Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1941-01-16
ElIicott Replies
To Farm Bureau
Accusations Here


has altogether four health depart
ment inspectors. Montgomery has
three, and has a heavier load
in dairy farm inspection, in
distributors milk sample collec-
lions, and in septic tank and privy
permit inspections. The men have
to cover a territory of 400 square
miles and $4,000 people. Like
other rural areas part of Mont
gomery county has large number
Of unsanitary privies lover 2,000)
which need replacement. It also
has ITO boarding homes as COM
pared to three in Arlington county,
and 81 public schools as compared
to 26.
Administration-The claim that
the subcommittee felt there was
a serious deficiency in records
based on the daily reports of the
three sanitary inspectors for No
vember, 1910. I analysed these and
found no deficiency. The SUBJ
committee infers from one mans
reports that he spent 10 full days
in the Office. This is not the case.
This mans record listed some office
time for Is of the 201s working
days for that month. He did de-
vote as much as as per cent of his
time to office work that month, and
did so for a justifiable reason. The
office time of the two other inspec-
tors was 33 and Is per cent.
AS to Every little work being
done by employees" (presuming
that the reference is still santa
tion), records of field work for the
two inspectors employed in both
1889 and 1910 show an increase of
approximately 8 per cent for 1910
as compared to 1889. The other
inspector was appointed in Novem-
Der, 1889. 1 am satisfied that the
volume of work done by our men
in both these years was up to
standard. They may be checked
by obtaining an opinion from the
State Department of Health.
Supervision-As to the supervi-
sion of sanitary inspectors, confer
ences of two or more are held ap-
proximately daily. The health
officer takes part in approximately
half of these and the senior sani-
tary inspector in the others. "Gen-
eral conferences" in which all three
inspectors and the health officer
take part are not held frequently
because few questions involve the
entire staff. This is principally
because one mans work is limited
to duties not performed by the
other two. More supervision of
the sanitary service is needed,
however. A public health engineer
is being requested in next years
budget. This service is also handi-
capped by inadequate Office space.
Dairy Inspections-The claim is
made that two sanitary inspectors
originally employed for dairy in
spections have been transferred to
sanitary inspections. This is not
true. Previous to April, 1885, only
one inspector was employed. Be-
cause dairy farm inspections were
behind schedule at that time an
additional man was appointed on a
temporary basis. At the end IF
five months he was given a per-
manent appointment, not as dairy
farm inspector, but, as a sanitary
inspector. 1t was agreed at the
time that he would do both dairy
farm and general sanitation work
in the same way as the other in
spector.
Ratings of the milk sanitation
program were made by the State
Department of Health and the
United States Public Health Serv-
ice in 1888 and repeated by the
State in 1910. The 1910 rating
showed the following improvement
over 1898:
Retail raw, 1870; Shippers,
1850; Pasteurization Plants, 274o /;
Pasteurized Milk, 21.7%.
Food Inspection-The claim that
food establishments have not been
compelled to comply with the law
is an overstatement. Our inspec-
tor, Mr.. Boyd, informed the sub
committee that by making repeat
cd visits to establishments, he has
been able to establish compliance
in all cases. There is, however, a
need for more frequent inspection
of these places.