San Francisco
Menu

Mikaila Garfinkel

Commissioner, Seat 3, San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission

We identified Garfinkel’s voice at five meetings.

5 of 8transcribed meetings with their voice identified

One clip, newest first

  • Mikaila Garfinkel · Commissioner · Animal Control and Welfare Commission · May 14, 2026 · 38:32

    “I was curious how the retail bans apply to feeder animals. I hate that term, but Um, can we like make it not like, can feeder animals also be included in that, or is that a separate issue?”

Talk time, and Garfinkel’s other bodies
Neighborhoods Garfinkel named

One place Garfinkel named in meetings

Lines where Garfinkel 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
  • Golden Gate Park 2 times

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 Garfinkel was or what was said about it.

Meetings

Every meeting where we identified Garfinkel’s voice

Five, newest first. The date opens the meeting; the time plays the video at Garfinkel’s first remark.

  1. May 14, 2026Animal Control and Welfare Commission3.0 min39:35
  2. Apr 9, 2026Animal Control and Welfare Commission3.2 min0:46
  3. Feb 12, 2026Animal Control and Welfare Commission0.3 min0:44
  4. Jan 8, 2026Animal Control and Welfare Commission1.7 min11:11
  5. Nov 13, 2025Animal Control and Welfare Commission2.5 min43:19
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 Garfinkel was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Mikaila Garfinkel’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 Garfinkel 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 Garfinkel or of San Francisco alone.