I will be more hesitant eating in town if the board of health is disbanded. I would rather be overzealous with infractions to better ensure my community's health and safety. It is better to be strict than lax when it comes to public health. An infraction is not a positive; why would anyone want to be more lenient with something like that?

Can someone in the restaurant industry or a health professional can better explain the issues as to why the current system is not working from a health persepective--not a financial perspective? Maybe I am not understanding this issue properly.

Interestingly the current township attorney is a resident of Scotch Plains and also the township attorney there. Scotch Plains is one of a number of towns that are waiting for an opening to occur in order to have the Westfield Board of Health perform services for them, since they are at their maximum limit right now.
Apparently his responsibility is only to perform legal representation and not provide any input. But someone should ask him why Scotch Plains wants something our TC members are willing to throw away.

Springfield has 92 food related establishments. The Health Department from Westfield inspects approximately 10% of these establishments each month. In the past five years, five establishments have been asked to come to a BOH meeting due to unresolved violations and non-compliance with the health laws. Only one was ever closed for two days.

Based on such a minimal number, I would say that this BOH is not being “unfriendly” to businesses. They are doing their jobs by working with the Health Department to ask business owners to clean up their restaurants and stores for the health and well being of their patrons. What business would not want to be in compliance with the health laws of our state? From the report I’ve read, the corrections did not seem to be a burden on the business, either financially or otherwise. I question the business practices of an owner who finds the BOH’s requests for compliance unfriendly.

The Associated Humane Society had their contract terminated by the Town Administrator on May 11, 2011. There is no problem with the search and hiring of a less expensive Animal Control vendor, but since the Township Committee took the responsibility for Animal Control away from the Board of Health, then they are also responsible for making sure that Millburn Animal Control, the new vendor, follows state law. There is documentation that their work has been less than proficient. If the Township Committee cannot demand accountability from Animal Control, how will they ever be able to assume the workload required of the current Board of Health?

Mayor Shehady says in his Message to the Mayor that “autonomy allows some entities to go in a different direction from the policies of the elected members of the Township Committee.” Isn’t that what the BOH autonomy is about? Maintaining health and safety standards outside of political pressure?

It seems that power and the removal of dissent are the only true motivators at work here. Using the ordinance change, hidden under financial and streamlining excuses, will remove any obstruction to this administration’s agenda.

Just look at the names of the people fighting for this. Has David Barnett gone to one Township Committee Meeting before beating Bart in the Primary? I watch on TV and have not seen him at one meeting, now that he is running, he decides to grandstand on a mic. You tell me that this is not POLITICAL. Please.

Allow me to preface my statement by saying that I am NOT a germaphobe. Autonomy in health issues is to protect the public with compliance of laws and regulations. I do not shop/eat/treat at certain establishments in Springfield because of what I have personally seen, not heresay or rumor. This personsal 'rule' applies to groceries, restaurants, salons, healthclubs and even our schools. I have and will continue to blow the whistle (after I indicate infraction to a manager/owner) on anyone that violates laws put in place specifically to protect me and my fmaily and you, as well. Beyond the Health Department, there is the Division of Consumer Affairs in Newark and the Division of Taxation in Trenton. I do not snoop and seek infractions, they are just so blatantly apparent. Eyes wide open and ever vigilant, I find this exhausting and basically unfair to all consumers.

Maragret I googled some info to see about your statement and I found this from A study of New Jersey Public Health System from 2008
• • • • •
133 had an autonomous board of health; 59 had advisory boards;
140 stated that the municipal governing body functioned as the board of health 35 stated that they were covered by a county board of health; and
10 municipalities stated that they have no local board of health.

Any municipality operating under the Optional Municipal Charter Act (N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1), better known as the “Faulkner Act”, is not required to establish a separate board of health. In these municipalities, the governing body is authorized to act as the board of health. It may also establish an advisory board of health, which monitors public health issues within its jurisdiction, but only in an advisory capacity to the municipal governing body. In these municipalities, the local health department and its employees are under the authority of the municipal government. So more towns have the governing body have final say then an autonomous board.

Finally more people are finding out that the mayor doesn't tell the truth. Being a control freak, not telling the truth and being so young isn't a good combination for anyone let alone someone in the office of mayor.

rfriedman, what exactly has the mayor not told the truth about? And why is being young an issue?

Anonymous, I didn't mean you removed it, I meant "someone" who didn't want that up there did it.

