San Francisco
Menu

LaShonti Woods

Vice chair, Seat 4, San Francisco Our City Our Home Oversight Committee

We identified Woods’ voice at three meetings.

One clip, newest first

  • LaShonti Woods · Member · Our City Our Home Oversight Committee · Mar 26, 2026 · 1:45:43

    “I did want to— a little bit more clarification on the behavioral health and the back rent stipulated agreement. How would that work? And when would that roll out?”

Talk time, and Woods’ other bodies
Questions

Woods asked two questions at the three Our City Our Home Oversight Committee meetings where we identified them

At least this many: direct questions only.

Woods’ one question to a city department at the Our City Our Home Oversight Committee went to homelessness services.

Who they question: 1 question to a department, 1 body · Oct 24, 2025 – Oct 8, 2026.

Our City Our Home Oversight Committee1 question to a city department
Our City Our Home Oversight Committee: questions by department
DepartmentShareQuestions
Homelessness services1
Meetings

Every meeting where we identified Woods’ voice

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

  1. Jun 5, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight CommitteeBudget and spending8.5 min46:40
  2. Mar 26, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight Committee4.7 min23:29
  3. Feb 26, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight Committee4.0 min2:15
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 Woods was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets LaShonti Woods’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 Woods 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 Woods or of San Francisco alone.