Update, 11:38 a.m.:
The Convent of St. Brigitta was incorrectly described as having a "Poor" rating for the last quarter of 2012 on the Darien Health Department website.
"In fact, the Convent has been nominated to receive a 'Certificate of Excellence' due to the extraordinary efforts exhibited in the preparation and service of food over the past several years," Darien Health Director David Knauf writes in a comment posted on this page. "Our deepest apologies for the incorrect posting!"
Original article (corrected):
Darien Health Department inspectors try to visit each restaurant or other food-serving establishment in town at least once each three months, and here are the inspection results from the last quarter of 2012:
One Plate—Poor
- Atria Darien, 50 Ledge Rd. (last inspection: Oct. 16; inspection history)
- Duchess Restaurant, 306 Post Rd. (last inspection: Dec. 21; inspection history)
- Jimmy's Southside Tavern, 340 Heights Rd. (last inspection: Dec. 27; inspection history)
Two Plates—Fair
- Chuck's Steak House, 1340 Post Rd. (last inspection: Dec. 6; inspection history)
- Tengda Asian Bistro, 25 Old Kings Hwy. N. (last inspection: Jan. 3, 2013 [also Oct. 1 and Oct. 2, 2012]; inspection history)
- Wild Ginger, 971 Post Rd. (last inspection Nov. 6; inspection history)
Three Plates—Good
All other food-serving establishments in town.
How Health Department 'plate' ratings work
On its Web page, the Health Department describes how it rates the establishments:
"This is a program designed to provide the public with some basic information about the sanitary conditions observed in the facility, not just at the time of the inspection, but over the past year.
"Ratings are provided by the department to the food service establishment with the inspection report during each inspection and are based on the following factors:
- The absence/presence of 'critical violations' that are likely to cause food borne illness,
- The absence/presence of chronic violations as noted in past inspections,
- The facility inspection history and efforts to correct previously noted violations,
- The training and demonstrable knowledge of food service personnel, and
- The overall sanitary conditions in the facility at the time of inspection."
The ratings system classifies food-serving establishments into three categories:
Three plates—Good: "A food service establishment shall receive a Good Rating when safe food handling practices with no critical violations were observed at the time of inspection and the facility was found to be in considerable compliance with the factors outlined above."
Two plates—Fair: "A food service establishment shall receive a Fair Rating when the minimum requirements of the Connecticut Public Health Code were met at the time of inspection but improvements were needed in the food handling practices of food service personnel and the factors outlined above."
One plate—Poor: "A food service establishment shall receive a Poor Rating when chronic or critical violations that are likely to cause food borne illness were evident at the time of inspection, or the facility received a score below eighty (80) or had one (1) or more four (4) point demerit items in violation, or was not in compliance with the factors outlined above."
Correction: The initial version of this article listed the Convent of St. Brigitta as having a "poor" rating. In fact, inspectors gave it a rating of "good" but the Health Department website posting was incorrect. See the 11:38 a.m. update above and the comment from David Knauf below for more details.
Mr. Gurliacci, As editor you are responsible for validity of information posted. Make sure the information is correct BEFORE you post it.
Helen Simmons
To be fair, according to the correction, The Darien Health Department incorrectly listed the convent as poor: ""In fact, the Convent has been nominated to receive a 'Certificate of Excellence' due to the extraordinary efforts exhibited in the preparation and service of food over the past several years," Darien Health Director David Knauf writes in a comment posted on this page. "Our deepest apologies for the incorrect posting!" Gurliacci/Patch were relying on the town to be accurate, and had no way of knowing the DDH was incorrect in the public record they posted. It is them you should be blaming.
It is damaging to the reputation of the editor, the news source and the subject of the article to reproduce correct information. Remember, in the digital age once information is put out there it gets copied over and over and it can't be deleted. For this reason on line papers should be diligent in getting the facts correct before they reproduce any information
If Mr. Gurliacci is not absolutely 100% certain Mr. Jones was arrested for DWI then he should not print the story. The legal ramifications of an error such as that would be great. In the past two months the Patch has made a number of big errors: identifying an arrested person as being 35 when, in fact, they are 18: misrepresenting the compensation of a town employee and now incorrectly reporting a department of health rating for a food serving establishment. These aren't small mistakes. We should not have to read a Patch article three times to find out the facts.
Again, you have the right to be angry at the Dept of Health for screwing up in their basic functions. But Patch has no way of knowing the Dept of Health is making mistakes in one of their basic roles, nor is there any reason Patch should not assume the public record is accurate when posted.
A leading editor once said, "It is not a mistake until it leaves here." The Health Department made a big mistake releasing incorrect information. That mistake was compounded by the Patch regurgitating the story. If the Patch were not in such a hurry to be first with such information the health department probably would have corrected itself. When the Patch rushes to be first to release information it puts its readers' faith at risk. Mr Gurliacci has proven himself far more interested in getting it first than getting it right.
Ed Infurna offered a very good example. Your response was inadequate. Can you give Mr Garlicci a better answer in becoming the reporter you want him to be? Saying you need to be 100% certain is unrealistic. Are mistakes made? Sure-- Has Mr. Garliacci made efforts to correct , incorrect info--absolutely. Estrella, by your definition, every news source is a gossip column, as I can open the NY times every day and observe between 2 and 10 corrections. CNN and 10 other news sources on that terrible Dec 14th Newtown coverage had it Ryan Lanza instead of Adam. They had Mrs Lanza as a school teacher killed in the school after the principal let 'ryan' lanza in because she recognized him -because of her mom. There were 2 people involved --one caught in the woods--and Ryan had originally shot his brother in hoboken then drove to newtown. In other words some of the biiggest stories are incredibly wrong and covered by largest news agencies with the highest credibility--- i think you might need to step into reality--as inconvienient as it is--mistakes are made by everyone.
The initial reports of the events in Sandy Hook on Dec. 14 were misleading and seriously damaging. They will stand as a textbook case of news agencies trying to get it first rather than right. Wendy Ruderman, one of the New York TImes reporters on the story said the mistakes made that day kept her up at night and that they will serve as a catalyst for change in the news industry. If the readers dont expect/demand accurate, verified news they wont get it.
They pick up news from each other. Thus, if appearing incorrect in one news source in all likelihood information will appear incorrect in other news sources. Mr. Gurliacci you have been awfully quiet in this discussion. Do you think your readers should look elsewhere for their news????
Still have not hear from you. Should readers go to the Darien Patch for accurate reliable local news or, "rather than harassing" you, rely on one or the other three (actually five)local news sources?
Maybe you made a mistake? Should we all stop listening to you? (now let's see if you respond to this?)
You say "wendy Ruderman , said the mistakes kept her up at night." Can you verify that? I hope you have it directly from her, rather than a fellow newswoman--who may or may not have gotten it right. Seems like you are passing on unsubstantiated stories that you are not verifying. Am I correct? See how easy that is? To rely on sources you trust?
You are so right. Gurliacci is such a gossip reporter -- and that's being nice. People feed him info and he just regurgetates it. He wouldn't know news if it hit him in the face
My comments, in general, are not directed toward you. They are directed at Mr Gurliacci. I don't care if you stop reading my comments because I do not generate my own income and income for my employer from Sebastian Dangerfield reading my bloggings. Still have not heard from Mr. Gurliacci.
Another mistake. You are not 'blogging'-- this is a comment section. Get to know the difference. In fact, just try to get something correct.
Still have not heard from Mr. Gurliacci. regarding his opinion on my comments. Thank you for pointing out the difference between a blog and a comment.