Board approves charter amendment allowing denial of pension for retiree convictions involving moral turpitude

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted Feb. 5 to submit a charter amendment to the June ballot that would clarify the city—s pension rules so that retirees convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude connected to their employment could be denied pension benefits funded from employer contributions.

The amendment—s sponsor said the change closes a wording gap the courts identified in a prior case involving a disability retirement and that the retirement board—s executive director told supervisors she could recall only a handful of such cases in more than two decades. "I'm Claire Murphy, executive director of the San Francisco Employees Retirement System, and I've served 22 and a half years as executive director," Murphy told the board during the discussion.

Supporters said the amendment is a narrow —housekeeping— measure to make the city—s charter consistent with long-standing practice that allows the retirement board to deny a pension where a conviction for moral turpitude is connected to the employee—s city duties. Opponents and several supervisors pressed for clearer language defining "moral turpitude," and proposed an amendment to limit the proposal to felony convictions only; that amendment was moved by Supervisor Sandoval and seconded by Supervisor McGoldrick but failed on a 5-6 vote.

Deputy City Attorney Cheryl Adams told the board there is no single, precise legal definition of moral turpitude but that case law generally ties the term to crimes involving dishonesty or serious misconduct. Adams also explained that any retirement-board denial would be appealable to superior court, giving a process for review.

After debate, the unamended charter amendment was submitted by roll call vote (final tally 10-1). The retirement system—s executive director and sponsors said instances are rare: the executive director told the board there were about three to four cases over many years that prompted the proposed clarification.

The board did not place a statutory dollar threshold or a misdemeanor/felony limit into the charter language; supervisors who opposed the amendment argued the measure was unnecessary relative to the small number of cases, while sponsors argued it protects the city—s pension fund fiduciary obligations.

Actions: Motion to amend the proposed charter language to insert the word "felony" (mover: Supervisor Sandoval; second: Supervisor McGoldrick) — failed (5 ayes, 6 nos). Motion to submit the charter amendment as proposed (mover: sponsor, Supervisor Ellsburn) — adopted by roll call (10 ayes, 1 no).

Provenance: Appellant and staff testimony and votes are recorded in the meeting transcript during the Item 16 discussion and the roll-call votes that follow. Ending items moved the amendment to the ballot.

The charter amendment will appear on the ballot if the board follows the usual schedule for charter measures; supervisors were explicit that the language and timing were tied to ballot filing deadlines.