Incumbent Speaks Freely—but With Questionable Accuracy; Challenger Is Mum

The two candidates for Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 40 are not merely opponents but are, in significant respects, opposites.

There’s Floyd V. Baxter, the incumbent. He’s an insider, destined to win, if history is a guide; Superior Court judges simply do not lose to underfinanced challengers who set forth no issues. Baxter, 65, is animated, loves attention, and will readily make statements for publication. But the accuracy level of his statements appears low. Whether he knows at the time he makes assertions that what he’s saying is false, or speaks without thinking, or has a failing memory, is uncertain.

Then there is challenger Ross A. Stucker: an outsider, without a base of support. Unlike Baxter, he has not misspoken in his campaign—but, then again, he has not spoken, at all. Stucker, 53, has provided no public statement as to why he’s running and has failed to respond to press inquiries about his campaign.

The election challenge is generally assumed to stem from a decision to terminate Stucker’s services at the Newhall Municipal Court as a subordinate judicial officer. He had been performing judicial duties as a pro tem, on a per diem basis, since Aug. 14, 1995. On Oct. 7, 1997, there came legislative authorization of a commisionership for the court effective Jan. 1, 1998, and applications were solicited for the $91,281-a-year post. Stucker was among those applying. Although many assumed Stucker would be hired, the job went to Thomas R. White.

Baxter recounts that it was he, as presiding judge, who had the “dubious honor” of telling Stucker (on Dec. 19, 1997) that “he didn’t have the job.” He notes:

“He was very upset. He had just bought a new house.”

Unknown to Stucker, the judge remarks, was that he did not participate in the selection. He had been in law practice with White and “abstained from the whole process,” he claims.

The judge and White had been partners in the Newhall firm of White, Baxter & Hoodack from about 1979-81.

‘Commanding Officer’

Baxter says there had been dissatisfaction with Stucker’s performance as a judicial officer, but declines to discuss the nature of it. He explains: “My boss, Judge [William A.] MacLaughlin, instructed me not to” because it’s a “confidential county personnel matter.” A decorated Vietnam veteran, he terms the North Valley District supervising judge “my commanding officer.”

Did MacLaughlin issue such an instruction? “No, I don’t give that kind of instruction,” the supervising judge says. “A judge has to be careful about giving an instruction to any other judge.”

He says he does hold the notion that an employer should not disclose the reasons why a job applicant was rejected, but adds that he has no recollection of having shared that view with Baxter. As to whether Stucker’s judicial performance constitutes a county personnel matter, MacLaughlin at first says, “I don’t think I’ve ever reflected on that issue,” but after considering it for a few moments concludes that it probably is not.

For Baxter’s recitations to differ with the recollections of others is not unusual.

His insistence that he took no part in the process that led to the selection of White as a commissioner is at variance with what others remember. Among those who dispute Baxter’s account are the other two judges who comprised the Newhall Municipal Court at the time, H. Keith Byram (since retired) and Alan Rosenfield.

Byram reveals that Stucker and White were among the three finalists. Stucker’s bid was rejected because, the retiree says, he had been rendered “virtually useless” to the court. Neither deputy district attorneys nor deputy public defenders would stipulate to him, Byram explains.

Did Baxter participate in choosing White? “Yeah,” Byram responds. “He and I and Alan Rosenfield.” Told of Baxter’s contrary assertion, he acknowledges he could be wrong, but adds that he’s “pretty sure” that Baxter did participate.

Rosenfield concurs with Byram, without equivocation. He says “it was a unanimous decision,” and that while Baxter did express a “concern” at one point in the process over White having been his law partner, he voted for him. Also advised that Baxter contends he recused himself, Rosenfield says, flatly: “No, that’s not my recollection.”

His recollection is substantiated by news reports at the time. The Daily News recited: “White was chosen by the court’s three judges from a pool of 26 applicants.”

Participation Disputed

Baxter’s insistence that he “abstained from the whole process” does not jibe with the recollection of Larchmont Village attorney Graciela Freixes, who was one of about seven semi-finalists who were interviewed. She says that Baxter took part in questioning her. “I recall that he asked questions—I recall that they all asked questions,” she relates.

White, also, recounts that Baxter was among those who interviewed him.

“I recall him asking, at the most, two questions—the others asked two or three questions,” he says.

White recalls one of the questions concerned how long it would take him to wrap up his practice.