And Shane, while you can't believe everythingt that's written in newspapers, the Local Source had a couple of articles yesterday that would answer your question. The things I'm aware of are a resident was biten by a coyote and the information about it was denied by Ziad, despite its accuracy. He also stated that nothing was being done in regard to any changes with the board of health or the Westfield Dept. of Health, but that was while he was privately negotiating with the Westfield mayor to allow Springfield to bail out of their agreement with Westfield and negotiating with Madison for them to replace Westfield.
And even Madison has shown in their meeting minutes that discussions had taken place between them and Springfield, despite Ziad's denials.

It's too bad the board of health meeting wasn't televisted or else the public would have seen exactly what went on. There was no 'grilling' of the business owner, he was treated in a respectful manner and asked questions that any concerned resident would have wanted to be asked. What they also would have seen was someone who displayed an attitude of being bothered by the questions instead of accepting responsibility and displaying a willingness to cooperate.
To be completely fair, there isn't any restaurant owner in any city or town who can completely control all of their employees actions and some of the issues brought up by the Health Dept. are minor and alone would not result in a problem for the restaurant. But the combination of the minor issues along with the more significant ones were the reason the owner was called before the board, in addition to the multiple times the establishment received violations which went uncorrected.
If the TC approves disbanding the board of health and ultimately replaces the Westfield Dept of Health, they will be doing a terrible disservice to the community and should be held accountable on election day.

Why does everyone keep saying that they intend to disband the Board of Health? Is this a scare tactic? Because it's clearly not true. The proposal on the table is to move from an autonomous Board of Health made up of members of the township, to a Board of Health made up of the members of the Township Committee as well as two members of the township (and two alternates.) Further, any discussion about switching Health Departments are about reducing expenses, not services. The services provided by the Health Department are laid out in STATE law.

Did you know that many of the township committee members have significant experience in food handling safety and policy? In some cases far more experience then the current members of the Board of Health.

I encourage people to educate themselves on the FACTS, rather then the partisan political fear mongering that is happening here.

Anthony Fannelli, you're only telling 1/2 the story, alot like Ziad does. Bruce Bergen was in fact the township attorney both times I was mayor, however the position was open and advertised for other attornies to respond. In addition, we changed some of the requirements in order to enable more people to respond and to try and get the best people possible. From the people who did respond both years, Mr. Bergen was absolutely the best qualified. You may not like him personally or professionally, however choosing anyone else who applied for the position would have been a terrible injustice to the town. Mr. Shehady had every opportunity to recommend someone for the position because he knew I was open to change. The attorney I asked to apply for the position works as the township attorney for another town and works the same nights, so he couldn't do it.
You should get your information straight before making your statement. As for the board of health, and the Westfield Dept of Health, Westfield does the actual inspecting on a daily basis, and the board of health is an advisory board. They listens to certain issues (once a month) that may arise from incidents reported by the Health Dept. and have the authority to impose penalties.
That's why an autonomous board, like we currently have, rather then the TC members taking over, should not change.

I have been away from the internet for a few days and am encouraged to see that many other residents have responded to the half-truths and misinformation that has been provided by the mayor regarding this issue. Please, all of you, even those who support the mayor;s position, come out to the June 26 meeting.
The mayor's comments on Facebook regarding the "grilling" of the business owner and the procedure which resulted in the "penalty" which he incurs only if he is again found in violation indicates precisely why the political TC should NOT be in control of the Board of Health. The business owner's attitude to the Board and the Dept of Health was arrogant, defiant and very troubling. It was ther Board of Health itself which imposed the penalty, not the Dpt. of Health, so the idea that a hearing
was not needed was procedurally incorrect. A political majority on th TC which is business-centered at the expense of the residents well-being is frightening to contemplate. We be business friendly and work with the businesses to have the appropriate priorities but not at the cost of lowering standards and incurring risks.
was not necessary is totally incorrect as far as procedure goes.

The Westfield Dept of Health recommended a 24 month period during which if less then a satisfactory inspection resulted, the business would incur a penalty of 2 days being closed. The board of health reduced the period from 24 months to 18 months, since its their responsibility to impose the guidelines.

The Health Dept cannot impose penalties. Only the BOH can impose penalties. The power of the BOH is what motivated the restaurant to correct their violations and become compliant. The restaurant was told by the Health Dept HOW to become compliant after their first inspection in March. The restaurant chose not to correct their violations until June 4th and did not receive their sign off from the Health Department until June 13th. What likely motivated them was that they would have to appear before the BOH on June 13th. The BOH's only penalty was to advise them that they would be closed down for two days, if Sofia's puts the public's health at risk within the next 18 months.

