Saturday, July 4, 2009
One main goal Buchanan County commissioners have for their new inspector is to build better rapport and offer food safety classes to restaurant owners.
However, when the St. Joseph-Buchanan County Health Department makes inspections public, it affects business, said Western District Commissioner Ron Hook.
"It affects where people eat and it just becomes an issue and we feel we'll be able to control this a little better in the county," he said.
Mr. Hook knows the effect of such negative publicity firsthand.
Grand Slam Ice Cream Co., a restaurant he co-owns in the South Side, was found with four critical violations by a city health inspector on June 16.
A critical health code violation is a term health inspectors use to define a violation that has the potential to make someone sick.
Mr. Hook doesn't believe the health department visit was politically motivated, but its timing was odd.
Earlier this year, the County Commission decided to opt out of its annual $135,000 contract with the city of St. Joseph for health services at the city/county health department.
"Just before we released our information to the health department, I was inspected the day before by both the inspector and fire marshal. I hope it was just coincidence. I don't know. I'm just hoping it was," Mr. Hook said.
Robin Rhodes, assistant health director at the St. Joseph-Buchanan County Health Department, said the surprise inspection visit was routine.
"The inspector that went in on that had no idea that Mr. Hook was the owner of it," Mr. Rhodes said. "Nothing there was worthy to close them, certainly not issue a summons, but there were violations noted."
The critical violations were an unlabeled chemical disinfectant bottle, slime on soda pop nozzles, a dirty slicer and excessive sanitizer in a wiping cloth bucket.
Mr. Hook says he doesn't contest that the violations happened, but that the inspection be more of an educational process, something he hopes the county inspector will do more of.
"If it (a critical violation) hasn't happened in the past and this is the first time it comes up, then educate us and let us know and we'll get it corrected," Mr. Hook said. "And if it happens again, then we should get written up."
Ahmad Safi can be reached
at ahmadsafi@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
RJW says...
I'm sure the new county inspector was great at running an auto parts store, but does being a "people person" mean looking the other way? Is this a joke??
How can the inspection be more of an "educational process" when the new county inspector hasn't been trained (and has no experience) in food safety? It's the business owner's responsibility to train their employees (and educate themselves). Mr. Hook, or someone on site, should be well versed in food safety.
Judging from the NP restaurant inspection reports, all establishments will have an issue from time to time, and the ones at Grand Slam were certainly not major. However, I'd have much more respect for Mr. Hook if he fixed the problems instead of trying to make an issue over the mean and nasty Health Inspector.
July 4, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
apmastrangelo says...
Nothing should be kept secret about health department inspections. The public deserves to know what establishments are conforming and those that do not.
FDA codes are straight forward and do not take brain surgeon to apply. Some of the most seemingly subtle violations still have potential of causing illness and any facility charged with major violation(s) are deserving of "attention" by both the inspection process and customers.
July 4, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pa2010 says...
Also, this establishment had a critical health violation in January of this year as reported in this newspaper of "mouse droppings in cabinet". A follow up inspection would not be unwarranted in my opinion.
July 4, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
peak1978 says...
I'd love it if these "inspectors" came to some of our homes. I'll guarantee you they would be shut down. No cuts in cutting boards. Cloths always contained in water with proper chlorox concentration. Hair always up in nets. Puh-lease...grandma would have been put out of business years ago!
July 4, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chara says...
apmastrangelo is right on the money. several yrs ago we had an incident with the chinese resturant on the belt. when i called the health department i was told that they had a bunch of violations. sems every pest control co. just quit because it was a loseing battle. if i had known how bad it was never would have ate there. when i ask why they didn't publish the reports said they weren't equiped. glad they do now, about time. thank god the place closed. thats tax paid for information.
July 4, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
i commend the NP for providing access to the inspections in the paper.
sounds like commissioner hook should have just kept his mouth shut.
July 4, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryAllison says...
