Tim McOsker
Councilmember, District 15, Los Angeles City CouncilWe identified McOsker’s voice at 45 meetings across five bodies. Named San Pedro 17 times, more than any other official.
Four clips, newest first
Officials only. Public speakers are counted, never named.
Issues McOsker raised, by number of meetings
- 2028 Olympics2 meetings
- Fire recovery and rebuilding1 meeting
- ICE and immigration enforcement1 meeting
District 15 on the current City Council map
Every roll call, and McOsker’s other bodies
Present at 60 of 72 opening roll calls at the City Council
- Budget and Finance Committee: 4.9 min of speech a meeting, range 2.7–7.8. In the same range as two other members.
- City Council: talk time not compared. On a random sample of meeting time, between 31% and 78% of members' speech here carries a name; we rank when the low end reaches 60%.
6 places McOsker named in meetings
- San Pedro 17 times, the most of any official
- Watts 10 times, the most of any official
- Wilmington 10 times, the most of any official
- Harbor City 4 times, the most of any official
- Harbor Gateway 4 times, the most of any official
- Downtown Los Angeles 2 times
Every meeting where we identified McOsker’s voice
- Sep 4, 2026City Council2.5 min24:29
- Aug 28, 2026City Council1.7 min20:40
- Aug 21, 2026City Council5.4 min28:36
- Aug 4, 2026City Council9.6 min2:25:55
- Jun 26, 2026City Council6.7 min1:57:18
- Jun 16, 2026Budget and Finance Committee6.4 min38:59
- Jun 5, 2026City Council5.8 min2:29:09
- Jun 4, 2026Budget and Finance Committee2.3 min57:40
- May 15, 2026City Council1.3 min43:23
- May 8, 2026City Council8.8 min2:01:54
Show all 45Show fewer
- Apr 29, 2026City Council5.2 min3:10:10
- Apr 15, 2026City Council3.6 min1:57:27
- Apr 8, 2026Ad Hoc Committee for LA Recovery2.2 min1:30:14
- Mar 13, 2026City Council9.8 min52:39
- Mar 11, 2026City Council5.9 min1:43:34
- Mar 6, 2026City Council4.4 min1:45:16
- Mar 6, 2026Personnel and Hiring Committee14.1 min0:06
- Mar 3, 2026Budget and Finance Committee11.5 min57:34
- Feb 27, 2026Personnel and Hiring Committee16.2 minVideo
- Feb 24, 2026City Council0.1 min2:21:27
- Feb 24, 2026Trade, Travel, and Tourism Committee5.6 min13:46
- Feb 11, 2026City Council9.2 min1:34:31
- Feb 10, 2026City Council6.0 min2:15:58
- Feb 10, 2026Trade, Travel, and Tourism Committee11.9 min6:38
- Feb 4, 2026City Council1.0 min17:13
- Jan 27, 2026City Council6.4 min1:04:08
- Jan 23, 2026Personnel and Hiring Committee14.3 min0:16
- Jan 20, 2026Budget and Finance Committee10.2 min1:08:06
- Jan 14, 2026City Council4.1 min1:29:41
- Dec 12, 2025City Council0.1 min1:14:46
- Dec 12, 2025Personnel and Hiring Committee16.8 min0:05
- Dec 9, 2025City Council0.9 min2:00:40
- Dec 9, 2025Budget and Finance Committee11.9 min25:53
- Dec 9, 2025Trade, Travel, and Tourism Committee10.6 min39:33
- Dec 5, 2025City Council0.5 min3:26:07
- Dec 3, 2025Personnel and Hiring Committee10.2 min0:12
- Dec 2, 2025City Council12.9 min46:32
- Dec 2, 2025Budget and Finance Committee5.1 min16:37
- Nov 12, 2025City Council9.2 min6:18
- Nov 5, 2025Personnel and Hiring Committee15.9 min0:16
- Nov 4, 2025Budget and Finance Committee6.7 min1:29:56
- Oct 29, 2025City Council1.0 min41:04
- Oct 28, 2025City Council0.1 min45:20
- Oct 24, 2025City Council5.8 min1:57:57
- Oct 24, 2025Personnel and Hiring Committee10.3 min14:08
How we identify who is speaking · blind check, pooled across five cities: of 410 council lines drawn, 352 right, 0 wrong, 1 unclear, 57 couldn’t be judged
A meeting missing here means we couldn’t attribute the voice, not that McOsker was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Tim McOsker’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 McOsker said. For councils and their committees, of 410 lines drawn, 352 were right, 0 wrong and 1 unclear, and the checkers couldn’t judge 57. We have since removed the voices behind 110 of those lines (0 wrong, 1 unclear, the rest we had already held for other reasons). Of the 300 lines we still publish, the checkers could judge 268: all 268 right (90% lower bound 0.99). They couldn’t judge the other 32. The check is one sample pooled across the five cities, not of McOsker or of Los Angeles alone.
