.
Feedback

Darien Health Dept. Rates 3 Food Places Poor, 3 Fair [UPDATE]

Three food-serving establishments in town received ratings of "poor" from Darien Health Department inspections, and another three were rated "fair"; every other establishment that serves food in town received ratings of "go

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

  • Jimmy's Southside Tavern, 340 Heights Rd. (last inspection: Dec. 27; inspection history)

Two Plates—Fair

  • Tengda Asian Bistro, 25 Old Kings Hwy. N. (last inspection: Jan. 3, 2013 [also Oct. 1 and Oct. 2, 2012]; 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.

David Knauf January 7, 2013 at 03:06 pm
CORRECTION! The Convent at St. Brigitta has consistently had excellent inspection scores and GOOD Ratings. The posting of a "POOR" in the most recent inspection is an error since they actually received a score of 100 and a "GOOD" rating in October. 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, Our deepest apologies for the incorrect posting!
Estrella January 7, 2013 at 04:23 pm
FACT CHECK!!!!
Mr. Gurliacci, As editor you are responsible for validity of information posted. Make sure the information is correct BEFORE you post it.
harry freud January 7, 2013 at 04:37 pm
corrections should be on top.not on the bottom
David Gurliacci (Editor) January 7, 2013 at 04:42 pm
I tend to like corrections that way, too, but the initial one was a comment. I'm off today, but just checked in on the website, so the story has been updated. You posted just a minute sooner than I changed it.
Helen Simmons January 7, 2013 at 05:00 pm
What did the inspectors find that caused Chucks rating to drop from 3 to 1 in within a few months?
Helen Simmons
Ed Infurna January 7, 2013 at 06:02 pm
Estrella,
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.
Estrella January 7, 2013 at 07:37 pm
Fact checking does not mean calling the source and asking them to verify the information they just gave you. It means finding a secondary source to verify information. Yes, it involves a bit of time and effort. Any reputable news source does this. This is the difference between being a news source and a gossip columnist.
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
Ed Infurna January 7, 2013 at 07:47 pm
So, if I follow your logic, if the Darien police report said Mr Jones was arrested for DWI, it's your position that before reporting on this, it should be verified by calling someone else, other than the Darien Police to corroborate? Perhaps Mr Jones? Really?
Carol Wilder-Tamme January 7, 2013 at 08:06 pm
I know of one food establishment that received a demerit once because the water coming out of the tap was too hot. Sometimes a demerit does not mean unclean.
Estrella January 7, 2013 at 08:20 pm
Ed,
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.
Ed Infurna January 7, 2013 at 08:35 pm
No, Estrella, you are wrong. the fault lies 100% with the Darien Health Dept, for posting an error on a matter of public record. That should be right. Mr Gurliacci is no more responsible (or liable) for their error than he would be in the example I cite with the hypothetical Mr Jones and his DWI. They are a PRIMARY source, not a secondary on. I agree you verify secondary sources, but that is not a prerequisite here, legally or ethically.
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.
Estrella January 7, 2013 at 08:45 pm
Ed,
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.
sebastian dangerfield January 7, 2013 at 08:51 pm
Estrella,
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.
EG January 7, 2013 at 09:23 pm
How exactly does a restuarant go from 3 to 1 plate in less than two months, a la Jimmy's? Cleanest restaurant in town. Maybe Patch should check there facts, oh wait that is what real news sources are for...
Estrella January 7, 2013 at 09:47 pm
Sebastian,
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.
Mrs McJudgerson January 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Estrella - rather than harrassing the Darien Patch editor, why not look somewhere else for local news? There are at least three other local news sources in our small town. I'm confident that you can find something that meets your reporting standards.
happy girl January 7, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Estrella, maybe you shouldnt read it as a fact until you read it from a secondary source that verifies the story.
Estrella January 7, 2013 at 10:53 pm
Mrs. Mcjudgerson,
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????
Estrella January 8, 2013 at 01:28 am
Mr. Gurliacci,
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?
sebastian dangerfield January 8, 2013 at 01:54 am
Estrella--I read earlier (11:42 am) that he is off today.
Maybe you made a mistake? Should we all stop listening to you? (now let's see if you respond to this?)
sebastian dangerfield January 8, 2013 at 02:27 am
Estrella
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?
John Roberson January 8, 2013 at 03:44 am
Estrella,
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
Estrella January 8, 2013 at 11:57 am
Sebastian,
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.
sebastian dangerfield January 8, 2013 at 11:34 pm
estrella
Another mistake. You are not 'blogging'-- this is a comment section. Get to know the difference. In fact, just try to get something correct.
Estrella January 9, 2013 at 11:56 am
Sebastian,
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.
Bob Jordan January 9, 2013 at 09:21 pm
I wish someone report on exactly what the specific problems were for all "poor" and all "downgraded" establioshments. Prior requests along this line seem to have gone unanswered. I suspect source was Town web site as post rating but no detail. If so, lazy as well as inadequate reporting.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Darien Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something