There is a teaching moment embedded in the story, but it has nothing to do with restaurant operation or sanitary food service. The education potential here is Ron Hook's first lesson in the rough and tumble world of local politics.
When Ron's little ice cream stand got written up, the smart thing for him to do was take his medicine quietly, knowing full well maybe the 20 or 25 people who regularly read the online food establishment inspections might recognize the name of his hot dog place. Instead he called the Health Department. While never denying the substance of the inspection, he implied the inspector's attitude was the real problem and strongly suggested the timing of the inspection was deliberately meant to catch his lemonade stand at its worst.
The next question to consider is how this episode came into the public domain. Since I can't believe Ron would tell such an unflattering version on himself, that means someone in the City, either at City Hall or the Health Department, must have disclosed his behavior until our intrepid reporter got the scent. Almost certainly that WAS a deliberate attempt to illustrate what a south-end of a north-bound horse Ron Hook can be.
Now, as a result, everyone who has home-delivery plus everyone who reads the paper online knows Ron Hook runs a greasy spoon. I don't know exactly how many people that would be, but I am as sure as I can be that number is greater than 20 or 25.
So Ron, the lesson for today, in case you missed it, is to keep your mouth closed and keep driving.
July 4, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
peak1978 says...
Mr. "I have 3 degrees" Allison,
You sure rely on insults quite a lot for supposedly being such an educated man. Do you even know Mr. Hook personally? Apparently not. Grand Slam Ice Cream is an asset to the Southside. It is kept open late in the evenings to accommodate students and their families following school activities. It also is the sponsor for countless youth and athletic organizations around the county. If you chose not to dine there because of a short-sighted inspection, then don't. I hardly think you'll be missed.
Furthermore, while I have no problem with you choosing to rely on city "inspections," I do have a problem with you engaging in personal attacks towards Mr. Hook. Many restaurant owners throughout this town share his opinion. Apparently, you've never been a business owner that has been subject to an inspection. If you had -as I have been- I'm sure you would have a gripe or two to share about your experience with them. Afterall, most inspectors are government employees making barely $20-25K per year. The ones I've encountered are either fresh-off-the-farm college students or retirees trying to subsidize their old-age pension.
July 4, 2009 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ApparentlySo says...
Peak, are you actually suggesting that if restaurant owners are community supporters that they should be given a free pass? Why just limit that to restaurant owners? Does that mean if I would contribute to, let's say the police and fire widows and orphans fund I would never get speeding tickets again? Or do you mean something more substantial like contributing to Southside Association and the City shouldn't bother you at all?
And please list the insults that you say Mr. Allison is writing. I can't find any. I did see some fairly sound advice.
What is a short sighted inspection? And why the quotes around "inspection" in " rely on city "inspections,""? As well, I don't even see where Mr. Allison said he relied on the inspections: I do see where he said that knowledge of the violations would have been limited to the 20-25 people that read the reports, but he didn't say he was one of them.
Mr. Allison raises a good point. Maybe the author would share with us how he found out about the violations.
Is Mr. Hook really suggesting that every time a restaurant commits a violation for the "first" time that it should be ignored? Is that the first time for that location? That owner? That manager? Those employees? Or maybe if is just a new owner even though the new owner kept all of the employees and management when he purchased the place? Is that all violations? What if that owner has 4 locations or multiple restaurants?
"Yep, he put rat poison in the food; but he didn't know it was wrong. It's first time though, so it's okay this time."
July 5, 2009 at 12:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sam says...
To attaboy - I read various posts regarding various articles and those such as yours that resort to name-calling and serve no purpose nor provide any solutions are not needed. And I hope the NP has the good sense to start eliminating them.
ApparentlySo - I, too, missed the insults asserted by peak1978. I re-read Henry Allison's remarks and was unable to find any verbage that classifies as insulting.
