CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS THE CRUCIAL ISSUE OF HOW TOP EXECUTIVE 'RESPONSIBILITY' SHOULD BE DEFINED. SENATE BILL 1437 WOULD AMONG OTHER THINGS IMPOSE CRIMINAL PENALTIES ON TOP EXECUTIVES FOR RECKLESS DEFAULT; A TOP EXECUTIVE WOULD BE CRIMINALLY LIABLE IF HE DID NOT ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE EMPLOYEES WHO VIOLATED FEDERAL REGULATIONS WITH CRIMINAL PROVISIONS. SUCH LEGISLATION WOULD EXTEND THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE JUNE 1975 LANDMARK CASES OF UNITED STATES V. PARK, WHICH IS DISCUSSED IN FULL HERE, WHERE JOHN R. PARK, PRESIDENT OF ACME MARKETS WAS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR CONDUCT IN A BUSINESS UNIT FAR DOWN IN THE CORPORATE HIERARCHY. THERE IS GREAT DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHETHER THE PARK PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE EXTENDED. ON ONE SIDE, IT IS FELT THAT STRUCTURAL REFORM OF BUSINESS AND REDUCTION OF COMPETITIVE PRESSURE FOR PROFITS AND GROWTHS WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN IMPROVING SAFETY STANDARDS FOR WORKERS THAN EXTENSION OF THE PARK PRINCIPLES THROUGH GREATER PERSONAL EXECUTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. THE OTHER SIDE STRESSES THAT EXECUTIVES SHOULD BE TREATED JUST LIKE OTHER CRIMINALS TO FORCE THEM TO RECOGNIZE THEIR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. THE LATTER POSITION IS THAT THE LAW IS NOT BEING APPLIED EQUALLY, THAT FINES MEANS NOTHING TO EXECUTIVES, AND THAT CRIMINAL PENALTIES MAY BE NECESSARY UNTIL THE SOCIAL ORIENTATION IS SOLVED. (MHP)