Health inspection scores improved at only one campus eatery since last spring, and 11 campus dining facilities received the lowest grade of “C” under a new inspection methodology, according to previously unreleased university records.
The records were among 545 pages of inspection reports kept by the campus Department of Environment, Health and Safety and internal e-mails turned over to the Guardian in response to a January public records act request.
Overall, the records show that health scores at more than 30 on-campus restaurants dropped an average of 13.5 points under a new inspection format adapted by the university last fall to meet preexisting state requirements enacted in 2002.
“The old inspections were thorough — I’d say as thorough as the new system,” EHS specialist Bruce Bowers said. “The [new] grading system is just harder. It was much easier to make an ‘A’ in the old system.”
The Food Co-op posted the largest quarter-to-quarter decline, falling to 67 points in the fall compared to a score of 97 after the inspection conducted last spring. Among the violations, recently hired inspector Darryl Yorkey noted “excessive” dirt, debris and vermin excrement on the facility’s floors, and ordered operators to “abate rodent and vermin issues.”
All scores below 80 receive the lowest grade of “C” under the inspection format.
Yorkey also temporarily suspended the Food Co-op’s operational health permit in November, preventing it from engaging in food preparation until it fixed equipment providing potable water to the facility, according to the records.
On a reinspection less than a week later, Yorkey noted in the department’s records that “food preparation was being conducted prior to clearing of conditional permit suspension.”
However, the co-op did not start serving food until it had made the necessary corrections and ensured safe access to water, according to employee and Thurgood Marshall College junior Tiffany Rapp.
“There was no food preparation going on before the water heater was fixed,” she said, noting that student health was not at risk.
In addition, Yorkey gave Porter’s Pub a “C” grade with a score of 71. At the pub, the inspector observed “excessive accumulation of dirt, debris, rodent excrement and rust throughout the facility,” and noted evidence of mold growth on the walls of the walk-in refrigerator and behind beer taps.
At Rubio’s, the records indicate that employees voluntarily discarded 40 pounds of poultry that Yorkey found defrosting in an unsafe manner. The facility received an “A” grade, with a score of 93.
Overall, none of the eight Housing and Dining Services facilities inspected in the fall received an “A” grade under the new inspection rubric. Club Med, Price Center Catering and OceanView Terrace each scored a“C.”
Sierra Summit, Plaza Cafe, Earl’s Place and Foodworx did not receive a letter grade because they were evaluated earlier in the quarter, before Yorkey adopted the new inspection process in November.
“I don’t think the scores that you see in our area are indicative of what we do,” said HDS Associate Director of Dining Services Brian E. Klippel. “It’s not who we are.”
Since the facilities have always received scores of 90 or above, Klippel said raising the scores back up was simply a matter of learning the methods of the new health inspector, who was hired by the university in September, and adjusting to a new inspection format. The eateries are already addressing concerns expressed by Yorkey, he said.
“Anything less is unacceptable,” Klippel said. “We expect that all of our next inspections will be in the 90-plus range because we have responded to the issues that he raised. We are on a quick learning curve.”
Some campus vendors have expressed concern over the lower scores, which EHS earlier declined to post publicly, according to the department’s Safety and Risk Manager John D. Schmidt.
“[Vendors] are concerned that the scores are down,” he said. “Wouldn’t you be?”
However, the decreases in scores are not the result of increased frequency violations, but are instead caused by a new calculation method that assigns higher penalties for each violation, according to Schmidt and Bowers.
“We’re looking for the same elements, but they’re just graded differently,” Schmidt said. “That’s just to meet the state’s mandate to meet a uniform standard.”
Only Outback Adventures received a perfect score under the new grading method. The facility had not been previously evaluated. In addition, Birch Aquarium Snack Bar received a score of 96 in the fall, a one-point improvement from its score last spring and the only facility to improve its grade.
The Ché Café, which was evaluated under the old grading system in the fall, received a 67. Yorkey noted that 25 food containers at the facility were contaminated by rust, mold or mildew, and also found a 10-pound bag of flour “saturated from storage of an unknown liquid,” according to his records.
The inspection also states that Yorkey observed “rodent excrement on equipment” and in hard-to-reach areas of the floor, both repeat violations from last spring.
Assistant Director of Student Organizations Marcia A. Strong, listed on the forms as the operator or manager of the facility, said that her only role was to forward the inspections to the students who run the collective. A student who answered the phone at the cafe said he was unprepared to issue a statement on behalf of the collective.
System called a “blindside”
Though Schmidt and Bowers said the new inspection method adopted in the fall was not a significant break from tradition, e-mails turned over by EHS note concerns from several campus operators.
“While we are very interested and committed to complying with necessary food safety regulations, I am concerned that a change in personnel has effected what appears to be an overnight change in campus standards,” RIMAC Director of Sports Facilities Donald E. Chadwick stated in a Dec. 8 e-mail to Schmidt. “EHS has previously enjoyed a good reputation for working with departments, finding out what departments wanted to do, educating and helping them achieve their goals. Is it now: Let’s blindside them and shut down their operations?”
In an interview, Chadwick said his e-mail was an emotional one that probably exaggerated his concerns.
“It was a little different style of assessment and we were not quite prepared for that style when Darryl took over his position,” Chadwick said. “But we’ve [adapted] to it. They are standards that, quite frankly, we weren’t as familiar with as we could have been.”
