Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1941-01-09

| MOAVSOAA0Iy OOUuCy Wy Our hcdlttl
Officer, it is stated that the Ad-
visory Committee approved the
proposed health budget. Members
of this committee have been con-
tacting some of these members, who
repeatedly had signed the report
and find that some of them do not
know anything about it and did not
know their names were connected
with it and furthermore are opposed
to the contents of such report.
Your committee wishes to call to
the attention of the Farm Bureau
that the proposed increased budget
is predicted on a great need in
rural Montgomery county as COM
pared with minimum needs in the
suburban area. We find no basis
for such conclusion and deplore an
apparent effort to secure support
on promise of charity to the
rural areas.
We would also call to the at
tention Of the Farm Bureau the
fact that dairy farms scores under
County regulations are incomplete
after several conferences with the
Health Officer and during the
period February /, 1910 to Novem-
Der 1, 1910, such condition has re-
suited in loss of approximately
$20,O00.00 to dairy farmers
through milk sales. Further, in
so doing the Health Department
has violated a law of its own
making, without any saving to con-
tsumers and at great health risk
to them.
From the foregoing we are led
to the conclusion that we do Z
know how much funds are needed
fer an efficient health department;
that we should disapprove any in
crease at present, and urge the
governing bodies to establish an
efficient administration of the office
under the same budget and await
such time as experience can guide
US as to the amount of future ap-
porpriations.
Various items called for under
the proposed increased budget are
discussed in the following para
graphs of this report.
1. We are in sympathy with the
aims Of the Health Department
and feel that there is need for
better health service than we are
receiving under the present set-up.
Until the work of the Health Off
Ger efficiently demonstrates the
need for assistance we do not rec
cmmend an additional Health Off
Ger at TINS time.
2. We are not opposed to full
time dentist, but question whether
or not the present funds, properly
allotted would not permit a full
time dentist to care for the need
specified in the Health Department
report.
8. Since this committee feels that
there is no justification at the
present time for an increased
budget of the Health Department
for previously stated reasons, we
do not feel that additional nurses
or supervising nurse, can be added
at this time.
A. We believe that with better
cooperation between health nurses,
physicians and lay council members
and PIT. AS in the various dis
tricts, more and better clinical
service and program of educational
value to all will result, without
additional cost at this time.
5. We approve of regular inspec-
ton of eating and drinking estab-
lishments, food stores, dairy
farms, boarding homes and health
inspection of all persons handling
food in such establishments. We
approve of proper inspection of
licensed dumps, inspection of water
supplies and other recommended
requirements in rural areas, but
after an inspection of the records
of the Health Department, relating
to these services, we believe that if
the present employees spent more
time in the field, the services room
mended in the report could be
rendered without additional per-
sonnet. We have arrived at this
conclusion after having examined
the records and found them incom-
plete. We further recommend that
the inspection score be posted
monthly in such food handling es-
adjustments as are regularly in
spected. This procedure is car
ried out in Arlington county, Va.
6. We concede the advantage in