Farrell Cleared on Conflict of Interest Charge : Investigation: District attorney found no reason to prosecute councilman on allegations he steered funds and property toward social service program run by his ex-wife.

The district attorney’s office cleared Los Angeles City Councilman Robert Farrell on Friday of any criminal wrongdoing in connection with his role in steering more than $350,000 in city contracts, campaign funds and property to a social service program run by his former wife.

The investigation into conflict of interest allegations determined that “the facts do not warrant criminal prosecution,” according to a report prepared by Roger J. Gunson, head of the district attorney’s special investigations division. Gunson was not at work Friday and was unavailable for comment.

Farrell’s recent announcement that he would not run for his 8th District council seat in the April 9 election had no bearing on the investigation, said district attorney spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons. She declined to say whether Farrell’s official actions constituted an appearance of a conflict of interest.

“We make a determination about whether the law has been violated,” Gibbons said. “It is up to others to make moral judgments.”

Farrell had no comment on the decision, according to Al Reyes, the councilman’s spokesman.

“He got banged up pretty bad (with) the publicity surrounding this,” Reyes said.

The investigation covered Farrell’s activities back to 1983 when his then-wife, Essiebea Farrell, became executive director of The Improvement Assn. of the 8th District, which was formed to improve South Los Angeles through charitable and educational programs.

Farrell used his political campaign funds to give $11,500 directly to his wife in 1983 and an additional $53,500 to the association between 1984 and 1987, the investigation found.

In 1986, Farrell voted in favor of a $50,000 city funding package to The Improvement Assn. He also persuaded Security Pacific National Bank in 1984 to donate a building worth $225,000 to the organization.

A year later, Farrell successfully proposed that the city lease space in the building for his field office at $2,400 per month. When Farrell voted for the rent subsidy, his proposal did not mention any connection between Essiebea Farrell and the association, the district attorney’s report said.

Although the improvement association sold an adjacent lot in 1986, it continued to collect $8,400 in rent from the city for 21 months. The money was later returned after Farrell’s activities were disclosed in late 1987.

While Farrell was assisting his wife’s organization, the couple separated in April, 1984, and were divorced in 1986. The probe examined whether Farrell could reduce his spousal and child support payments to his ex-wife by directing funds to the improvement association and increasing her separate income.

The investigation found this was not the case.

“Robert Farrell can argue forcefully that his actions served his constituency,” the investigative report said. “The association produced two basic programs that his district drastically needed.”