Lancaster Councilman Rules Out 2nd Term

Embattled Lancaster City Councilman William Pursley, the subject of continuing conflict-of-interest investigations by state and local officials, said Friday he will not run for a second term in April.

Although he had insisted as late as a couple of weeks ago that he would seek reelection, Pursley, 63, denied that his reversal was influenced by the investigations by the state Fair Political Practices Commission and the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.

“I just think I’m ready to retire and take some quality time and be with my family and play golf,” said Pursley, a former real estate broker, who was elected in a 1989 special election.

“One term is enough,” he said. “There are some quality people running, and it’s time to let a couple of new ones come on board.”

Pursley downplayed the significance of the investigations.

“They had nothing to do with this decision,” he said. “I had a committee set up and people were working, but I just never felt comfortable with running again.”

He repeated earlier statements that he thought county prosecutors were not seriously pursuing a criminal case against him, and that he didn’t believe he would receive more than a fine from the FPPC.

“I know I never intentionally did anything wrong,” he said.

The effect of Pursley’s announcement on the investigations was still up in the air Friday. While not commenting specifically on Pursley’s case, FPPC officials said that an investigation into charges against an elected official would not automatically halt because he or she was leaving office.

The FPPC has been investigating whether Pursley violated state law when he voted to support a housing project after its developer paid Pursley and his business partners millions of dollars in a separate real estate deal. State law requires politicians to abstain from voting on issues affecting their recent sources of income.

The Times reported last year that Pursley cast at least four votes involving developer Kaufman & Broad’s plans for the 559-home California Horizon project during a two-year period.

“I’ve said all along that I voted when I shouldn’t have voted,” Pursley said. “I’ve talked to the FPPC about this. I expect that they will fine me, and I will pay it. I didn’t expect that decision to come out before the election anyway.”

Pursley also has been under review by the FPPC since mid-1990 in another potential conflict-of-interest case, and for failing to fully disclose his income and investments as required by state law.

Since December of 1990, the district attorney’s office has been considering criminal charges against Pursley for voting in June, 1990, to reduce a city road easement on land from which he later earned a $9,780 sales commission. The seller, who was his client, said the council vote helped clinch the sale.

“I’ve never heard a word from the district attorney,” Pursley said. “It’s been over a year. I’m assuming there’s no interest in this case or they would have pursued it.”

County prosecutors could not be reached for comment.

Pursley said he left Lancaster-based Mid-Valley Real Estate in December and is no longer working as a real estate agent.