Dan Calamuci
Commissioner, Seat 2, San Francisco Building Inspection CommissionWe identified Calamuci’s voice at eight meetings.
One clip, newest first
“I would concur with my colleagues here. I think there’s a lot of things that were brought up that were outside the jurisdiction of this body, but in terms of what falls within the jurisdiction of the Abatement Appeals Board, I see no reason not to uphold the order of abatement for these notices of violation.”
Talk time, and Calamuci’s other bodies
- Building Inspection Commission: talk time not compared. On a random sample of meeting time, between 22% and 39% of members' speech here carries a name; we rank when the low end reaches 60%.
Every meeting where we identified Calamuci’s voice
- Aug 19, 2026Building Inspection Commission2.5 min4:37
- Jul 15, 2026Building Inspection CommissionDevelopment and land use3.0 min32:29
- Jun 17, 2026Building Inspection CommissionHousing and tenants1.1 min1:14:13
- May 20, 2026Building Inspection CommissionDevelopment and land use1.3 min33:11
- Feb 18, 2026Building Inspection Commission0.5 min50:06
- Jan 21, 2026Building Inspection CommissionBudget and spending4.8 min1:01:47
- Dec 17, 2025Building Inspection CommissionDevelopment and land use0.5 min1:07:39
- Nov 14, 2025Building Inspection Commission1.5 min1:08:13
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 Calamuci was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Dan Calamuci’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 Calamuci 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 Calamuci or of San Francisco alone.