San Francisco
Menu

Spencer Potter

Member, San Francisco Urban Forestry Council

We identified Potter’s voice at three meetings.

3 of 6transcribed meetings with their voice identified
1 of 1present at roll calls through Jan 23, 2026, from the clerk

One clip, newest first

  • Spencer Potter · Member · Urban Forestry Council · Jan 23, 2026 · 1:17:22

    “I mean, I sit here on behalf of the general manager of the Recreation Parks Department, and the direction I’ve received from my general manager is to let the, you know, the people voted on Prop E and let the Commission Streamlining Task Force do its work, basically.”

Every roll call, and Potter’s other bodies

Present at 1 of 1 roll calls at the Urban Forestry Council, roll call through Jan 23, 2026

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

PresentExcusedAbsentOldest first, 1 square per roll call

Absent 0. Jan 23, 2026. The clerk’s record covers 3 of the 6 meetings we hold, through Feb 24, 2026.

Official roll call, from the clerk →
Meetings

Every meeting where we identified Potter’s voice

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

  1. May 22, 2026Urban Forestry Council3.7 min1:28:40
  2. Mar 27, 2026Urban Forestry Council2.1 min1:25:40
  3. Jan 23, 2026Urban Forestry Council2.8 min20:31
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 Potter was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Spencer Potter’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 Potter 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 Potter or of San Francisco alone.