| Course | HLTH 6112 Governance and Public Policy |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Delegation memo |
| Length | About 840 words, 5 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | graduate public policy |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6112 Week 5
Memorandum
To: Environmental Health Policy Workgroup, Prairie Lakes Community Health Board
From: Graduate Policy Analyst
Date: October 5, 2026
Re: Tracing the power to order a restaurant to correct a violation, from the Legislature to the sanitarian, with each link documented
1. Purpose
This memo traces one power, the authority to order a restaurant to correct a food safety violation, from the body that first received it to the employee who uses it at a restaurant in our three-county area. Each link names the instrument that makes the handoff. Where I could not find the next instrument, the memo says so.
2. Link One: The Legislature to the Commissioner of Health
The Legislature placed the power with the commissioner of health. Section 157.20 provides that when an inspection finds an establishment "not being conducted, or is not equipped, in the manner required" by chapter 157 or the commissioner's rules, "it is the duty of the commissioner to notify the person in charge of the business... and issue an order for correction of the violations" (Minn. Stat. § 157.20). The commissioner's broader enforcement tools, including correction orders, administrative penalty orders and license suspension, rest on the Health Enforcement Consolidation Act, which expressly covers chapter 157 (Minn. Stat. § 144.99).
Status: documented in statute.
3. Link Two: The Commissioner to the Community Health Board
By a signed, written agreement, the commissioner may transfer the board some or all of the chapter 157 duties, covering licenses, inspections, reports and enforcement (Minn. Stat. § 145A.07). Prairie Lakes Community Health Board is a joint powers board of three contiguous counties, created by an agreement among the three county boards, as the community health board law directs for multicounty boards (Minn. Stat. § 145A.03). Its delegation agreement with the commissioner is on file with the board and the Department of Health.
Two conditions attach to this link. The agreement must list the criteria the commissioner will use to judge the board's performance and may provide for termination if the board fails to comply (Minn. Stat. § 145A.07). And because Prairie Lakes is a multicounty board, its joint powers or delegation agreement "shall clearly specify enforcement authorities" (Minn. Stat. § 145A.04). The board's agreement lists licensing, inspection and enforcement under chapter 157 among the delegated duties, including correction orders.
Status: documented in a signed agreement.
4. Link Three: The Board to Its Administrator
A community health board acts through people. The statute allows a board to "authorize, by resolution, the community health service administrator or other designated agent or agents to act on behalf of the community health board" (Minn. Stat. § 145A.03). The Prairie Lakes board adopted such a resolution at its organizational meeting, naming its community health services administrator as its agent for all delegated environmental health duties.
Status: documented in board minutes, which the board must keep as a public record of its transactions (Minn. Stat. § 145A.03).
5. Link Four: The Administrator to the Environmental Health Manager and Sanitarians
This is the link I could not find. The administrator supervises an environmental health manager, and the manager supervises three sanitarians who conduct inspections and write correction orders at the scene. In practice, the sanitarians issue orders every week. But I found no written instrument by which the administrator delegated the power to issue correction orders to the manager or the sanitarians: no subdelegation resolution in the minutes, no administrator's order and no clause in the job descriptions that names the power.
There are three possibilities. The authority may sit in an internal policy manual that is not public. It may be implied by the job descriptions, which describe "conducting inspections and enforcing state food code requirements" in general terms. Or the board's resolution may be read as authorizing the administrator "or other designated agent or agents," which could be read to include staff, though the resolution names only the administrator.
6. Why the Missing Link Matters
Correction orders are the most common enforcement action, and they are the first step toward penalties and suspension. If a restaurant contested an order on the ground that the person who issued it lacked authority, the board would need to show the chain to the sanitarian. The delegation agreement itself does not change the commissioner's legal responsibility for the duty (Minn. Stat. § 145A.07), so a weak link at the bottom of the chain is ultimately a state concern as well as a local one.
7. How the Chain Could Be Tested
A simple test would confirm or close the gap. The workgroup could ask the administrator for any written document, of any kind, that names the manager or the sanitarians as authorized to issue correction orders, and ask the board clerk whether any resolution after the organizational meeting addressed staff authority. If neither produces a document, the gap is real.
8. Recommendation
The workgroup should ask the board to adopt a short resolution authorizing the administrator to designate, in writing, the environmental health staff who may issue correction orders and other enforcement documents under the delegation agreement, and to keep the designations on file.
References
Delegation of powers and duties, Minn. Stat. § 145A.07 (2025).
Enforcement, Minn. Stat. § 144.99 (2025).
Establishment and organization, Minn. Stat. § 145A.03 (2025).
Inspection; frequency; risk categories; orders, Minn. Stat. § 157.20 (2025).
Powers and duties of community health board, Minn. Stat. § 145A.04 (2025).
