Re-visiting the May 28 NJDOH Health Inspection (x3)

The mainstream press is systematically misreporting the New Jersey Department of Health’s May 28 inspection of Delaney Hall. This is from an article in today’s NJ.com, “Federal judge demands answers after N.J is again blocked at Delaney Hall detention center“:

In a limited inspection last month, state Department of Health inspectors did not find any serious violations in Delaney Hall’s kitchen.

Yes, they did. The author links to an earlier article of his that quotes from more of the report and makes this same determination, but both articles fail to mention the Department of Health’s overall evaluation of the facility, and both fail to cite the statutory definition of this evaluation (both also fail to link to the report itself).

As I’ve argued at length elsewhere, the Department found the facility Conditionally Satisfactory. The article nowhere mentions this fact, the single most basic finding of the whole report.

The article also fails to mention that the statutory definition of Conditionally Satisfactory implies that Delaney Hall was not in a Satisfactory condition, being out of substantial compliance with state health regulations. Here are the relevant legal definitions, verbatim, as forwarded to me directly by Angela Lipira, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner of Health:

8:24-8.11 Evaluation of reports

(a) Immediately upon the conclusion of the inspection, the health authority shall issue an evaluation placard of the establishment and leave the original copy of the inspection report form with the person in charge or as set forth in N.J.A.C. 8:24-8.10(b). The evaluation placard shall identify that the establishment is one of the following:

1. “Satisfactory“: The establishment is found to be operating in substantial compliance with this chapter and food service personnel have demonstrated that they are aware of and are practicing sanitation and food safety principles as outlined in this chapter;

2. “Conditionally Satisfactory“: At the time of the inspection the establishment was found not to be operating in substantial compliance with this chapter and was in violation of one or more provisions of this chapter. Due to the nature of these violations, a reinspection shall be scheduled. The reinspection shall be conducted at an unannounced time. A full inspection shall be conducted. Opportunity for reinspection shall be offered within a reasonable time and shall be determined by the nature of the violation; or

3. “Unsatisfactory”: Whenever a retail food establishment is operating in violation of this chapter, with one or more violations that constitute gross insanitary or unsafe conditions, which pose an imminent health hazard, the health authority shall issue an unsatisfactory evaluation. The health authority shall immediately request the person in charge to voluntarily cease operation until it is shown on reinspection that conditions which warrant an unsatisfactory evaluation no longer exists. The health authority shall institute necessary measures provided by law to assure that the establishment does not prepare or serve food until the establishment is reevaluated. These measures may include embargo, condemnation and injunctive relief.

The author may not regard the failures in question as “serious,” but the statute implies that they’re serious enough to require both correction and unannounced re-inspection. That’s why there’s a controversy over the issue of re-inspection in the first place. I don’t think it’s the author’s place to substitute his personal conception of “seriousness” for the actual text of the law. His journalistic obligation is to give us a neutral, verbatim account of the law, not an editorialization of his own that obscures the statutory definition of the relevant terms. 

Both nj.com articles also fail to mention that the dishwasher at Delaney Hall was not working. Is it not “serious” that the dishes at Delaney Hall were being washed with “low temperature” water and without detergent? But as I said in my earlier post, that’s what the report says. 

I’m willing to die on the Delaney Hall Health Inspection Hill–alone if need be–but I’m not an expert on public health issues, and I wish a bona fide expert would weigh in on the topic before DHS/ICE, the mainstream press, and MAGA manage to confuse this issue beyond all recognition. 

The Health Department declined an interview with me on grounds of pending litigation:

Thank you for your request to meet with Commissioner Washington regarding the Delaney Hall inspection report.

At this time, we must respectfully decline the meeting request. The NJDOH is still inspecting the facility, and there is ongoing litigation related to this matter. As a result, the NJDOH is unable to participate in discussions concerning issues that are the subject of active litigation.

Understandable, but someone needs to get this issue right before too many more people get it wrong.