Skip to main content
Praxikon
Agent check

Executive AI Policy Proposal

Ready-made board proposal

This model proposal helps you submit an AI policy framework for adoption to the executive board, management, or other authorized body. Adapt the text to your specific situation.

EXECUTIVE PROPOSAL
Public after decision
[Fill in date]
[Case number/registration number]
Portfolio: [Name portfolio holder]
Department: [Name department]
Author: [Name author]

Subject: Adoption of AI Policy Framework [Organization name]

1. Decision Points

The executive board is requested to decide to:

  1. Adopt the AI Policy Framework [Organisation name] [year]-[year] (appendix 1);
  2. Establish an AI governance structure consisting of an AI coordinator, an AI ethics committee, and an operational AI team;
  3. Mandate alderman [name] as portfolio holder for AI and digitalization;
  4. Make €[amount] available for implementation in [year], charged to [budget item];
  5. Inform the council through the attached council information letter (appendix 2).

2. Background

The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) entered into force on 1 August 2024 and was amended with effect from 27 July 2026 by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. The prohibited practices (Article 5) and the duty to take AI literacy measures for staff (Article 4) have applied since 2 February 2025, and the transparency obligations of Article 50 since 2 August 2026. For Annex III high-risk systems, the deployer obligations (Article 26), registration in the EU database (Article 49) and the fundamental rights impact assessment (Article 27) apply from 2 December 2027, except for critical infrastructure (Annex III, point 2): those systems are registered at national level (Article 49(5)) and need no fundamental rights impact assessment. For systems already in use before that date, Article 111(2) applies: they are covered only after a significant change in design, and systems intended for use by public authorities must comply by 2 August 2030.

An inventory shows that [Organization name] currently uses [number] AI systems and algorithms. [Number] of these potentially fall under the "high-risk" category according to the AI Act. Without adequate policy we risk:

• Enforcement: the AI Act sets maximum fines that member states must lay down, up to EUR 35 million or 7% of worldwide annual turnover for prohibited practices (Article 99(3)). Whether and to what extent fines can be imposed on public authorities is for each member state to decide (Article 99(8)); the Netherlands had not yet done so on 6 October 2026; • Reputational damage from incidents with algorithmic decision-making; • Infringement of residents' fundamental rights; • Missed opportunities for responsible innovation.

3. Summary

This proposal introduces an integrated AI policy framework that sets the boundaries for responsible use of AI within [Organization name]. The framework includes:

• Principles for responsible AI (transparency, non-discrimination, human control); • Governance structure with clear roles and responsibilities; • Process agreements for procurement, development and deployment of AI; • Registration obligations (Algorithm Register); • Monitoring and evaluation cycle.

With this policy we position ourselves as a responsible government that embraces innovation without compromising public values and civil rights.

4. Considerations

4.1 Legal

A public body that uses an AI system under its own authority is a deployer within the meaning of the AI Act. For Annex III high-risk systems this means, from 2 December 2027, use in line with the instructions for use, human oversight, keeping logs and informing the people affected (Article 26), registration in the EU database (Article 49(3)) and a fundamental rights impact assessment before first use (Article 27), neither for Annex III, point 2. Transparency for chatbots and generated content (Article 50) and AI literacy measures (Article 4) already apply. On 6 October 2026 the Netherlands had not yet designated a market surveillance authority for the AI Act; for the processing of personal data, the Dutch Data Protection Authority remains the supervisor under the GDPR. This policy framework helps to organise these obligations and to demonstrate them.

4.2 Financial

Implementation requires €[amount], consisting of: • Appointment AI coordinator (0.5 FTE): €[amount] • External support (IAMAs, fundamental rights impact assessments, audits): €[amount] • Staff training: €[amount] • Technical adjustments: €[amount] This investment puts the obligations in place on time, rather than only when a supervisor asks questions or an incident occurs.

4.3 Societal

Residents have the right to understandable and fair decision-making. Recent societal debate shows the risks of careless algorithm use. This policy anchors civil rights in our digitalization.

4.4 Organizational

The policy requires departmental capacity for inventory, risk assessment and registration. The AI coordinator provides support. In the first year the focus is on the inventory and on systems that may fall under Annex III, so that the obligations applying from 2 December 2027 are in place on time.

5. Implementation

Quarter 1Appoint an AI coordinator, set up the governance structure, AI literacy measures per role
Quarter 2Full inventory of AI systems, role per system, check against prohibited practices and Article 50
Quarter 3IAMAs and, for high-risk systems, preparation of the fundamental rights impact assessment
Quarter 4Registration in the Algorithm Register, first evaluation
By 2 December 2027Obligations for Annex III high-risk systems in place: Article 26, registration in the EU database and the fundamental rights impact assessment (not for Annex III, point 2)

6. Communication

After decision-making, the council will be informed via council information letter. The policy framework will be published on the website. Active communication to residents during Algorithm Register implementation.

Media attention is possible. Spokesperson via portfolio holder in coordination with communications advisor.

7. Appendices

  1. Appendix 1: AI Policy Framework [Organisation name] [year]-[year]
  2. Appendix 2: Draft council information letter
  3. Appendix 3: Inventory current AI systems
  4. Appendix 4: Risk analysis per system
  5. Appendix 5: Cost estimate implementation

[City], [Date]

Mayor and aldermen of [Municipality name],

The secretary, [Name]
The mayor, [Name]

Tips for adaptation

  • •Fill in all [placeholders] with your specific data
  • •Adjust the number of AI systems based on your own inventory
  • •Coordinate the financial paragraph with your financial advisor
  • •Have the proposal legally reviewed before sending
  • •Add relevant local context (previous incidents, council motions)

Editable in Word and Excel

The public sector pack contains the AI procurement checklist for public bodies, the FRIA template, the DPIA template for AI and the AI register with classification, with the law as of 6 October 2026. The pack is sent to your business email address.

FRIA template (Article 27) · AI procurement checklist for public bodies · Annex III classification check

Disclaimer: This model proposal is a starting point and should be adapted to your specific situation. Consult your legal and administrative advisors.

Based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, and common municipal decision-making practice.

Law as of 6 October 2026