About MeetingWatch

Every meeting goes through the same fixed set of questions — the same ones, for every board and town. Without giving away the recipe, that set asks the analysis to:

• Summarize what the board discussed and decided.
• Capture what the public said during comment, and the positions they took.
• Record votes, and flag where members disagreed or a vote was split.
• Note topics that came up but weren’t on the agenda.
• Compare the discussion against the official minutes.
• Where members are known, track each one’s votes and stances — marking what was explicitly recorded versus inferred from context.

Because that question set is identical everywhere, no meeting gets a softer or a harder reading than another. A few rules keep reports grounded in the record, not opinion:

• Nothing is cherry-picked. We don’t choose which meetings to cover, or which moments to amplify, based on the topic or the people involved. Every public meeting with a recording gets a report, read start to finish.
• Recorded vs. inferred is labeled. A clearly recorded vote or direct quote is marked differently from something inferred from context — so you always know how solid a claim is.
• We don’t take sides. Reports describe what happened; they don’t endorse positions, candidates, or outcomes. When a topic is called contentious, that reflects what was actually said — not a view on who was right.
• Our posts follow the same rule. Short social summaries may flag ⁠process problems — overdue minutes, a decision made with little public discussion — but every claim stays grounded in the record. Our accountability is about open government, not which side is right.

We’re upfront about the edges:

• It doesn’t change the words. Transcription can mishear names; we fix those against a fixed list of real local names, and nothing more. It can’t rewrite meaning or invent anything — the substance stays exactly as spoken.
• It reads the words, not the room. Working from the transcript means no vocal tone, no body language, no off-camera history. That’s deliberate — guessing at mood or motive is where bias starts — so the interpretation is left to you.
• It’s AI, and imperfect. Analysis can contain errors, and speaker labels can be wrong when people don’t identify themselves. Which is the whole reason every report links back to the source.

This is the part that matters most. Every report links straight to its sources — the original video, agenda, and minutes. If something looks off, go watch that moment yourself: the source records are always the authority, and our report is a guide to them, not a replacement. When the two disagree, the record wins. Spotted an error? Tell us — we read every note.

Running this site costs money, and we may someday support it with advertising, sponsorships, or paid features. None of that can change what a report says — because there’s no editorial function to influence. No person decides what goes into a report or which meetings get covered, so an advertiser or sponsor has no lever to pull. And the underlying records are public: you can always get them from the town directly, so our reporting stays checkable no matter how the site is funded.

All source content — meeting videos, agendas, and minutes — originates from public government meetings and records made available under state open-meetings and public-records laws. MeetingWatch provides transformative analysis of these records for civic accountability purposes, and is not affiliated with any municipality or government body. Original materials remain the property of their respective authors. If you believe any content has been published in error, contact us and we’ll address it promptly.