About the Ledger

In one paragraph

We collect publicly recorded meetings of Vigo County, Terre Haute, and nearby town and township governing bodies, transcribe them, and write up consequential decisions and exchanges. Highlights link to the relevant moment in a recording or source document. This archive uses AI-assisted drafting and editorial review under the owner’s direction.

Where the material comes from

Public bodies and their meeting-video channels provide the recordings; city, county, town, and township sources provide available agendas and other records. Each meeting note identifies the sources used and any known limitations. The archive works from public records and does not attend meetings or rely on private sources inside government.

What is automated

• Finding new meetings, and fetching the video and agenda.
• Transcribing the audio, and separating who is speaking from whom.
• Drafting the meeting record, the highlights, and the entity timelines.
• Checking highlight citation coverage, timestamp structure, and consistency with the available source.

How review and publication work

Drafts stay outside the published archive until an editorial review checks their claims, source anchors, vote wording, and attribution. Entity records receive a separate review for identity, duplicate records, and timeline accuracy. Unresolved source problems can keep a draft on hold; published uncertainty is marked.

The September 12, 2026 catch-up run used Terra agents for drafting and Sol agents for editorial gates. The owner authorized that automated run and its vault updates. Individual source checks in that run were performed by the agents.

The owner directs the archive and can review the records, request changes, and issue corrections. Machine transcripts are generated directly from cached transcription results and carry their own unreviewed-transcription disclosure.

What we deliberately do not do

• We do not endorse candidates, score officials, or make recommendations.
• We do not host comments — it changes the moderation burden and the trust

profile entirely.

• We are not a local news site. We cover meetings, not the town.
• We do not use engagement mechanics: no infinite scroll, no streaks, no

notification pressure.

Where it is weakest

Being straight about the limits:

• Names. Automatic transcription mangles surnames. When available, we check them against

official rosters and in-meeting naming evidence, but an unusual name can still slip through. Anything attributed to a named person at lower confidence is marked.

• Speakers. We can usually tell voices apart, and often work out who is who

from the roll call and from the chair addressing people by name. When we cannot, we say "a resident" or "a councillor" rather than guess.

• Coverage. See coverage for which bodies we cover and how far back.

If something here is wrong, tell us — corrections are published, not quietly patched.

If something here is wrong, we want to know, and we will say so publicly.

How to reportLedger/Entities/Ordinances/appropriation-11-2026.md

Send the page and what is wrong with it. If you can point at the moment in the video or the passage in the document, that helps, but it is not required — "the vote count is wrong" is a perfectly good report.

What happens

1. We check the claim against the source recording or document. 2. If it is wrong, we fix the page and publish a correction note recording what was wrong and when it was fixed. 3. The corrected page links to the correction. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Target turnaround is under 24 hours from report to visible fix.

Corrections are a published record

Every correction is its own note in Corrections/, with the original error stated plainly. That is deliberate: an archive that silently rewrites itself is not an archive. The count of corrections we issue is a number we track and do not hide.

Claims about people

We hold anything said about a named individual to a higher bar than anything else. A vote, an accusation, or a characterization of someone is only attributed to a named person when we are confident it was them; otherwise it is attributed by role. If we get a person's name wrong, that is the correction we treat as most urgent.

As of September 12, 2026, the published archive contains 61 meeting notes, 200 highlights, and 61 machine transcripts, spanning 2025-12-15 through 2026-09-10.

These are counts of published records. A date range does not mean every meeting within that range has been indexed. Each highlight links to its source; transcripts are unreviewed machine transcription, not official minutes.

Published coverage by body

| Body | Meeting notes | Highlights | Earliest meeting | Latest meeting | | --- | ---: | ---: | --- | --- | | Area Plan Commission | 2 | 11 | 2026-08-05 | 2026-09-02 | | Capital Improvement Board | 1 | 3 | 2026-08-26 | 2026-08-26 | | Lost Creek Township Board | 1 | 1 | 2026-08-31 | 2026-08-31 | | Seelyville Town Council | 2 | 7 | 2026-08-11 | 2026-09-08 | | Sugar Creek Township Board | 3 | 3 | 2026-08-19 | 2026-09-08 | | Terre Haute Board of Public Works | 2 | 3 | 2026-08-10 | 2026-08-24 | | Terre Haute Board of Zoning Appeals | 1 | 2 | 2026-09-02 | 2026-09-02 | | Terre Haute City Council | 12 | 52 | 2026-03-05 | 2026-09-10 | | Terre Haute Human Relations Commission | 1 | 4 | 2026-08-19 | 2026-08-19 | | Terre Haute Parks and Recreation Board | 1 | 1 | 2026-08-20 | 2026-08-20 | | Vigo County Board of Zoning Appeals | 2 | 3 | 2026-08-05 | 2026-08-12 | | Vigo County Budget Committee | 3 | 25 | 2026-08-12 | 2026-08-24 | | Vigo County Commissioners | 6 | 22 | 2026-08-04 | 2026-09-08 | | Vigo County Council | 2 | 11 | 2026-08-11 | 2026-09-08 | | Vigo County Council (Sunshine) | 2 | 21 | 2026-08-04 | 2026-09-01 | | Vigo County Drainage Board | 1 | 1 | 2026-08-03 | 2026-08-03 | | Vigo County Election Board | 1 | 1 | 2026-09-10 | 2026-09-10 | | Vigo County Oversight Board | 17 | 24 | 2025-12-15 | 2026-08-12 | | West Terre Haute Town Council | 1 | 5 | 2026-08-10 | 2026-08-10 |

Known limits

• Some source-backed drafts remain outside the published archive while meeting identity, source wording, or speaker attribution is unresolved. Held drafts are not counted above.
• A published meeting may have no approved highlights yet. Its item roll is separate from the highlight feed.
• Video-only meetings may lack an official agenda or a reliable item-count denominator. The meeting note records the available source rather than inventing missing paperwork.
• Names and numbers in machine transcripts can be wrong. Check the linked recording and official minutes for consequential details.
• Scanned agendas and meetings without usable recordings may remain incomplete.

The current edition covers the 14 days ending at the newest published meeting. Every older published highlight remains available as an earlier headline in the feed.

This page previously described several county bodies as queued. Those descriptions were out of date; the table now reflects actual published meeting notes.