Each week on The Newsfeed, host Paris Jackson and a team of veteran journalists dive deep into one topic and provide impactful reporting, interviews and community insights from sources you can trust. Each day this week, this post will be updated with a new story from the team.
Cascade PBS reporting prompts “Civic Assembly” in Snohomish County
By Nate Sanford, story published 06/22/2026
Artificial Intelligence is rapidly evolving, and many local governments are still struggling to catch up and figure out how — or if — they should be using it. In Snohomish County, local leaders decided to try an experiment.
They convened what’s known as a “civic assembly” of 29 randomly selected county residents to deliberate on AI and come up with policy recommendations.
The idea was prompted in part by a series of articles published by Cascade PBS and KNKX last summer. Using thousands of pages of chatlogs obtained through public records requests, we reported on how city officials in Everett had experimented with AI tools like ChatGPT for a variety of tasks.
That reporting raised questions about transparency. It also caught the eye of local leaders in Snohomish County.
“That reporting actually was the thing that kicked off this civic assembly on this particular issue.” said Jillian Youngblood, the director of Civic Genius, the group facilitating the civic assembly.
Civic Genuis is a national nonprofit that’s worked on civic assemblies before in other areas. But this is the first one Youngblood is aware of about AI. The Snohomish County Council says they’ll take the recommendations produced by the group seriously and try to adopt them into law.
Over three weekends in May and June, the group of 29 citizens heard from experts, did research and debated the thorny ethical issues at the heart of AI.
“Humanity needs to be put before technology, and that’s just not happening,” said participant Jessica Rhodes.
“It’s these three weekends that are intense, but my hope was to give something great to the county council government,” said participant Theo Moriarty.
“To be part of something that is so new to Snohomish County, and be part of something kind of historic,” said participant Hillary Moralez.
All this week we’ll hear more from those participants and others about the process, and tell you about the AI questions it surfaced.
Process “reminds people who aren’t politicians that their opinions matter”
Story published 06/23/2026
A civic assembly is a bit like jury duty, but for public policy. They’re more common in Canada and parts of Europe, but still rare in the United States. The goal is to create policies that more directly represent what the community wants.
“I was really excited by the idea of a process that reminds people who aren't politicians that their opinions matter,” said Mackey Guenther, one of eight facilitators who helped guide conversations at the Snohomish County AI civic assembly.
Guenther used to work for city of Edmonds collecting public feedback on housing policy. He says that type of traditional political participation tends to self-select for people who are already engaged with local government, and that some voices get left out.
“My understanding is that some of the people in this room had never really been involved in a public process before,” Guenther said.
The participants were selected to be demographically representative and were paid $500 each.
“Over the course of three weekends, people struggle through difficult conversations and run into disagreements, but also see a little bit of themselves in other people,” Guenther said.
Participants have their preconceived notions challenged
Story published 06/24/2026
The group had people with all kinds of backgrounds, including a retired engineer, a police officer in training, a middle school teacher, a social worker and a tech worker.
AI is a polarizing topic. Some participants said they didn’t want the county to use it at all.
“I always joke that I’m a luddite, I have strong thoughts on how technology should be helping people and not taking away from labor or rights of people and their dignity,” said participant Hillary Moralez.
Some participants had a more optimistic view coming into the sessions.
“I come from a software engineering background, and I assumed my reason to be here was to help shape how to help make the county make the most out of AI,” said participant Dhruv Raithatha.
Over the course of the three weekends, the participants heard presentations from experts in law, technology and government. They worked together in small groups to draft a list of shared values and recommendations. The processes shifted some participants’ perspectives.
“I initially went in hoping I could basically just stop everything, which I understand is completely not an option. But what it really did was, it helped me to better understand other people’s thoughts and uses and processes,” Moralez said.
“I think my thought process has grown, and to incorporate all the other social and equitable aspects that I didn’t come in originally thinking about,” Raithatha said.
Conversation focuses in on some of the most controversial questions
Story published 06/25/2026
The participants looked at many angles of AI – from bias and accuracy to environmental impact of data centers.
Snohomish County already uses some AI tools. As the technology becomes more common and the county enters into more contracts, the participants agreed that more transparency and regular audits are needed.
They also decided that people should have a right to know if they’re talking to AI when they contact their county government.
“Nobody wants to sit there and try to explain what their problem is only to be told that they’re talking with AI,” said participant Jessica Rhodes.
One big question was whether the county should be allowed to replace existing employees with AI.
“There is some disagreement on that, there is a really big discussion. The reality is, we can’t feasibly justify making employers train every single employee that they have while also paying for this new artificial intelligence system,” Rhodes said.
AI is evolving quickly. So the participants said the county should create an AI advisory board to weigh in on future issues.
“To be comprised of a mix of technical experts, county members and also the citizens, so we want to have that kind of democratic way of doing things,” said participant Mhindra Lukka.
The assembly’s recommendations, and what happens next
Story published 06/26/2026
In the last of six meetings, participants voted on recommendations they’d came up with together. Each needed a 80% majority to be passed on to the county council for consideration.
Of more than 50 recommendations, the group approved 35 with strong support.
Some examples: The group agreed the county should ensure humans are always the final decision makers, should disclose when AI is used to respond to emails and publicize an AI data safety plan.
They also recommended the county make it clear to residents any time they’re interacting with an AI communication system and give residents legal recourse if their data is leaked.
One of the biggest recommendations is the creation of a new AI “human oversight board” composed of technical experts, community members and county employees.
County Council member Jared Mead says he and his colleagues probably won’t be able to adopt all the recommendations, but he hopes to pass as many as possible.
“You put a policy out there, it’s bound to get churned and amended and moved and whatever, so I don’t know exactly what it’s going to look like at the end of this. But I would consider it a disappointment if we just look at these policy recommendations and file them away and say we’ll get to that eventually,” Mead said.
Mead says he knows some county staff have experimented with AI, but there’s a lot of information he still lacks.
“I don’t think most elected officials, including myself, have even close to an idea of the concept of how it’s being used in government. Which is why I think something like this is so important,” Mead said.
Most participants say they think the final set of recommendations represents a good middle ground between caution and optimism.
“I think what we’ve come to consensus on encompasses a lot of people’s worries and fears and pushes things more towards, honestly, a cutting edge policy that’s really going to help the government,” said participant Theo Moriarity.
Some participants voiced concerns that the county council may not take their recommendations seriously.
Some also wished they could have done more during the process. Jessica Rhodes says she felt like the structure of the civic assembly was too narrow. She wishes the group had been allowed to spend more time on issues like the environmental impact of AI.
“They have been very dismissive about our environmental concerns, and every time someone brings up a concern they’re like, ‘Well we’re talking about this subject so lets get back on point,’” Rhodes said.
The civic assembly organizers say they have to balance keeping conversations on track while also allowing participants to express themselves freely.
“We have what we call the remit, which is the specific question that we’re trying to answer. That is what we’re trying to give the county council guidance on, so we want to make sure we’re focused on that,” said Jillian Youngblood.
Youngblood says the final recommendations are a good representative look at how people are feeling about AI.
“I really think that what came out of the Snohomish County Civic Assembly can be a blueprint for other communities. And I heard from the very beginning and throughout the process that the conversations we were having at this assembly really reflected the national conversation on this issue,” Youngblood said.
“I think this is a model that we can hopefully be implementing on our county through the future,” Mead told the assembly participants during the last meeting.
The county council plans to consider the recommendations in the coming weeks.
