San Francisco
Menu

Hope Williams

Vice chair, Seat 6, San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission

We identified Williams’ voice at six meetings.

Every roll call, and Williams’ other bodies

Present at 6 of 6 roll calls at the Local Agency Formation Commission

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

PresentExcusedAbsentOldest first, 1 square per roll call

Absent 0. Nov 21, 2025 to Sep 18, 2026.

Official roll call, from the clerk →
Neighborhoods Williams named

One place Williams named in meetings

Lines where Williams named the place, read by two AI readers that both agree it means that place. Each dot plays the newest one; brighter means named more often.

San Francisco
  • Marina 1 time

Places are drawn at the centre of their own boundary in the city’s Analysis Neighborhoods file (DataSF (City and County of San Francisco)). A dot says the place was named, not where Williams was or what was said about it.

Meetings

Every meeting where we identified Williams’ voice

Six, newest first. The date opens the meeting; the time plays the video at Williams’ first remark.

  1. Sep 18, 2026Local Agency Formation CommissionHousing and tenants7.2 minVideo
  2. Jul 17, 2026Local Agency Formation CommissionAppointments to boards and commissions2.0 min3:53
  3. May 15, 2026Local Agency Formation CommissionBudget and spending8.2 minVideo
  4. Apr 29, 2026Local Agency Formation Commission1.2 minVideo
  5. Jan 16, 2026Local Agency Formation Commission2.5 min13:34
  6. Nov 21, 2025Local Agency Formation Commission1.7 min21:07
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 Williams was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Hope 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 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 Williams or of San Francisco alone.