Shall the City prohibit San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System members who are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude in connection with their employment from receiving any retirement benefits funded with employer contributions?
At first glance, Proposition C looks like an open-and-shut case. Employees who are convicted of committing fraud or stealing from the City should not receive any benefits from the City.
But, further digging into the meaning of “moral turpitude” opens a whole slew of questions. The legal definition of “moral turpitude” as defined by the United States includes your usual suspects of theft, fraud, murder, assault, rape, etc.
However, under volume 9, section 40.21(a) N2.3-3 of the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, sodomy is included at #16 of the list for Crimes Committed Against Person, Family Relationship, and Sexual Morality.
If the board or court who oversees the determination of moral turpitude for a crime committed by the employee goes strictly by the book, those of homosexual orientation would lose out on their benefits.
The above would be used by opponents of the opposition.
It is a good thing then that the illegality of sodomy was repealed through the creative use of the majority leaders power by George Moscone in 1975.
A vote of Yes reiterates the notion that crime does not pay.
A vote of No encourages moral depravity by City employees.