Capital Improvements Committee: Strips “Eliminated” From AI Policy Job Language

Will County Capital Improvements & IT Committee | October 6, 2026

Article Summary: The Will County Board’s Capital Improvements and IT Committee on Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2026, voted to recommend that the full County Board adopt a countywide artificial intelligence usage policy, but only after rewriting the sentence that said county positions “may be eliminated” to read “may be restructured.” The recommendation now goes to the full County Board, and the policy takes effect only if that body adopts it.

AI Usage Policy Key Points:

The committee amended the draft’s “Human Factor” section to strike the word “However” and to replace “in some cases, positions may be eliminated” with “in some cases, positions may be restructured.” The amendment passed 5-0.

An attorney from the state’s attorney’s office warned members that an employment-security guarantee could hand “a labor lawyer a gift” in future contract disputes.

The draft policy requires that every AI tool be approved by the county’s Information Communications Technology (ICT) Department, that all AI tools be FedRAMP certified, and that AI involvement be disclosed on final work products.

The policy expressly bars AI from making hiring decisions, collecting biometric identifiers, or generating minutes from closed sessions.

WILL COUNTY — The Will County Board’s Capital Improvements and IT Committee on Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2026, voted to recommend adoption of a countywide artificial intelligence usage policy after a roughly 35-minute debate over a single sentence that several members said read as advance permission to replace county workers with software.

The measure, carried on the agenda as item 26-5602, is a recommendation only. The accompanying resolution adopting the Artificial Intelligence Usage Policy must be approved by the full County Board before the policy applies to any county department, and no provision of it binds any employee or office until that happens.

As drafted in the version dated 10.6.2026 and distributed in the agenda packet, the policy’s “Human Factor” principle read: “In general, AI tools should not be used for the express purpose of eliminating county employees or reducing the workforce. The goal is for AI to support, rather than supplant, county employees in their official duties. However, it must be acknowledged that AI may increase efficiency, reduce repetitive tasks, improve services, and enhance productivity in the workforce. As a result, job descriptions and duties may change, and in some cases, positions may be eliminated.”

The committee’s amendment deletes “However” from the third sentence and replaces “eliminated” with “restructured” in the fourth.

Debate Centers on Four Words

Board member Mark Revis opened the objection. “I do not like that last sentence,” Revis said. “From the very start of this, I’ve tried to make it extremely clear that my position was that I don’t think we can have AI replacing the jobs of human beings.”

Revis said he spoke with county employees in his district regularly. “I think it’s our job as a board to protect the workers of Will County,” he said. “I know this is unique because I’m a Republican and usually Republicans are all anti-government workers, whatever. Well, that’s not me. I think the best social program that we could ever create is a job.” He called the prospect of AI displacing county staff “anti-human,” “anti-worker” and “anti-common sense.”

The county board’s chief of staff told the committee the disputed language was written as a compromise. He said the March directives had placed a strong emphasis on protecting county jobs, while the August committee discussion had raised the point that AI could bring change, and that staff had tried “to marry the two positions.” He suggested the word “altered” as an alternative.

Board member Dawn Bullock then moved to strike “However” and to end the final sentence after “may change.” “That word just — it puts you on alert, and there’s no reason for us to have that word there to put people on alert,” Bullock said of “however.” On the eliminations clause, she said: “I want people to think that we are helping them, protecting them from AI, and the last thing I want to see in there is that positions may be eliminated, because then that gives me every reason to not want to do AI.”

Board member Herbert Brooks Jr. pushed back, arguing the draft already drew the distinction members wanted. “I do believe that the key word here is some positions eliminated and not some people,” Brooks said. “If you heard all the conversation around the room, we’re talking about position, not people.”

Democratic Leader Sherry Williams, who is not a member of the committee, told members that collective bargaining agreements already constrain the question. “If we’re going to be altering positions, you can’t just alter the positions without going through the union,” she said.

Board member Steve Balich said he had personally been moved between county jobs decades ago, from the highway department to a cook’s position at the jail, because of allergies. “There’s a lot of ways that the employees will not lose their jobs,” he said, citing retirements and internal transfers.

Legal Warning Reshapes the Amendment

Bullock briefly amended her own motion to add the phrase “while maintaining employment security,” seconded by board member Elnalyn Costa. An attorney from the state’s attorney’s office advising the committee cautioned against it.

“I do want you to think through the consequences if you had a position where an employee could then use that in a labor negotiation fight,” the attorney said. “There could be reasons that you have a good reason to be letting somebody go or to eliminating positions, and you’re really handing a labor lawyer a gift with that language.”

Board member Julie Berkowicz, also not a committee member, offered the wording that ultimately carried. “AI, with its skills, makes certain job tasks, certain responsibilities obsolete,” Berkowicz said, describing her father’s career as a newspaper pressman adapting to each new printing technology. She proposed that the sentence end with positions that “may be restructured.”

Board member Judy Ogalla supported it, saying restructuring “happens all the time in every union job and non-union job as things change, new software is purchased.”

Board member Jacqueline Traynere argued the original language was fine and questioned the premise of the debate. “AI is not free, folks. It is very expensive,” she said, adding that more than 70% of the county’s corporate budget is personnel and that she had not seen money budgeted for AI. “If it’s not in the budget, we’re not spending it, which means we aren’t even going to get to use it.”

Bullock then revised her amendment a final time to strike “However” and substitute “restructured” for “eliminated.” Costa seconded. The amendment passed 5-0, with Revis out of the room.

Committee Chair Mica Freeman said the broader safeguard remains elsewhere in the document. “Everything that we do with the county board says we have human oversight and accountability,” Freeman said. “All things that are done with AI have to be checked by a human. We can’t just let that go through.”

What the Policy Would Require

The draft runs 13 pages, including an acknowledgment form and an addendum of policy directives the committee approved at its March 3, 2026, meeting.

It would apply to all county employees in every department, agency or elected office using county equipment or technology resources under ICT supervision, and to all final county work products. Every AI tool would require ICT review and approval before use, with ICT maintaining a public list of approved tools on the county intranet. All AI tools must be FedRAMP certified.

Permitted uses listed include drafting non-sensitive communications, data analysis on datasets that exclude personally identifiable information, non-sensitive data visualizations and process automation in non-sensitive workflows. Employees remain responsible for verifying facts, citations, calculations, quotations, names and dates, and for checking whether output is biased, incomplete, misleading or fabricated.

Prohibited uses include handling sensitive or protected information; discriminatory use; presenting AI-generated images, audio or video as authentic; making consequential or final hiring decisions; making final administrative decisions; entering information from a meeting closed under the Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/2) into generative AI tools to develop minutes; collecting or analyzing biometric identifiers; and using personal devices to circumvent the policy.

The policy would require mandatory annual ICT training for all county employees, periodic countywide scans by ICT to detect unauthorized AI tools, and an annual review of the policy by this committee, which would forward any recommended changes to the County Board.

After the amendment vote, Balich moved approval of the item as amended, seconded by Brooks. Freeman declared the measure passed. The committee took no other action on the policy.