Book the free audit → Build your agent

The gain

How much time can a local authority win back?

By automating transcription and the formatting of the minutes, a department can aim to halve its drafting time after each sitting — time reinvested in review, in the quality of the record and in serving the public.

Drafting the minutes of a sitting

Today · done by hand

Prepared by the agent, to approve

Record of decisions of a council

Today · done by hand

Near-instant

Finding a past resolution

Today · done by hand

Automatic

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.

How it works

The stages of your AI agent project

Audit & scoping

15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.

Quote or direct sign-up

A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.

Design

We design the agent and its guardrails.

Integration & testing

We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.

Rollout

Going live and training your team.

Operation

Continuous supervision and improvement.

Pricing

Three options, one agent

A minutes agent (transcription, decisions, draft record), 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

5,895 € ^{incl. VAT} setup

then 595 € ^{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
Sovereign hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource

Order →

The simplest Serenity

All inclusive, no setup fee

925 € ^{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
Sovereign hosting in France, managed end to end

Order →

100% Sovereign

On site, you own it

9,971 € ^{incl. VAT} setup

then 835 € ^{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. 36-month commitment.

Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
French / European AI models run locally
Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)

Order →

Not included in the packages: AI consumption (model tokens), re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, and tracked in real time in your client area. 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 in France for the package chosen, 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.

See the full price list →

Estimate my gains in 1 minute →

Our commitment

Four guarantees that matter to a local authority

The recordings never leave the departmentLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no audio entrusted to a foreign third party. It can be deleted once the minutes have been produced.

Data in France, under French lawThe recordings: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.

The public officer keeps the decisionThe agent produces a transcription, minutes and a draft record that can be checked; no publication and no adoption is automated.

Human oversight & traceabilityMonitoring and logging frame the transcription of sittings; compliant with the requirements of the AI Act.

Going further

Related resources

AI agents for the public sector →Our full offer Sovereign AI hosted in France →Our confidentiality commitment

Frequently asked questions

Your questions, our answers

Is the transcription confidential?

Yes. The processing takes place in France, on local inference within the authority or on an isolated resource hosted under French law, 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.

Is the record produced official?

No, it is a draft. The agent generates a draft record from the sitting; it is reviewed, completed and approved by the department, then put to adoption in the usual way. The AI agent assists, the public officer decides.

Does the agent work in the room and by video?

Yes, in both cases, from the recording of the sitting or the audio feed. It identifies the speakers and structures the minutes by item on the agenda.

Which kinds of meeting are covered?

Council meetings, inter-municipal councils, committees, boards and departmental meetings: any recorded exchange can give rise to a transcription, structured minutes and a record of decisions.

Do we have to change tools or software?

No. The agent connects to your existing tools and complements them — it delivers the minutes in your own document and record templates, with no migration imposed. We adapt the integration to your environment.

How long does it take to deploy the agent?

A few weeks as a rule, after a free audit that identifies the most useful use case, then a phase of design, integration and testing on your sittings before going live and training your officers.

Let us estimate the potential in your authority

15 minutes to identify the most useful use case — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.

Free audit (15 min) → Write to us

The AI agent for council minutes: transcribe, structure, record the decisions

Why AI matters to local authorities — and why they hesitate

! The issue

✓ Our answer

The confidentiality of debates: sovereignty & compliance

Local inference

Hosting in France

Reduced extraterritorial exposure

One isolated resource per authority

Encryption & controlled access

AI Act: governed deployment

See the agent at work

The facets of the minutes agent in a local authority

Transcribing a sitting

Structured minutes

Record of decisions

Draft formal record

Memory of the resolutions

Letters & notifications

Need to go further?

Meeting summary + action tracking agent

Meeting note-taking agent

Executive assistant agent

How much time can a local authority win back?

The stages of your AI agent project

Audit & scoping

Quote or direct sign-up

Design

Integration & testing

Rollout

Operation

Three options, one agent

Setup + controlled subscription

All inclusive, no setup fee

On site, you own it

Four guarantees that matter to a local authority

Related resources

Your questions, our answers

Other professions and solutions for your authority

Let us estimate the potential in your authority