BILL NUMBER:  S4472

 TITLE OF BILL :  An act to direct cities with a population of one
million or more which employ health inspectors to oversee the
compliance of restaurants and food establishments

 PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL :

To establish an independent oversight body to receive anonymous
complaints about health inspectors from restaurant owners and
employees, as well as provide the option to restaurant owners to
reschedule an inspection up to three times by paying a fee.

 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS :

Section one sets the short title "Restaurant Owner Whistleblower
Protection Act".

Section two provides that all cities with a population of one million
or more which employ health inspectors to oversee the compliance of
restaurants and food establishments with local health regulations
shall establish an independent oversight body to receive anonymous
complaints about health inspectors. Furthermore, such independent
oversight body must provide complaint intake through a hotline and
website provided in the following languages: Arabic; Bengali; Chinese;
French; Haitian-Creole; Korean; Russian; Spanish and Urdu.  Such
              

independent oversight body shall investigate any consistent reporting
about health inspectors from restaurant owners or employees and shall
refer such cases to the city's investigative agency to form an annual
summary report, including the total amount of complaints, top type of
complaints, and investigative findings.

Section three provides that all cities with a population of one
million or more which employ health inspectors to oversee the
compliance of restaurants and food establishments with local health
regulations shall establish a process for restaurants and food
establishments to refuse and reschedule an inspection up to three
times by paying a fee to the agency employing the health inspector.
The fees to be imposed shall be:

a. seventy-five dollars for a first-time rescheduling

b. one hundred fifty dollars for a second-time rescheduling

c. two hundred fifty dollars for a third-time rescheduling

Section four sets forth the effective date.

 JUSTIFICATION :

Small businesses made up 98% of all businesses in New York State
according to the Empire State Development (ESD) Annual Report on the
State of Small Businesses (August 2016). Among businesses which have
less than 20 employees, the Accommodations and Food Service Industry
ranked second-place for employment, and ranked the highest-employing
industry among businesses which have 20-49 employees. It is crucial to
maintain healthy economic regulations for small businesses, with
nearly half of New York State's private-sector workforce employed by
these industries.

However, we are seeing a combination of factors that have recently
forced many of small businesses to shut down. Some of these factors
include excessive-fining, harsh regulations, rent increase, and higher
wages; all contributing to the closure of countless family-owned
restaurants. In result, numerous media outlets are beginning to cover
the hardships of restaurant owners and advocate for well-needed
protections. The New York Times published the story of a New York City
restaurant owner who will be shutting down the restaurant in May after
17 years of steady business. The closure is inevitable due to real
estate taxes that have more than doubled in the past two years, as
well as a lack of revenue to support rising minimum wage. Another
Manhattan restaurant owner describes a similar story in a Daily Times
article, as he mentions that he has had to triple the cost of a meal
since his business first opened in the 1990's, and further explains
that New York State and Municipal regulations bring outrageous
paperwork requirements to mom-and-pop shops that are nearly impossible
for non-chain restaurants to maintain. The NY Eater has covered over
300 similar stories since 2014 - a track record that indicates clear
trends in the closure of NYC restaurants.

The Department of Health currently facilitates inspections of food
establishments within set time periods (also known as cycles), but
lacks the oversight needed to prevent food inspectors from abusing
their powers. Many vulnerable small businesses and restaurant owners
suffer from the current process; as food inspectors are not held
accountable for inappropriate behavior, such as breaking the
inspection schedule or unfairly grading restaurants by using improper
grading assessment standards. Although restaurants and food
establishments may regularly maintain a clean, organized and safe
environment, unscrupulous inspectors have the ability to assign a poor
assessment - out of mistake, bias or aggressive influence during the
inspection. In such cases, these business owners endure long waiting
periods to be reevaluated and have no way of filing a complaint
against the inspector for inappropriate behavior or wrongful grading.
In order to safeguard our small businesses from this kind of unjust
discretion, an independent oversight body should be established to
collect complaints against inspectors, and small business owners
should also be able to reschedule their inspection with a new
inspector up to three times by paying a fee to the inspector's agency.

 PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

This is a new bill.

 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS :

None to the state.

 EFFECTIVE DATE :
This act shall take effect immediately.