All five canteens received failing marks during the first term’s canteen inspection. Though they received grades lower than the passing mark of 8 out of 10, La Casita and Zaide Canteen nabbed the top spots while SPS canteen and the Animo Foodhouse lagged behind the two.
The canteen inspection is a routine for DLSU canteens. Every term, the Canteen Inspection Committee (CIC), composed of representatives from the University Student Government, Parents of University Students Organization (USG), Security and Safety Office and University Clinic, among others, evaluate the canteens in terms of the preparation, selling and dining areas, personnel and canteen surroundings. The CIC follows a set of specific criteria in surveying the performances of the different canteens.
According to the canteens, each academic year’s first term is usually the most hectic; they expect to receive low grades during those times.
“We expected the low grades since during the first term, most students especially the freshmen eat at our canteens,” Malou Garrido, assistant supervisor of La Casita, shares. In her canteen’s case, the Br. Andrew Gonzalez Hall branch is busier than usual because most of the freshmen’s classes are held in the said building.
SPS canteen staff Tuesday Flores also says that they expected the low grades because the canteen has many concessionaires that are difficult to maintain.
One of the arguments of the canteens against the evaluation process is the time that inspections are made. They said that the inspections were made during the canteens’ lunch rush hours.
USG Vice President for Internal Affairs Jinkay Manimbo explains that the canteens are informed by the CIC when the assessors visit the canteens.
Regarding sanitary issues, the canteen employees also explain that during their food preparation process, mess and spills are unavoidable. They were quick to reassure that they immediately clean the preparation area to keep their workplace in order.
Zaide’s management focuses on the cleanliness of the preparation and eating area. Employees are not allowed to touch the garbage before touching food products, and the canteen’s garbage is disposed three times a day. In addition, the management requires its staff to wear the proper uniform, including hairnets. The kitchen screens were also replaced to prevent dust accumulation.
On the other hand, the SPS canteen’s management follows the suggestions made by the previous term’s CIC. Communication between the management and the concessionaires were improved for better sanitation.
La Casita’s Garrido informs that her canteen conducts monthly fumigations to maintain the cleanliness of the area. The canteen also increased their stock room area and had minor kitchen renovations to continuously improve the canteen’s performance.
Warnings and sanctions in the form of one-day suspensions were given to the canteens that failed the inspection. This is done to make the canteens learn their lesson and improve their sanitation and services.
Manimbo discloses that the CIC is discussing whether the one-day suspension be increased to two days. She recounts the times when the canteens consecutively failed the termly inspection, got suspended, but still didn’t improve their service. She even shares that during one of the inspection dates, a canteen allowed an employee with sore eyes to serve throughout the day.
“The results of the CIC don’t mean that the canteens are filthy or that the students should take precautionary measures and totally avoid it. The inspection process should pressure the canteens to improve their operating standards since the health of the students lies with them,” Manimbo defends.
In response, the canteens raised an issue regarding the absence of the qualitative comments and suggestions that are usually attached with the inspection grade.
Belen Aliazas, Head of the CIC and Director of the Building and Grounds, explains that the unsatisfactory grades received by the canteens were effects of the different levels of understanding of the inspectors. She illustrates one of the questions in the survey form regarding the presence of a drinking fountain.
According to her, the ideal score, from one to 10, for that question should range from 8 to 10 since it only asks for the existence of a drinking fountain, which all canteens have. She says that some inspectors gave a grade of three and four for the question.
To address this lapse of skill and information, the CIC plans to train its members on evaluation procedures and how to efficiently conduct them, but she firmly stands by the questionnaires the CIC distributes to its inspectors. She boasts how the grades are systematically computed with the use of descriptive statistics despite some questions’ inadmissibility to be graded numerically.
Zaide’s Marivic Casteneda and La Casita’s Garrido, both say that numbers can only show the performance, but it does very little on informing the different canteens what problems they should address to improve. This term, only the grades were distributed to the management.
Aliazas defends that the qualitative comments will follow after the announcement of grades. She cites that the cause of delay of the release of last term’s CICs was the several committee members who were late in submitting their evaluations.
Editor’s Note:
Animo Food Haus, which scored the lowest, did not respond to The Lasallian’s efforts to get their side.
