This is likely an intensely sentimental week for Bill Litvak, City Hall’s colorful hired attorney to prosecute the Culver City Ice Arena case – for reasons a world apart from the rink.
Mr. Litvak was born 58 years ago in the Ukraine.
Although his manner yesterday afternoon was strikingly sedate, little else seems to have changed with him since last Friday morning’s demonstrative confrontation with Ice Arena officials in the rink parking lot as he sought to have his choice of inspection experts investigate the state of the rink’s operations. City Hall, at least rhetorically, has condemned the Ice Arena as a public health hazard because of what it says it fears could happen at a future, but pointedly unspecified, date.
Mr. Litvak’s conversation with a journalist could have been held in a darkened room. It was time once again for parsing of terms, though generally cordial.
Note-taking on Mr. Litvak’s responses barely exceeded punctuation marks.
Question: I have made strong statements about you the last few days, and I want you to say where I am wrong, or to explain the situation differently.
“Are you referring to your references to my weight? You want me to comment on your description of me as portly?”
Question: You can if you wish. I am more interested in the situation with the rink. I presume, from people I have spoken with, that Mike Dillon, the refrigeration systems expert, was able to conduct a satisfactory inspection. Is that accurate?
“I don’t know what you mean by the word ‘satisfactory.’”
Question: Did Dillon see all he wanted to see?
“I…I… Well, let’s put it this way. There is an ongoing investigation. I hesitate to comment at this time because I believe the most important thing here is public safety. I do not agree with your characterization of the events that have taken place here. I don’t believe the record is consistent with the accusations made against the city.
“I am happy to provide you some details. But at this moment in time, I am satisfied that the city has acted properly, and is continuing to act properly, and in the best interests of the public, and without any malice of any kind.”
Question: When you said an investigation is going on, did you mean an investigation of conditions inside the Arena?
“I cannot comment on the nature or extent of any investigation. When the time will come…
Question: I am just talking about identifying the object of the investigation.
“I am sorry.”
Question: Maybe I did not say it clearly enough.
“Here is my problem. I am in the middle of a number of things in terms of this case. I have found that a lot of the statements that have been made are not consistent with my understanding. I hesitate, in all fairness to you, to say something that could be misconstrued or taken out of context.”
Question: I understand.
“The problem is, I do believe some of the things have been taken out of context. And I do want the opportunity to clarify them. That is why I suggested you come to my office, and we will go through some of these things.
“All I know is that a lot of things that have been stated have not been anything I agree with. And I do believe you are in error on a number of things.”
At that point, a tentative meeting date was set.
