Shanell Williams
Chair, Seat 2, San Francisco Our City Our Home Oversight CommitteeChairs the Our City Our Home Oversight Committee; asked three questions at the five meetings where we identified them.
Every roll call, and Williams’ other bodies
Present at 0 of 1 roll calls at the Our City Our Home Oversight Committee
- Our City Our Home Oversight Committee: talk time not compared. Presides over its meetings, so isn’t compared with the members.
Williams asked three questions at the five Our City Our Home Oversight Committee meetings where we identified them
Of Williams’ 2 questions to city departments at the Our City Our Home Oversight Committee, 1 went to budget, finance and controller.
| Department | Share | Questions |
|---|---|---|
| Budget, finance and controller | 1 | |
| Homelessness services | 1 |
Every meeting where we identified Williams’ voice
- Sep 24, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight Committee7.8 min0:56
- May 28, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight CommitteeHomelessness8.5 min0:56
- Apr 23, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight CommitteeBudget and spending12.4 min0:11
- Mar 26, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight Committee6.2 min0:30
- Jan 22, 2026Our City Our Home Oversight CommitteeHomelessness9.7 min0:31
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
We identified Williams’ voice at five meetings. 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 Shanell 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 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 Williams or of San Francisco alone.
