Orange County Grand Jury
• 2007-2008
Restaurant Inspections – What No One is Telling You
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 2 findings
F1
The present procedure of posting eight inch square cards at local restaurants, stating that they are in substantial compliance with California food safety and sanitation standards, is inadequate to inform the general public of the true sanitary condition of a restaurant.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Adopt a new grading procedure for restaurant inspections that provides accurate and easily understood on-site health information for all restaurant and food vending locations.
F2
Neighboring counties in Southern California and elsewhere have adopted a grading system that is superior in informing the public about the safety of their local restaurants. Responses to Findings F-1 and F-2 are requested from the Health Care Agency. Responses to Findings F-1 and F-2 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Preamble to the United States Constitution 34 Orange County Register, February 24, 2008. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Implement an ABC grading system similar to the one presently in use in Los Angeles and neighboring counties. Responses to recommendations R-1 and R-2 are requested from the Health Care Agency. Responses to recommendations R-1 and R-2 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1Anyone reviewing even a small number of articles posted on the Internet in 2008 would become readily aware that there is an ongoing battle raging nationwide regarding the most effective way to ensure the general public’s right to know how safe their local restaurants are. Some restaurants in our community are unsanitary and are the direct cause of food- borne illnesses, some so severe as to require hospitalization, while others cause only discomfort, loss of work or school time. Recently a growing number of governing bodies, such as boards of supervisors and city councils have taken a stand to protect the public. Here in Southern California, nearly all county governing boards have made a commitment on behalf of consumers to follow their constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare.33 In the1990s, there was considerable resistance to implementing an ABC grading system, according to a former member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. That Board member is now calling for a re-examination of this issue.34 It is time for our Board to stand up on the side of the public. The blueprint for success and the experience to implement such a new ABC grading program lies just to the north. Hopefully, the Board of Supervisors has the wisdom and courage to follow the example of Los Angeles County and protect our citizens.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.