Nov. 11, 1994

Page 1

Superior Court APJ Race Closes With Duel of Letters

By DAVID WATSON, Staff Writer, Trial and Appellate Courts
 
In a pair of last-minute letters to their colleagues, the two runoff candidates for Superior Court assistant presiding judge have disagreed over
how strongly the frontrunner has opposed judicial unification.
 
Judge << Robert Parkin>>  came within nine votes of outright victory in the first round of voting in a five-way contest, but must still defeat Judge
Joseph Kalin to win the position. By tradition, that post leads after two one-year terms to unopposed advancement to the office of presiding judge.
Parkin drew 96 of the 208 ballots cast, while Kalin had only 37 votes.

Ballots have been distributed for a second round of voting and will be tallied Wednesday.

On Nov. 3, the day after the first-round votes were counted, Kalin--who got the campaign off to its earliest start in memory by announcing his
candidacy in July of last year and far outdid his rivals in campaign letter-writing--fired off yet another missive to his colleagues.

Kalin's four-page letter included a comparison, in columnar form, of his views on "important issues" facing the court with those of Parkin.

Kalin vowed early on in the race to conduct what he has called an "issues campaign," emphasizing his opposition to proposals to unify the state's
municipal and superior courts and his reservations about the pace and direction of the court's efforts toward administrative unification.

A few days after Kalin sent out his letter, Parkin responded with a short letter objecting that his adversary had "purported" to set out his positions
"without having ever discussed the issues with me" and explaining his "correct" position on judicial unification issues.

Among the issues on which Kalin's letter contrasted his stands with those of Parkin was a proposal before the Judicial Council calling for a single
presiding judge to serve as the administrative head of the superior and municipal courts of each county.

Kalin said he obtained a copy of the proposal and distributed it to his colleagues late last month. Parkin, he asserted, received a copy in September
but did not distribute it.

Parkin is a member of the court's Executive Committee, while Kalin is not. The Judicial Council, meeting in San Francisco Thursday, postponed
action on the proposal in the face of objections from judges in Los Angeles and elsewhere around the state.

Kalin also contended in the letter that he opposed proposed Senate Constitutional Amendment 3, which would have unified superior and
municipal courts, earlier than Parkin did. He noted his opposition to administrative unification and to 100 percent state funding of trial courts,
which are now partially funded by counties.

Parkin, he claimed, has favored administrative unification and "not definitively come out against" 100 percent state funding.
In a Sept. 29 letter, Kalin had called for an up-or-down vote of all the court's judges on judicial and administrative unification, but no vote was
taken. Either the presiding judge or the Executive Committee could have conducted such a vote.

In his response, Parkin expressed "regret" about writing "yet another campaign piece," but declared:

"It is necessary because without having ever discussed the issues with me, my opponent has purported to set forth my position...."

Parkin said he has "always" opposed judicial unification and 100 percent state trial court funding and "never" favored the Judicial Council
proposal.

He added:

"On the matter of Administrative Unification, I voted with 80 [percent] of the Judges to join in the plan and I also voted with all except three
members of the Executive Committee to allow Administrative Unification to die a natural death and not submit the matter of withdrawal to a vote
of the Judges."

The Administratively Unified Courts of Los Angeles County, established soon after current Presiding Judge Robert Mallano took office in January
of 1993, at one time included the Los Angeles Superior, Los Angeles Municipal Courts and seven smaller municipal courts.

Mallano has said he continues to support the entity, which has been in the process of unraveling since SCA 3 failed to win a place on the general
election ballot. The Los Angeles Municipal Court and several others have withdrawn or said they will soon withdraw from it, and Edward
Kritzman, the entity's top administrator, is leaving to return to his similar post with the Municipal Court.

A search for a successor to Kritzman is under way.