From the Local Government edition of October 18, 2026
Collin County, Texas AI Acceptable Use Policy v1.0 (28 Sept 2026) sets Tier-1 public chat tools on acknowledgment, Tier-2 written approval, Heightened Scrutiny controls and DIR annual training
Collin County, Texas (Information Technology) · County IT acceptable use and AI governance · Collin County, Texas, United States
- Publisher
- Collin County eAgenda
- Original publication
- Version 1.0 dated September 28, 2026 (agenda packet for Commissioners Court consideration around 5 October 2026)
- Source retrieved
- 2026-10-19
- Event date
- 2026-10-05
What happened
Collin County IT’s AI Acceptable Use Policy v1.0 (28 September 2026) applies to county users and authorised non-county personnel. It adopts Texas AI Systems Code of Ethics principles (human oversight, fairness, accuracy, redress, transparency, privacy, accountability, evaluation). Tier 1 allows publicly available chat tools (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini examples) after policy acknowledgment; Tier 2 specialised/integrated tools and agents need prior written approval. Users must verify outputs—treat them as from an unskilled intern—fact-check citations and remain responsible for published content. Publicly available tools must not receive confidential, sensitive or PII/CJI; incidents go to security@co.collin.tx.us with CIO/Security Officer copy. Public-facing AI needs elected official/department-head notice and statutory disclosures; significant AI-shaped work needs attribution. Heightened Scrutiny AI systems (autonomous or controlling consequential decisions on government-service access) require CIO/Security Officer approval and written risk assessment under Texas Government Code Ch. 2054 Subchapter S. Annual DIR-certified AI training is mandatory. Prompts/outputs may be public records. Why now: not in the archive; newly opened full text complements Mission/Will County policy coverage from prior editions under the same Texas Heightened Scrutiny wave.
Why it matters
Provides a concrete Texas county control stack—tiered tool approval, Heightened Scrutiny gate, PII ban on public tools, attribution and DIR training—that peer counties can compare when implementing SB/HB AI duties.
Evidence and measured results
County PDF opened via curl and pdftotext. Agenda motion text indicates Commissioners Court action on/around 5 October 2026; vote tally not in the policy PDF itself.
Limitations and uncertainty
Policy text, not an evaluation of compliance or incidents. Exact court vote language is outside this PDF. No measured outcomes.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-10-18; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- Texas counties must operationalise state AI ethics, Heightened Scrutiny and DIR training without blocking routine chat productivity.
- Stakeholders
- County CIO / Security Officer
- Department heads and elected officials
- County attorney
- Records management
- End users
- Discovery questions
- Is the use Tier 1 chat or Tier 2 integrated/agent?
- Does it autonomously make or control a consequential service decision?
- What PII/CJI could enter prompts?
- Is DIR-certified annual AI training already assigned?
- Value hypothesis
- A clear tiered policy can unlock approved chat use while gating higher-risk systems; no outcome data in the PDF.
- Potential engagement
- Heightened Scrutiny risk-assessment and Tier-2 approval package for one candidate workflow.
- Unsupported claims
- Compliance guarantees
- That Tier 1 tools are safe with any data
- Measured productivity gains
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- County-integrated AI for sensitive workflows; Tier 1 public chat only for non-sensitive drafting/research.
- Architecture and integration
- Approved-tool registry; county SSO for integrated AI; logging/monitoring; Heightened Scrutiny assessment workflow.
- Prerequisites
- Policy acknowledgment mechanism
- DIR training assignment
- CIO/Security Officer approval path
- Records schedule for prompts/outputs
- Constraints
- Texas Ch. 2054 Subchapter S Heightened Scrutiny
- No PII/CJI in public AI
- Public Information Act exposure of prompts
- Security
- Ban sensitive inputs to public tools; prefer county-integrated systems; defined incident reporting to security@co.collin.tx.us.
- Proof of value
- Demonstrate PII prompt blocking or DLP
- Complete one Heightened Scrutiny assessment
- Show registry entry for a Tier-2 tool
Delivery
Role takeaway
- Work
- Deploy acknowledgments, annual training, registry process and CIO approval SLAs.
- Dependencies
- Security-awareness platform
- CIO/Security Officer
- Department heads
- County attorney
- Ownership
- Collin County IT, with department heads/elected officials accountable for their users and contractors.
- Skills and adoption
- Annual DIR-certified AI training plus local verification and incident-reporting drills.
- Governance checkpoints
- Acknowledgment completion
- Tier-2 written approval before integrate
- Heightened Scrutiny assessment before consequential use
- Acceptance criteria
- Proposed: 100% in-scope users acknowledged
- Proposed: all Tier-2 tools registered
- Proposed: no approved Heightened Scrutiny use without written assessment
- Risks
- Shadow agents
- Misclassified consequential uses
- Public-records surprises from prompts
- Training completion gaps
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Split between county-integrated AI (county credentials, county infrastructure) and publicly available web tools; registry for approved tools/agents; logging/monitoring of AI interactions authorised.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
CIO/Security Officer gate for Heightened Scrutiny and Tier 2; department heads accountable for contractors; annual acknowledgment via security-awareness platform.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Hard ban on PII/CJI in public AI; prefer county-integrated systems; breach reporting path defined; monitoring consent acknowledged by use.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
Mandatory annual AI training; transparency and attribution duties; prohibited social scoring and unlawful discrimination uses.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Tier 2 written approval before specialised/integrated tools; unsanctioned agents prohibited and may be disabled by County IT.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Human verification of all outputs; AI as assistant not decision-maker for consequential service access without Heightened Scrutiny process.
Publication history
- 2026-10-18Local Government · Issue 436 resources
Stable resource ID: collin-county-tx-ai-acceptable-use-policy-v1-20260928