We build Agents. You build the Future.
● Public sector — Minutes & council meetingsThe 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.
Updated on
Fictional simulation — not a client result
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
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
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 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. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, 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.
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).
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.
Setup + controlled subscription
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
All inclusive, no setup fee
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
On site, you own it
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
What does the municipal council minutes agent actually do?
The capabilities of the municipal council minutes agent, and the neighbouring agents we deploy for the rest. 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 you. The department reviews, completes and adopts the minutes.
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.
Letters & notifications
To draft the letters, summonses and notifications of decisions sent out after the sitting, a dedicated agent takes it on.
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.
Meeting summary + action tracking agent
Transcription, CRM/tasks.
Meeting summary + action tracking agent from 227 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Meeting note-taking agent
Transcription, summary, actions.
Meeting note-taking agent from 207 € 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 →In 30 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.
See the agent at work
4 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 bodyCommune de Vaubrécourt — fictional French local authority, 14,200 inhabitants, municipal council of 33 elected members
- Sector
- A town of 14,200 inhabitants — civil registry, schools and after-school services, planning, technical services; the general secretariat prepares council meetings and an assemblies office keeps the register of resolutions
- Headcount
- 185 staff, 3 of them in the assemblies office, who keep the register, the transmission to the legality review and the publication; the general secretary prepares the agenda, and a meeting secretary is appointed for every council sitting
- Who it serves
- 14,200 residents who read the published minutes, 33 elected members of the council — 27 present at the June sitting — and the prefecture's legality review, which receives every transmitted act
- Order of magnitude
- Eight council sittings a year, 9 resolutions examined at the June one; 340 resolutions since 2019, 23 of which carry a term, a review clause or a pilot; the standing orders set publication of the minutes at one month
- Tools already in place
- The register of resolutions, the transmission tool and its acknowledgements of receipt, successive agendas, the attendance sheet and the register of proxies, the time-stamped store of meeting recordings — the agent reads what the town opens to it, nothing is replaced
- Who decides
- The mayor settles the agenda and orders the transmission of acts to the legality review; the meeting secretary confirms the wording of an orally amended resolution and settles the vote count; the general secretary receives the monthly summary, by sitting and never by elected member; the assemblies office publishes the minutes
- The improvement points
- The minutes of 3 June are still to be published, against a one-month deadline in the standing orders; 2 resolutions of 12 May are in the register with no acknowledgement of transmission on file; over the last 12 sittings, 11 amendments were carried orally and 3 final texts differ from the recording, and 29 contributions are published without an identified speaker; 7 of the 23 resolutions carrying a term reach it with no new resolution, 2 of them in 2026
In Vaubrécourt, eight sittings a year produce the minutes that stand as the record of what the council decided, and the assemblies office builds them from the time-stamped recording, the attendance sheet and the register of proxies. The agent reads the register of resolutions, the acknowledgements of transmission, successive agendas and the store of recordings: it returns the decision list the same evening, a draft set of minutes in which every open point is named and time-stamped, and the answer to “have we already resolved on this” across seven years of register. Minutes of a sitting remain an act of the town: the agent proposes a frame and a reviewed text, the meeting secretary confirms, the mayor transmits, the assemblies office publishes. The exchanges that follow cover one sitting, from the morning watch to a search through past resolutions.
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.
Fictional simulation — not a client result
· Two resolutions from 12 May have no record of transmission to the legality review. One concerns a contract, the other a disposal of property. Both acts are in transmission format, ready to go in a single send.
· The minutes of the 3 June sitting are unpublished, although your standing orders set a one-month deadline. The draft is written; it awaits four one-minute decisions.
· One item has been on the agenda for three sittings and has not yet been taken. It comes back with the sitting that deferred it and the date of that deferral.
· The recording of the 8 April sitting was not kept. The minutes were approved; the recording has gone from storage — and the moment it left is pinpointed to the minute in the log. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · sittings concerned
⛓ Source · resolutions register, transmission receipts, agendas, recording storage
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.
And one point that matters for your two acts: nothing here says they 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
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
Fictional simulation — not a client result
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.
The two points I hand you ready to close, with what I have already established on each:
· 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
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.
And one improvement those eleven amendments bring to light: reconstructing the amended text five days after the sitting took 40 minutes on average per amendment across the last twelve sittings — 11 amendments, 7 hours 20 minutes of work for the assemblies office, and it is on three of them that the text ended up diverging. The arithmetic: the same text, transcribed and displayed in the chamber before the vote, is read over in two minutes; eleven amendments handled that way come to 22 minutes in the chamber against 7 hours 20 minutes afterwards, and the council votes on the text in front of it. What I propose: I transcribe the amendment as soon as it is spoken, it is displayed, and the clerk confirms it before the call to vote. What remains to be settled is yours, and it is no small thing: keeping it as a practice of the chamber, or writing it into the standing orders — writing it in takes a resolution amending those orders, and I have drafted it. oral-amendments_12-sittings.pdf11 amendments · 3 diverging texts
✎ Support · 11 oral amendments, 3 gaps found — confirmation stays with the clerk
Fictional simulation — not a client result
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 cause, measured rather than assumed: your recording device changed its export format at its update of 14 April. A sitting no longer arrives as one file: it arrives in segments, cut at every restart of the recording, and each segment starts again from zero. I was reading the segment's timestamp as though it were the sitting's — the 6 references concerned all bore on an item taken after the first interruption, and the gap was exactly the length of the preceding segment.
Where the gap stopped, and that is what matters for a formal act: the 6 references were caught at the clerk's reading, before publication — the minutes of 12 May are in the register with their timestamps restored, and no published minutes have carried an inaccurate reference.
What I did with it: the segments are read for what they are — length and restart time — and every reference is expressed in sitting time, segment realigned. A check compares the sum of the segment lengths against the sitting length recorded in the register before I write a single reference, and any new version of your recording device makes it run again on the next sitting. Your assemblies service receives the record of that check with the draft, in two lines.
The draft in front of you: 96 references, every one through that check, the four blanks included.
⛓ Source · timestamped recording, export log of the sitting software, resolutions register
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 worth an immediate gain: across the last twelve sittings, 29 contributions are published with no identified author — attributed to "the council" or written without a subject, with no sign to the reader that anything is missing. Nothing there is irregular; it is simply information the public does not have. All 29 are timestamped and waiting for you: anyone who was in the chamber closes them in about ten minutes, and the twelve sittings read in full again.
✎ Support · timestamp supplied — identification belongs to whoever was in the chamber
Fictional simulation — not a client result
· 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 — the due date was recorded nowhere on file; it is now tracked, and both scenarios are costed.
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
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
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
The stages of your AI agent project
Audit & scoping
30 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.
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 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
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine at the authority: no recording 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
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 carries out what you have authorised; 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.
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.
Four guarantees that matter to a local authority
Related resources
Your questions, our answers
Is the transcription confidential?
Is the record produced official?
Does the agent work in the room and by video?
Which kinds of meeting are covered?
Do we have to change tools or software?
How long does it take to deploy the agent?
Other professions and solutions for your authority
Let us estimate the potential in your authority
30 minutes to identify the most useful use case — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.