These strike us as somewhat odd questions to ask. Unless we've been misinformed, San Francisco's position is merely that "if challenged" the city would likely lose on a conflict-of-interest complaint -- in other words, the city didn't claim this was a conflict of interest, but that it looked odd enough that the city would be making a dicey move by allowing Parsons to bid on the contract -- and a potential lawsuit from a competitor who didn't receive that bid would delay everything, so why take the risk? As for whether the bill as written would interfere with future conflict-of-interest prosecutions -- isn't that what it's intended to do? This bill would alter the law, no?
Finally, scrutiny of the sort raised by the Board of Supervisors -- and the Chron and SF Weekly -- may be what it takes to derail AB 746. The bill sailed through the Assembly largely because no one bothered to voice any opposition to it. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano told us he noticed Willie Brown's name attached to the proposal, but also noticed it had been greenlighted by the Assembly's Democratic Caucus. No one opposed it. When asked if he wished someone from the city had reached out to him and fellow legislator Fiona Ma -- who also voted "yes" -- he noted that everyone in San Francisco was pressed with budget battles of their own -- but conceded "Yeah, of course."
If and when AB 746 ever sees the light of day again, state senators won't be ignorant of the fact that San Francisco's elected officials unanimously urged them to dump this bill. As for what Brown got out of all this, he hasn't returned our calls and e-mails. Maybe someone from the Chron will eventually track him down. We hear he has a column there.