Ex-Lancaster Mayor Failed to Disclose Holding, Income

Lancaster Councilman William Pursley, already the subject of two conflict-of-interest investigations, acknowledged Friday that he failed to disclose income of more than $54,000 and also that he is half-owner of the site of a controversial proposed shopping center.

Pursley, a multimillionaire real estate agent, acknowledged owning the five acres just outside Lancaster only when questioned about it Friday by a Times reporter.

Earlier in the day, he had filed a document with the city belatedly disclosing the income from real estate commissions last year.

Neither the commissions nor his interest in the land appeared on the report listing his extensive economic interests that Pursley filed March 28, as is required by state law for all city officials.

It was the latest in a series of such errors.

“I’m not a great detail man,” the 63-year-old councilman said. “I go out and like to wheel and deal.”

Pursley already is under criminal investigation by the Los Angeles district attorney’s office for potential conflict of interest in a June council vote. And the state Fair Political Practices Commission is reviewing that charge and numerous omissions from his economic interest report last year.

To prevent conflicts of interest, state law requires city officials by each April to publicly disclose certain types of investments, income and property holdings. City officials must disclose property they own within their city or within two miles of its limits.

Pursley, a councilman since 1989 who served as mayor for the past year, said he did not know state law required him to disclose his 50% ownership of a vacant five-acre parcel because it is located about one-third of a mile outside the city in the unincorporated Quartz Hill area.

The county Regional Planning Commission, with backing from Pursley’s fellow council members, last month rejected an application to build a 51,000-square-foot shopping center on the site at the northwest corner of 45th Street West and Avenue L. The application had been filed by Pursley’s partner. Pursley said neither the council nor the Planning Commission knew he was involved.

Pursley said he abstained from voting Feb. 19 when the Lancaster council approved a request from the city’s planning director for permission to testify against the project before the county. Asked why he never told his council colleagues of his ownership of the land, Pursley said, “I never thought there was any reason for them to know.”

Also, Pursley’s amended filing Friday listed receipt of $54,155.36 in commissions on the sale of five properties in the city last year. His original 1990 filing last month omitted those, but mistakenly repeated the same $239,827 in commissions he only belatedly reported last year.

“It just fell through the cracks,” the councilman said of his error. Asked if he had read his report prior to filing it under penalty of perjury, Pursley said he had. The councilman said much of the preparation was done by Patty Gaylor, Lancaster’s acting city clerk, with information he provided. Gaylor confirmed his account.

The councilman also complained of difficulty in understanding what interests he must disclose. “It’s pretty mind-boggling to do something like this when you have never done it before in your life,” Pursley said of the annual statements, which he has filed for the past three years.

He added, “I wasn’t aware of how closely people scrutinize that to look for things that are wrong.” Asked if he had considered obtaining expert help in reporting his extensive financial interests, Pursley said he had not. But he said he might consider that if he runs for reelection next year.

In preparation for buying the proposed shopping center site, Pursley and his wife, according to public real estate records, formed a partnership last October called C-P Investments, with Palmdale businessman Joe Childs, operator of two Palmdale-area tire stores. The Pursleys contributed $70,000 and Childs contributed $78,500, according to their agreement.

Under their deal, the Pursleys and Childs are equal partners, but the Pursleys would get 60% of any profits and Childs only 40%. According to the documents filed with the county Oct. 25, Childs, who was already buying the land, then transferred it to their partnership.

At the same time, the Pursleys lent the Lancaster-based partnership $110,000 secured by a deed of trust on the property, the same documents show. Under the state’s disclosure law, Pursley’s partnership investment, his ownership in the land and the deed of trust all should have been reported.

The state’s Political Reform Act also allows the FPPC, the state’s political watchdog agency, to fine politicians up to $2,000 for each violation in failing to report their economic interests. An FPPC spokesman said the agency was unaware of either of the latest problems with Pursley’s filings.

Pursley said Childs approached him as an investor last year after another party backed out. In an interview Friday, Childs at first denied he had a partner, and later refused to discuss Pursley or his role. But Childs did say he plans to appeal to the County Board of Supervisors the Planning Commission’s denial of his project.