On a larger and more dangerous scale, OSHA and MSHA were instructed by the previous administration to provide "training, guidance and suggestions" but generally not significant fines to companies that had critical and life-threatening violations. The report that emerged from the Sago mine collapse in Jan 2006 stated that the fines for 205 violations for the Sago mines in 2005 totaled about $25,000. Wow. What an incentive to fix anything. The fines were less costly than the repairs so 12 workers died due to conditions within the mine. ApparentlySo's last line is applicable in the same way: any of the violations could have accidentally led to illness or injury of staff or customers. The owners choose to own the businesses; they should know and train the staff in the basic safety rules of that business. Inspections - with consequences - are the only way to enforce those rules.
July 5, 2009 at 6:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
peak1978 says...
I'm proud to say I live in the Southside and eat at Grandslam almost daily. It is not a "greasy spoon" as Mr. Allison labels it. Some of the finer dining spots in this town have also been cited (ie La Dolce Vita, Fredrick Inn, Moila & Galvins). Does that make them "greasy spoons." For those of you that have eaten at Grand Slam, it is far more than an "ice cream stand" or "lemonade stand." It is one of the most professionally run businesses in our community. Also, what does this comment mean exactly, "a deliberate attempt to illustrate what a south-end of a north-bound horse Ron Hook can be." There again, anyone that knows Mr. Hook first stand or has seen him work tireless towards efforts in this town, will dispute that. And anyone with any class would abstain from that kind of mudslinging.
One more point, all Mr. Hook did was question the process of the "inspection." Mr. ApparentlySo, you brought up the example of a traffic violation earlier so let me ask you this: If someone is issued a citation by a police officer does challenging it in court make one the "south-end of a north-bound horse?" I hope you think not. Nor do I hope you think that all subjective opinions laid down by government agencies are without flaw.
July 5, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ApparentlySo says...
"The critical violations were an unlabeled chemical disinfectant bottle, slime on soda pop nozzles, a dirty slicer and excessive sanitizer in a wiping cloth bucket."
Which of these were subjective?
I think I missed the greasy spoon comment because I read it as everyone who reads the article will come away with that impression. Mr. Allison's point was if Mr. Hook would have just corrected his issues, it would not have come up to be an issue. People like you that eat there, would not be affected by the results of the inspection. People that are looking for inspection results prior to deciding where they are going to eat, probably weren't eating there anyway.
As a side note, does anyone besides me think that it is odd that people choose to not eat at a place after an inspection and that violations had to be corrected bringing the place into compliance with food codes; but didn't seem to have a problem eating there when the violations were occurring, they just didn't know about it?!
And yes, if you are speeding or if you run a stop sign and are issued a summons for that and then go challenge that in court just so that you can get out of it, then yes, you are a just a bit of hindquarters. Because (see if you can follow this), you aren't trying to get out of it because you didn't do it, you're just trying to get out of it because you don't want to pay a fine. Also, in Mr. Allison's statement, it really reads as if he is slamming City Hall or the Health Department; as if it was a deliberate attempt to make Ron Hook look bad.
Obviously you like Mr. Hook, so much so that you are willing to let his eatery do whatever it wants regardless of the risk to those that eat there. And you don't deny that because he is a contributor that he ought to be allowed to do whatever he wants.
July 5, 2009 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RJW says...
No Peak, Mr. Hook questioned the timing of the inspection. Then he said the inspectors should "educate" the establishments for a first time offense as opposed to noting the violation. His rational for this? Because publishing a negative health inspection adversely affects business. Does he sound like he's interested in putting his customers first, or making a buck?
He might not lose business at Grand Slam, but boy is he losing votes.
July 5, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pa2010 says...
Amen to the comments by RJW! Remember, this is not his first critical violation this year!
July 5, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
peak1978 says...
Why does the newspaper choose to publish restaurant inspections alone. Don't we all have risks to bare from eating tainted meat bought from a grocery store? What about milk or eggs? There are skin diseases that we can contract from our beauty operator, nail stylist, or tanning salon. Vets, dog groomers, and other animal specialists are also subject to inspections. I'm just curious why eateries are singled out.
July 5, 2009 at 9:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )