State Political Panel Fines Ex-Councilman for Conflict of Interest : Lancaster: William Pursley to pay $16,000. He cast votes on matters in which he had a financial interest.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission voted Thursday to impose a $16,000 fine on former Lancaster Councilman William Pursley for three conflict of interest violations and numerous failures to disclose his economic interests.

The 5-0 decision ends a two-year investigation of Pursley by the state’s political watchdog agency. And it marks the first time the FPPC has fined a current or former Lancaster council member in the city’s nearly 15-year history, city officials said.

Pursley, 64, a wealthy real estate agent who did not seek reelection in April after three years on the council, remains the subject of a criminal conflict of interest investigation by the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. Prosecutors had no comment Thursday.

In accepting the FPPC’s fine, Pursley admitted to 10 administrative counts of violating the state’s Political Reform Act. Seven counts involved failure to disclose 48 items on his 1989 statement of economic interests. Three counts involved conflicts of interest in his council votes.

Throughout the inquiry, Pursley maintained that he did not intend to violate the law. In agreeing to pay the fine, he acknowledged being careless in his legal obligations to avoid voting on matters in which he had a financial interest and to fully disclose his own finances as required by state law.

The FPPC case began with a June, 1990, complaint by Lancaster resident Fred Brodish alleging that Pursley had failed to disclose many of his real estate and other financial interests. In a series of subsequent articles, The Times disclosed the conflicts that became part of the FPPC’s case.

Two involved Pursley’s votes in December, 1989, for a 559-unit Kaufman & Broad housing tract in west Lancaster. Months earlier, the developer paid two Pursley partnerships about $6.7 million to buy 320 acres elsewhere in the city. Pursley also earned a $109,146 unreported commission on the sale.

The third conflict came when Pursley introduced and voted on a measure in June, 1990, to reduce the size of a street easement along one side of a parcel owned by one of his then-business partners. The partner said the city decision helped sell the site, and Pursley later got a $9,780 commission.

Pursley is not the first Lancaster official to have troubles, however. City Atty. David McEwen currently is facing a legal challenge from another law firm alleging conflict of interest. Former Councilman Els Groves was investigated by the state attorney general for living outside the city.

And former Lancaster Councilman Lou Bozigian, part owner of Mid Valley Real Estate in Lancaster where Pursley now works, was charged with criminal conflict of interest in 1985 by the district attorney’s office. Bozigian was acquitted by a Municipal Court jury in 1986.