Julia D'Antonio
Member, Seat 6, San Francisco Our City Our Home Oversight CommitteeWe identified D'Antonio’s voice at three meetings.
Two clips, newest first
“Why is PSH money management not in the prevention category? As well as why— what is the justification for using prevention dollars for the RV program if folks are already experiencing homelessness?”
“I know that there’s a lot going on with the EHV vouchers, and we definitely would love an update if folks are going to be reentering the system into homelessness.”
Issues D'Antonio raised, by number of meetings
- Homelessness2 meetings
Every roll call, and D'Antonio’s other bodies
Present at 1 of 2 roll calls at the Our City Our Home Oversight Committee, roll call through Jun 5, 2026
- Our City Our Home Oversight Committee: talk time not compared. We could name only 17% of the speech they may have given; we compare members at 30%.
One place D'Antonio named in meetings
- Treasure Island 2 times
Every meeting where we identified D'Antonio’s voice
- Sep 24, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight Committee0.7 min14:36
- Mar 26, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight Committee8.6 min17:59
- Jan 22, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight Committee6.2 min16:59
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 D'Antonio was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Julia D'Antonio’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 D'Antonio 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 D'Antonio or of San Francisco alone.
