Prop. C

Today we will discuss Proposition C.

Proposition C asks to amend language in the City's Employees Retirement System that would prohibit employees that engaged in "moral turpitude" in connection with their job from receiving any retirement funds funded with employer contributions. This proposition is in response to a recent court decision potentially allowing for some former employees to receive retirement benefits even if found guilty of "moral turpitude."

According to the election pamphlet, moral turpitude is defined as "There is no precise definition. Generally, a crime involving moral turpitude is one that reveals a person's dishonesty, readiness to do evil, bad character, or moral depravity. The courts decide this on a case-by-case basis. Examples would include crimes (misdemeanor or felony) involving theft, fraud, or breach of public trust." Further definition of moral turpitude and other examples can be found here. Additionally, according to the write up in the pamphlet, this language has not been consistently applied or added to new retirement plans. So, since this is a change to the city charter, it must go before the voters.

What does this all mean? Well, this is basically an addition to make all city employees' retirement plans terms consistent, and if an employee engages in certain illegal actions, see definition above, they will be prohibited from receiving any of their retirement contributions. It seems to me that if someone is convicted of any of the crimes that are defined as "moral turpitude," then the employee should definitely not be eligible to receive retirement benefits.

Opponents of the measure point out that moral turpitude has been used by various courts across the country to prosecute homosexual activity. As noted in the pamphlet rebuttal, the decision as to what constitutes moral turpitude is made by the S.F. Retirement Board and not a court. So, what it boils down is that the opponents of this proposition simply don't like the terminology. Simply put, the S.F. Retirement Board determines if someone has committed moral turpitude in relation to their retirement benefits, not the courts.

This appears to be merely a technical amendment. As the pamphlet notes, this term has been in use since 1966 and continues so. Despite opponents' attempt to cast this proposition in terms other than its intended purpose, people found guilty of crimes of moral turpitude, as determined by the S.F. retirement board, should not be allowed to receive their retirement benefits.

Vote yes on Prop. C.