A finalist for the post was Martin Gladstein, who was subsequently hired by the Los Angeles Municipal Court as a commissioner and now serves the Superior Court in that capacity. He, too, recalls that Baxter, Byram and Rosenfield were present at his interview and says: “My recollection is that they were all involved in the process.” With respect to whether he was questioned by Baxter, in particular, he remarks, “I’d almost swear to it.”

If Baxter did make a misstatement in telling this newspaper that he didn’t participate in the selection process, as it would appear he did, it would not be his only misstatement during the course of the campaign.

He says that while he was on the Newhall Municipal Court (to which he was appointed in 1985 by Gov. George Deukmejian), he was “asked by many” to apply for appointment to the Superior Court, but that, in the end, he “turned down the elevation.” His choice of words appears deliberate; he also says, with reference to an elevation: “I turned it down.” He explains that he felt he was needed where he was, so “I said no.”

Which governor offered him a Superior Court judgeship? Upon being pressed, he explains that the Superior Court’s “presiding judge of Van Nuys” suggested that he put in an application for elevation, but he didn’t. (He says he can’t recall the identity of that judge.)

When it’s pointed out that the supervising judge in Van Nuys does not have the power of appointment—so that disregarding his advice to apply is not tantamount to turning down an elevation—Baxter dismisses his exaggeration by remarking, “If you want to look at it that way….”

Some would also view Baxter’s ballot designation as an exaggeration. He’s listed as a “Judge/Law Professor.” While Baxter is a judge, it is doubtful that most persons would regard him as a law professor, since he is not a professor at any law school. He teaches business law once a week at College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita, a community college located across the freeway from Magic Mountain.

Baxter says his title there is “adjunct professor of business law.” He insists that it’s not misleading to call himself a “law professor,” explaining: “I’m teaching law in a recognized school.” He also justifies using that ballot designation by saying:

“That’s what my campaign manager told me to do.”

Asked if campaign consultant Fred Heubscher is his “commanding officer” in the campaign, he confirms that, in essence, he is. Baxter says he defers to Heubscher’s judgment, knowing nothing, himself, about campaigns.

Minor Inaccuracy

A minor inaccuracy surfaces in connection with some long-ago litigation. A look at the public records database on Westlaw shows that a Floyd V. Baxter, along with a Wendy Baxter, in 1984 sued one Jerry Brown. Asked about that suit, Baxter laughs. Adverting to the former governor (1975-83) named Jerry Brown, he says:

“Mr. Moonbeam? I wouldn’t sue him.”

He notes that he has a daughter named Wendy, but says she would have been about 15 years old in 1984.

Baxter, in a later interview, labels the notion that he sued someone named Jerry Brown “absolutely impossible, absolutely wrong, ridiculous.”

However, it turns out that Baxter’s disavowal of having sued Jerry Brown in 1984 was erroneous. A copy of the complaint, fetched from the Los Angeles Superior Court archives, shows that the action was filed by Baxter & Hoodack—White, at that point, was out of the firm—and that Baxter acted as a guardian ad litem for his daughter, Wendy, in connection with an collision allegedly caused by the negligence of a motorist named Jerry Brown. Baxter was also listed in the caption as a plaintiff, in his own right, but no cause of action was stated in his favor.

(By the time the case was settled, Baxter was on the bench and White had reteamed with Hoodack in Hoodack & White.)

Hoodack does remember the case. He says the Jerry Brown who was sued was not the former governor.

Differing Recollection

Retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Haig Kehiayan is another person with a recollection that differs from what Baxter recounts. The candidate says of Kehiayan: “He recommended me to Governor Deukmejian, who appointed me.” Kehiayan contradicts that, saying that his role in the appointment, at most, was merely filling out a questionnaire (from the State Bar Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation). If he received such a questionnaire, he notes, he would have rated Baxter “well qualified” or “qualified.”

It could be that Baxter’s recollection is right and Kehiayan’s is wrong. And maybe MacLaughlin actually did issue the order he disclaims having made. It is also conceivable that Baxter did stay completely out of the selection process for a new commissioner and that Byram, Rosenfield, White, Gladstein and Freixes have errant memories.

The accuracy of his designation of himself as a “law professor” might be debated. His representation that he “turned down” an elevation that no governor had offered him might somehow be rationalized.

It is, however, certain that Baxter’s recitation in connection with his jailing of a “PTA mom” who hit a parked car while in her pickup truck is incorrect, being contradicted by the court record and other evidence.

That jailing—and denunciations of it in the Los Angeles Times and the Newhall Signal—will be told of tomorrow in Part 2 of this profile on the race for Office 40.


ROSS STUCKER	FLOYD BAXTER