The fines that the restaurant needed to pay were to the town for not having a Township license and for the cost of being re-inspected again. There was no fine from the BOH for their violations.

If the TC assumes the role of the BOH, and does not penalize restaurants, then restaurants would have no motivation to comply, and would face no penalty for risking public health.

Shane-
Efforts are not duplicated. Think of it roughly as the Dept Health providing investigation and urging businesses to comply and the Board as the Executive/Judicial branch, imposing penalties which may be suggested by the Dept of Health when necessary. Hearings are rather rare and held only when the business has had mutiple, continous serious violations and, as in the last two cases, failed to work with the inspector and correct the violations over 3 months during which follow up inspections are conducted. If you had attended the hearing last week, for example, and had an opportunity to read the reports and evaluate the business owner's response to the board, it would have been clear. It was disturbing, as was Mr. Shehady's interpretation of and mis-statements about what was happening. He also seemed to misunderstand the different functions of the Board and the Dept. of Health. That is of concern when you consider what he is proposing.

If there was a Coyote attack in July of 2011, why is the only information posted about it, a single email from Mr. Shah to Mr. Cancro from April of 2012. It seems that if there was such a large public health concern that this would have been brought to the towns attention much sooner. What stopped the current members of the Board of Health from reaching out to the community?

So it's the Township Administrators fault that the information wasn't made public, not the BOH. Seems like everyone is to blame except the BOH, how convenient.

Further, I see nothing wrong with the Deputy Mayor speaking on behalf of a local retailer, especially one he's worked with for MANY years. I'd prefer that we work closely with the businesses in town on health issues then taking punitive approaches. The fact is, businesses that make people sick don't stay in business for very long, so it's not in anyone's best interest for any safety issues to go unresolved, but there are MANY ways to resolve them.

If the TC is purposefully subverting the law, I suggest you address these issues in a court of law, rather then in the court of public opinion and local politics. Beyond that you are simply engaging in a smear campaign simply because you don't agree with the decisions being made by the current administration. Exactly what you are accusing them of doing. Remember, the TC is publicly elected, the BOH is not.

What was the final result of the merchant that the deputy mayor testifyed for? Did he pass his last inspection?

EDITED:

Regarding the establishment referenced with the Deputy Mayor (March) the outcome was actually very good and shows the benefit of the BOH. They had a hearing because of having 3 Conditionally Satisfactory inspections, each spaced a month apart. Their top management got involved and hired a consultant. The consultant came in, did training, and cleaned up the place. Their management was so impressed that they paid the consultant to clean up their other operations that are outside Springfield, therefore helping the health of people outside Springfield as well too. Clearly that owner saw some benefit which is why he invested the money. The "punishment" the merchant received is that will face closure IF they are Conditionally Satisfactory in the next 12 months. If they remain Satisfactory, there is no closure, which is why it is hard to call it a punishment. No fines were imposed, but they have to pay a fee for each reinspection.

I reached out to the deputy mayor on this issue. It is my understanding that MJ CULLEN, you seem wrong on the merchant that the deputy mayor testified for and the merchant that threw out the Health Officer. Seems that he testified in an open public meeting, that he knew was recorded. He did not do anything sneaky or covert. He did not ask for any favors to be handed to the merchant. He asked to work together with the merchant before forcing closure or hefty fines. He explained that he knew the owner, through his business and knew that the merchant would comply. That the merchant had an impeccable reputation in the food service industry and has been in the business for many years. He felt comfortable knowing the individual, that he would accomplish the goal of complying, and that if he was not positive or did not know the individual he would not have testified. Seems that he was correct. My understanding is that the Health Official returned in one week, and the merchant had hired a food trainer. According to the deputy mayor, the merchant had exceeded the health departments expectations, and became the gold standard for all businesses in Springfield. He felt that this saved jobs in our town, that perhaps if the merchant was forced to close that jobs would have been lost. He also said he was certified in safe serve and had a good understanding of the violations. That they could be corrected easily. The merchant had fired previous management that did nt do their job.

Shane, even though I disagree with just about everything you say about the mayor, at least your posts are respectful and coherant, unlike those of some others.
Since you often ask questions, I have one for you. You and others have said the mayor is trying to make Springfield business friendly with his approach. My question is why he wasn't as willing with Dobbs Auto Body, who for many years has been one of a number of tow operators allowed to tow in Springfield. The owner of Dobbs, is a staunch Repbulican, so his displeasure with them certainly can't be politically motivated, even though they have been a responsible, and active business in Springfield and have donated money and services to the township numerous times. So why is the mayor and his TC followers so intent on making things difficult for Dobbs?