I think this article has it wrong. From what I’ve read about “Proposition C,” it said that people can lose their SFERS pensions if they are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, if the crime was committed “in connection with their employment.”
So, the issue is not that kiddie porn is not “moral turpitude” (it undoubtedly is), but rather that this scumbag’s crime was not “in connection with” his position.
Thanks for that clarification. Makes sense, though I’d be happier if the “in connection” clause didn’t exist. Scumbag indeed.