HLTH 6112 Week 5 instructions, in plain terms
The memo asks students to follow a single power downward from the body that first received it, documenting each handoff with the instrument that made it. It is not an organization chart: a supervisory line does not count as a delegation unless something in writing passes the power. Faculty expect the memo format, with a stated audience, a purpose line and numbered sections, and each link reported with its status. Where the writer cannot find the next instrument, the memo should say so plainly and describe the possibilities rather than filling the gap with assumptions. A short discussion of why the missing link matters and a recommendation usually close the memo. Sources are statutes, agreements, resolutions or minutes, each cited where it supports a link, and any document not public should be described as such.
How this HLTH 6112 Week 5 example is built
The sample is addressed to an environmental health workgroup and begins with a purpose section naming the power in its first sentence. Link one quotes section 157.20 on correction orders and points to the enforcement act in section 144.99. Link two describes the board's signed delegation agreement and notes the two conditions statute attaches: performance criteria and a clear statement of enforcement authority for multicounty boards. Link three cites the section 145A.03 provision letting a board authorize its administrator by resolution, and points to the minutes as the record. Link four reports the gap: sanitarians write orders but no subdelegation document names them. The memo lists three explanations, explains the litigation risk of a contested order, proposes a document request to test the gap and recommends a resolution authorizing written staff designations.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 6112 Week 5 rubric
This memo is evaluated chiefly on the integrity of its chain. Each link should name the giver, the receiver and the document, and links supported only by job titles or habit lose credit. Honesty about gaps is rewarded rather than penalized: a memo that reports a missing link and explains its significance scores above one that papers over it. Accuracy of legal citations matters because every link rests on them. Memo craft forms another share of the grade, including a clear audience, purpose, numbered sections and a recommendation proportionate to the finding. Faculty also look for a test the reader could run to confirm the analysis. Concise writing is valued, since a reader should grasp the chain in a few minutes. References in APA format, with each statute section and the composite documents described accurately, complete the expectations.
HLTH 6112 Week 5 help from the desk
Delegation memos are commonly returned because they describe who supervises whom and treat that as proof of authority. Others stop at the agency level and never reach the person who actually uses the power. A third pattern is inventing a document to complete the chain, which defeats the purpose of the exercise. To prevent these problems, write the chain as a list of links before drafting. For each one, find the instrument and note where it is kept. Mark any link where you have only a job description or a practice. Write that link up honestly, give two or three explanations and suggest how someone could check. End with a recommendation that fits the size of the gap. If your section asks for a chain in a different field, such as septic permits or child care licensing, our writers can trace it for your state.
Get a HLTH 6112 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Memo instructions plus whatever organizational documents your section supplied are the starting point. A sample delegation memo returns in proper memo format with the chain documented one step at a time. First custom sample, no fee, ready in 24-48h. Watch how it marks a gap rather than bridging one; the chain you trace for class is yours to build.
More HLTH 6112 papers and graduate public policy samples
- HLTH 6112 Week 1: Food Safety Authority Map
- HLTH 6112 Week 2: Inspection Frequency Post
- HLTH 6112 Week 3: Delegation Statute Brief
- HLTH 6112 Week 4: Two Jurisdiction Licensing Analysis
- HLTH 6112 Week 6: Missing Federal Level Peer Reply
- HLTH 6112 Week 7: Delegated Power Oversight Review
- HLTH 6112 Week 8: Joint Powers Agreement Brief
- HLTH 6112 Week 9: License Suspension Case Analysis
- HLTH 6112 Week 10: End to End Governance Paper
- HLTH 6112 Week 11: Delegation Performance Review Memo
- HLTH 6110 Week 5: Competency Evidence Map
- HLTH 6051 Week 5: Health Disparity Brief
- HLTH 6038 Week 5: Peer Critique Example
- HLTH 6031 Week 5: Advocacy Letter Example
HLTH 6112 Week 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6112 Week 5 sample paper?
A full Week 5 memo following correction order authority from the Legislature to the sanitarian, with numbered sections, margin notes and five statute references, is on this page.
What power does the HLTH 6112 Week 5 memo follow?
The authority to order a restaurant to correct a food safety violation, which starts with the commissioner of health under Minnesota Statutes section 157.20.
Which link in the chain is missing?
The handoff from the board's administrator to the environmental health manager and sanitarians; no subdelegation resolution, order or job clause naming the power was found.
Why does a missing link matter for correction orders?
If a restaurant challenged an order on the ground that the person issuing it lacked authority, the board would need to show the full chain, and the state stays responsible under section 145A.07.
What does the memo recommend?
That the board adopt a short resolution letting the administrator designate in writing which environmental health staff may issue correction orders, with designations kept on file.