Nantasha M. Williams

Present at 22 of 23 roll calls at the New York City Council

From the clerk’s own record. We don’t compare members on it.

Absent 1. Oct 29, 2025 to Oct 22, 2026.

• Committee on Finance: 1.8 min of speech a meeting, range 0.5–5.1. In the same range as 12 other members.
• Committee on Rules, Privileges, Elections, Standards and Ethics: 2.1 min of speech a meeting, range 0.1–6.9. In the same range as six other members.
• Committee on Cultural Affairs, Libraries and International Relations: talk time not compared. Presides over its meetings, so isn’t compared with the members.
• Committee on Civil and Human Rights: talk time not compared. Listed on the roster as Chair, so isn’t compared with the members.
• Committee on Children and Youth: talk time not compared. Seated for only 5 meetings in 12 months.
• Committee on Cultural Affairs, Libraries and International Relations: present at 15 of 15 roll calls. Official roll call, from the clerk
• Committee on Finance: present at 24 of 27 roll calls. Official roll call, from the clerk
• Committee on Rules, Privileges, Elections, Standards and Ethics: present at 16 of 16 roll calls. Official roll call, from the clerk
• Committee on Civil and Human Rights: present at 1 of 2 roll calls. Official roll call, from the clerk
• Committee on Cultural Affairs, Libraries and International Intergroup Organizations: present at 3 of 5 roll calls. Official roll call, from the clerk
• Committee on Housing and Buildings: present at 6 of 11 roll calls. Official roll call, from the clerk
• Committee on Oversight and Investigations: present at 1 of 6 roll calls. Official roll call, from the clerk

A meeting missing here means we couldn’t attribute the voice, not that Williams was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Nantasha M. Williams’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 Williams 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 Williams or of New York alone.