Among the violations noted in the inspections, Chadwick said he was most upset by Yorkey’s order to “cease and desist” the preparation of soup and barbecues at the facility’s outdoor coffee cart.
“My biggest problem is that the changes were demanded on short notice,” Chadwick said. “It’s not that I disagree that we shouldn’t be doing this, it’s just that I did feel blindsided, there is no question about it.”
Schmidt said the department had probably erred by instituting the new program in a single quarter without allowing for a phase-in period to allow eateries to adjust, though he said he objected to the e-mail’s suggestion that Yorkey was to blame.
“To just throw a whole new program at them and change the rules overnight is pretty radical and probably unreasonable, if it was taken to a court,” Schmidt said. “[Chadwick’s] perception was that it’s Darryl. Well, it’s not Darryl, it’s the new tool.”
“Historical perspective” in doubt
In an e-mail response to Chadwick sent on Dec. 8, Schmidt stated that part of the problem was a three-year lack of a full-time campus health inspector.
“The regulations have changed over the years, and our extended vacancy in this position — three years — precluded us from being as vigilant as we should have been in the area of health inspections,” Schmidt’s e-mail stated. “Darryl is very thorough, which we encourage, but does not yet have the benefit of our historical perspective.”
The reference to the “historical perspective,” Schmidt said in an interview, was not describing the department’s relationship to the facilities but specific statutory exclusions that allow older facilities, to be exempt from certain health regulations.
“Darryl wasn’t familiar with that section,” Schmidt said. “He is a little bit more junior than we are.”
In particular, the e-mails indicate that Schmidt and Yorkey disagreed over whether the health code prohibited the RIMAC cart from serving barbecues. Though Yorkey maintained that an outside grill was prohibited by the code, Schmidt issued a waiver allowing for the operation of the barbecue to resume in the middle of February.
Because state regulations allow for operations of grills “in conjunction” with permanent facilities, Schmidt said he considered the barbecue part of the sports facility’s inside concession areas, not part of the cart that sold the food on the grill and collected payment.
In addition, Yorkey noted “extreme” — underlined twice — accumulation of dirt and debris throughout Price Center Catering. The records indicate that the violation had not been addressed since January 2003, when it was first noted.
“Dirty floors are not what I consider a major risk factor,” Bowers said, explaining that though EHS had previously shut down facilities for noncompliance, the department would not pursue the same route with the eatery.
Since Yorkey had just begun work for the university, there was no way for him to prove that the dirt he found on his inspection was, in fact, the same dirt noted in earlier inspections, according to Schmidt.
“They can clean it tomorrow and we can come back a quarter later and it could be dirty again,” he said. “It’s very difficult to gauge that it’s three years’ worth of dirt or three days’ worth of dirt. Darryl doesn’t have the historical perspective to gauge that it’s three years worth of dirt, and I suspect it’s not.”
Bowers, who inspected the facility prior to Yorkey’s hiring, said he did not recall whether the debris he witnessed in previous visits remained the same from quarter to quarter.
Though the catering facility has already hired a new cleaning crew to address the problem, HDS Associate Director of Retail Services Allan V. Moloney said he, too, lacks the historical perspective to explain why it took two years for the department to get the floors cleaned.
“I don’t know, because I haven’t been here for two years,” Moloney said.
Department slow to comply
Despite customer complaints over RIMAC’s decision to stop serving soup to meet the conditions of Yorkey’s order, and a resulting drop in business, Chadwick said his concern was not over compliance but over timing.
“Ultimately, our goal is the same, it really is,” he said. “It’s just a matter of how you get there. It was our goal to always comply, but we wanted to have time to react to it without affecting our customer service.”
In order to meet specific demands in the health code, RIMAC carried out a full reconstruction of one of its concession areas, converting a stand into a full kitchen that includes a water heater, full wall enclosures and a three-compartment sink. The changes, paid for out of the facility’s revenue and performed over winter break, were probably not as well-planned as they could have been, according to Chadwick.
“I think we went as fast as we possibly could,” he said, explaining that the pressure might have forced administrators to rush through the planning process.
When the state Legislature initially mandated a uniform inspection procedure for local health inspectors in 2001, lawmakers provided a two-year period for health agencies to finalize their own inspection formats.
However, Schmidt said EHS did not have the luxury of using the two-year waiting period to give vendors more time to comply because the department had not complied with the state’s timeline, which would have required the initial introduction of a standardized inspection format in January 2002.
At the time, EHS had taken a budget cut and had to lay off its permanent field inspector, according to Schmidt.
“We had to make a corporate decision: Do we put our resources, which we don’t have, into standardizing to meet every letter of the law, or are we going close enough to what they’re after?” he said. “We just made a decision, out of cost, that once we filled that vacancy, we’d have the new inspector study this and make it a project. And that unfortunately didn’t materialize until 2004, when Darryl arrived.”
Schmidt didn’t directly comment on whether the department’s decision violated section 516-1 of the campus’ Procedure and Policy Manual, which requires EHS to comply with accepted standards and regulations.
“I guess we were in violation of that one law, but there are thousands of regulations that we are in compliance with,” he said. “Is anyone ever 100 percent in compliance? That’s the question. We weren’t in compliance with this specific model, but we’ve had a model that incorporated all of the elements since 1965.”
Yorkey declined to comment, referring questions to Schmidt and Bowers. The California Department of Health did not return calls seeking comment.
