Schiff explains inspector documentation and record retention practices
Schiff says inspectors are trained to document observations in sworn summonses and detailed reports. She says DOHMH maintains written protocols and training materials and will follow up on exact inspection record retention periods; she says the department has some record of dismissed or reduced violations but has not recently analyzed trends.
What are our DOHMH inspectors currently required or instructed to document?
You just said that.
How does the department determine whether a violation has been sufficiently documented to support the issuance of a notice of violation?
So that is a big part of our training program.
And the big cohort of new inspectors that I met last week or so were learning all of the different violations,
trained in customer service to be able to deliver that teaching inspection, and also to document that.
It is a legal document, and we do have to establish the conditions that meet the violation.
Is this one statement sufficient?
The summons that we issue is a sworn statement by the inspectors.
They're putting in details of their observations, and then they're signing it at the end.
I think you mentioned this.
DOHMH maintains written protocols and training materials.
We do.
Governing this?
Okay.
How long are FSE?
Inspection records retained.
You know, we meet the city's record retention program, and I will get back to you about exactly what that number is, because I don't want to get that wrong.
Does the department track how often violations are dismissed, reduced, or otherwise resolved because of insufficient documentation or conflicting accounts of the inspection?
We have some record of that, yes.
And is there any trends that come out of that that you see?
I haven't looked at that in a long time, so I don't know, but others are looking at that.
Sure.
Curiosity.