Julie Stromberg
Commissioner, Los Angeles Central Area Planning CommissionWe identified Stromberg’s voice at 11 meetings. Named Hollywood five times, more than any other official.
Talk time, and Stromberg’s other bodies
- Central Area Planning Commission: talk time not compared. Fewer than four members can be compared fairly.
Development and land use took the largest share of Stromberg’s speech with a checked topic: 100%
One place Stromberg named in meetings
- Hollywood 5 times, the most of any official
Every meeting where we identified Stromberg’s voice
- Sep 8, 2026Central Area Planning Commission1.2 min53:09
- Aug 25, 2026Central Area Planning Commission53.9 min2:53:51
- Aug 11, 2026Central Area Planning Commission7.0 min41:19
- Jun 9, 2026Central Area Planning Commission4.8 min11:47
- May 12, 2026Central Area Planning Commission5.1 min1:38:32
- Apr 28, 2026Central Area Planning Commission24.9 minVideo
- Apr 14, 2026Central Area Planning Commission41.6 minVideo
- Mar 24, 2026Central Area Planning Commission2.0 min1:14:29
- Feb 24, 2026Central Area Planning Commission18.5 min1:27:45
- Jan 27, 2026Central Area Planning Commission40.1 minVideo
Show all 11Show fewer
- Oct 28, 2025Central Area Planning Commission20.0 minVideo
How we identify who is speaking · blind check, pooled across five cities: of 340 commission lines drawn, 260 right, 4 wrong, 1 unclear, 75 couldn’t be judged
A meeting missing here means we couldn’t attribute the voice, not that Stromberg was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Julie Stromberg’s name only when both agree and a code check finds the name said on, or just before, their turn. Voices our transcripts merge with someone else’s are never attributed, so every count here undercounts what Stromberg said. For commissions, of 340 lines drawn, 260 were right, 4 wrong and 1 unclear, and the checkers couldn’t judge 75. We have since removed the voices behind 64 of those lines (3 wrong, 0 unclear, the rest we had already held for other reasons). Of the 276 lines we still publish, the checkers could judge 228: 226 right, 1 wrong and 1 unclear (90% lower bound 0.97). They couldn’t judge the other 48. The check is one sample pooled across the five cities, not of Stromberg or of Los Angeles alone.