Use AI to draft Assembly regs? Two Haines members say despite errors in drafts, they see promise

Assembly member Kevin Forster at Tuesday’s assembly meeting, Oct. 14, 2025. (Will Steinfeld / Chilkat Valley News)

By Will Steinfeld

Chilkat Valley News

Two Haines assembly members say their use of Google’s Gemini artificial intelligence engine could be a model for future local government use; others have raised questions about errors in the document.

Assembly members Kevin Forster and Gabe Thomas last week introduced a package of potential regulations for heavy industry dubbed the “Safety Belt.” It’ll serve, they say, as a wide-ranging “menu” of policy proposals that have been put into place elsewhere in the state. The proposals range from toxic-materials-handling regulations to requirements for specific consultation with local tribal governments.

Forster acknowledged after last week’s assembly meeting that the two used AI to help generate the 35-page package.

In interviews this week, Forster and Thomas described Gemini as a key tool for both research and drafting of the package.

The initial research phase consisted of compiling heavy-industry regulations already on the books elsewhere in the state. Forster and Thomas said they leaned on personal experience, for instance Thomas looking for regulations in Tok after personal trips to the town.

Forster spent time pulling from Juneau’s code — a neighbor and often a model for Haines’ municipal government.

That step, pulling sections of code, involved Gemini. For Juneau, Forster said he prompted the AI engine to “give us some examples that could work (in Haines), and break down in layman’s terms what they did and the strategy behind them.”

That resulted in ideas for regulations like requiring heavy industry to pay all administrative costs associated with their business, which he said could have, for instance, paid for a Haines Economic Development Corporation mine-impact assessment done in 2019.

Forster said they also fed broader prompts into the engine, like asking “what kind of precedent is there in the state for municipalities regulating heavy industry.”

In addition to sourcing and distilling possible regulations, Thomas said Gemini helped write the package that was posted for the public, though he emphasized he and Forster “shifted it, changed it, worded it differently,” after getting the engine’s results. Forster described interactions with Gemini as a “constant back and forth.”

In their eyes, the heavy-lifting Gemini did was what made the package possible, allowing for a home-run swing on big, comprehensive policy options in a borough short on government capacity and resources.

“We’re just two good old boys from Haines,” Thomas said. “We’re just trying to figure out how to protect our home.”

“Is (the draft legislation) at the same place as if you hired an administrative assistant and they spent a month and eight- or ten-thousand taxpayer dollars on it? No, it’s probably not at that same place,” Forster said. “But it’s the most robust thing we’ve gotten so far to start a community discussion.”

Some question the trade-offs made for the sake of efficiency. In a public comment at last week’s assembly meeting, former assembly member Natalie Dawson said she frequently works with AI, and saw errors in the document characteristic of the technology, or at least improper use of the technology.

“AI models do a very poor job of interpreting legal cases, and there were some comments made about specific legal cases in that document that are not correct,” Dawson said.

Another section of the Safety Belt lays out a timeline for the public hearings and votes on the package. Next to each event on the timeline is a “reference” to policies or sections of code requiring or justifying the event.

In one instance, the document cites a section of borough code, 2.04.070, that doesn’t exist. When prompted to summarize the nonexistent section of code, Gemini writes a full summary, but links as its sole source the assembly documents about Safety Belt. If told that the section doesn’t exist, Gemini responds that “upon closer inspection of the actual Haines Borough Code, Section 2.04.070 does not exist.”

In another section, members of the public are instructed to connect input to the “Chilkat Valley Vision.” But there’s no indication of what the Chilkat Valley Vision is, and it doesn’t appear in other borough documents like the Comprehensive Plan.

Forster said they were aware of the possibility of these errors, including when the AI engine gave them a version of a Skagway ore-containerization regulation that hadn’t passed. Forster said he noticed and directed Gemini to re-search for the version that had passed.

But largely, the two sponsors are leaning on the Safety Belt’s status as a “draft” document. When asked about Dawson’s statement that she had found multiple errors characteristic of AI in the document, Thomas responded that “none of (the document) is set legislation.”

“We just wanted something to start the discussion,” he added. “These are all things we’re explaining we can do as a community. We just want the community to have the discussion before something happens.”

There are multiple timelines at play with the Safety Belt. One is the prospect of heavy industry on the horizon. Getting regulations on the books before significant tree cutting or mining arrives — being proactive, rather than reactive, as Thomas puts it — is a major goal.

The other timeline is more definite, and likely happening far sooner. That’s this October’s election: Forster and Thomas have laid out their timeline in such a way that the regulations can make it onto the ballot as a ballot measure for voters to decide on this year.

The rationale, Thomas said, is that Forster’s term is expiring.

“I want to be able to champion it with him,” Thomas said. Thomas described himself and Forster as partners from opposite sides of the aisle — a display to the community that the regulations are a pragmatic middle ground.

“Him and I, we see eye to eye on a lot of things and don’t see eye to eye on other things, but we can work together. After the next election I don’t know if I’ll have someone to help me champion it.”

Aiming for this year’s election introduces a set of tight deadlines for ironing out the rough edges of the draft document.

Borough Code requires the assembly take a final vote approving a ballot initiative at least 40 days before the election, in this case late August. All public hearings and amendments would have to go through before then.

The schedule for the approval process the assembly signed off on last week sets an April 9 deadline for an initial round of public input on the draft.

The Haines Borough Planning Commission is then set to hold a Safety Belt public hearing some time in June. The assembly’s public hearings are planned for July, before a final vote in August.

If public input at hearings does result in substantive changes, assembly practice is to schedule additional public hearings to ensure the public can consider the final form of the bill, borough clerk Mike Denker said. For instance, recent cell-tower regulations went through six public hearings due to repeated amendments. Those additional public hearings, however, are not required by borough code, Denker said.

The package will also go in front of the borough’s lawyers for a legal review.

Beyond the results of the October election, the Safety Belt could serve as a test case for AI use at the borough level.

“This is a different way to go about it and it’ll be a learning process about whether it’s appropriate or not,” Forster said.

• This article originally appeared in the Chilkat Valley News.