As public servants, we ask the community and the organization to trust our use of artifical intelligence (AI). AI is no longer an “emerging” issue or technology—it’s here and we’re expected to apply it ethically and responsibly. This means local governments will continue to balance AI’s potential benefits against public concerns about privacy, bias, discrimination, and transparency.

In this month’s column, we share a case study that demonstrates how a local government responded to an AI-related incident in a way that enhanced confidence in how the organization handled this situation and others that will inevitably follow. It demonstrates why a primary indicator of organizational trustworthiness and transparency is communication.

Enhancing External Public Trust

An AI model used a public form to submit false information about an unsolved homicide. The media release from the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) shows issues of public trust about AI in action. The city issued this statement the next day after an AI company disclosed the matter to them:

“According to [the AI company], its model was conducting a test involving interactions with randomly selected websites when it accessed PhillyUnsolvedMurders.com and submitted false information concerning an unsolved homicide…

The submission was flagged as spam and was never forwarded to the Real-Time Crime Center for investigative vetting or dissemination… The department’s regular investigative process for crime tips requires human review and vetting before any tips are disseminated for investigative follow-up.

Regardless of who submits information or how it reaches the department, a tip is a lead to assess—not an established fact. Investigators evaluate its credibility and seek corroborating evidence. An automated submission does not bypass that process. 

Those [PPD] safeguards limited the impact of this incident. They do not diminish the seriousness of an AI system presenting fabricated information as though it came from a person with knowledge of a homicide.”

We can take from this case study how the organization’s communication can inspire public confidence, as Tenet 9 of the ICMA Code of Ethics intends: 

Tenet 9. Keep the community informed on local government affairs. Encourage and facilitate active engagement and constructive communication between community members and all local government officials.

PPD acted quickly to explain what occurred and how the department responded, then explained the homicide tips process and reassured the public of how its safeguards limited the AI model’s impact.

Evolving Internal AI Ethical Dilemmas

Political philosopher Michael J. Sandel is a professor of Government at Harvard University who cautions about the promise of AI: “Algorithmic decision-making…seems to offer an objective way of overcoming human subjectivity, bias, and prejudice. But we are discovering that many of the algorithms that decide who should get parole, for example, or who should be presented with employment opportunities or housing … replicate and embed the biases that already exist in our society.”

We hoped AI would be a tool that facilitates our work without being subjective, biased, or prejudiced. But it is not. Those negatives exist in society and AI unfortunately replicates it. Consider the principle in Tenet 4 of the Code of Ethics and its guidelines and always balance this ethical commitment with the organization’s AI implementation:

Tenet 4. Serve the best interests of all community members.
Effects of Decisions. Members should inform the appropriate elected or appointed official(s) of a decision’s anticipated effects on community members.
Promote Equity. Members should ensure fairness and impartiality in accessing programs and services and in the enforcement of laws and regulations. Members should assess and propose solutions to strive to eliminate disparities.

One of the foremost resources for local government in the AI space is the GovAI Coalition. It was established to give local government a voice in shaping the future of AI and ensure AI development is geared toward the benefit of society with one of its goals being to ensure “ethical, non-discriminatory, and responsible AI governance.” As a starting point, the GovAI Coalition provides a comprehensive list of templates, use cases, policies, and resources.

In practice, three PM articles are resources on the AI and public trust journey:

• “Algorithm as Public Servant: How AI is reshaping local government and raising ethical dilemmas” by Renee Cummings.
• “Six Key Local Government AI Insights Leaders Need Now: Public-sector practitioners share what local leaders should know about AI in 2026.”
• “AI in Your Municipality: Implementation and Governance” by Marc Pfeiffer (assisted by Claude.ai) demonstrates how local governments use AI to include strategies that enhance public trust:
  “Residents may worry about government AI use if there is no proper communication. Given the sensitivity of different use cases, consider involving the community early through public meetings, website updates, and council presentations. When AI is being trained or used to make recommendations, clearly explain what data you’re using, how decisions are made, and what human oversight exists. For significant applications, especially those involving facial recognition or surveillance, consider creating a resident advisory panel. Transparency prevents misinformation and builds confidence.”

Additionally, I offer these tips on AI and the public trust:

• Disclose when AI provides an assist, as Marc Pfeiffer did in the above excerpt.
• Use AI to improve efficiency, not to replace human review and judgement. No one wants to hear, “It sounds like AI wrote the staff report on these proposed zoning changes.”
• Ensure that any AI use does not unintentionally share data beyond those who have a right to know it.
• Recognize that AI is constantly changing, be honest in what you know and what you don’t know, and provide realistic time frames.
• As with any evolving technology, you may not get it right the first time; be honest about successes and challenges.

AI is not just the future—it’s a challenge and an opportunity for today. The example in Philadelphia demonstrates how the city both successfully handled the matter and used it as an opportunity to enhance public trust.

Share the Philadelphia case study with your team and assess how your organization would respond to such an AI-generated situation. Consider whether the use of AI aligns with the ethical obligation to “serve the best interests of all community members.”

JESSICA COWLES is ethics director at ICMA (jcowles@icma.org).