San Francisco
Menu

Pete Huang

Commissioner, San Francisco Library Commission

We identified Huang’s voice at six meetings.

6 of 11transcribed meetings with their voice identified
5 of 5present at roll calls through Aug 20, 2026, from the clerk
Every roll call, and Huang’s other bodies

Present at 5 of 5 roll calls at the Library Commission, roll call through Aug 20, 2026

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

PresentExcusedAbsentOldest first, 1 square per roll call

Absent 0. Nov 20, 2025 to Aug 20, 2026. The clerk’s record covers 7 of the 12 meetings we hold, through Aug 20, 2026.

Official roll call, from the clerk →
  • Library Commission: talk time not compared. On a random sample of meeting time, between 48% and 68% of members' speech here carries a name; we rank when the low end reaches 60%.
Meetings

Every meeting where we identified Huang’s voice

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

  1. Aug 20, 2026Library Commission4.4 min2:26:37
  2. Jun 18, 2026Library Commission0.6 min1:18:54
  3. Mar 19, 2026Library Commission3.1 min48:54
  4. Jan 15, 2026Library Commission7.2 min17:06
  5. Dec 18, 2025Library Commission3.0 min1:44:56
  6. Nov 20, 2025Library Commission0.9 min38:27
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 Huang was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Pete Huang’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 Huang 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 Huang or of San Francisco alone.