Carol Altmann – The Terrier
This is Janet Dunn.
Janet is among the 115 people on the roll call of the rejected – those who have been denied membership to Lyndoch Living aged care.
If ever there was a case study of the absurdity of how the current Lyndoch board decides who becomes a member, it’s Janet, because Janet used to be a member.
In fact Janet worked at Lyndoch for 10 years as the Director of Community Services (1992-2001), during which time she developed and managed nine community programs from five offices across southwest Victoria.
Janet was also in charge of coordinating the initial accreditations for both the Lyndoch Nursing Home and Community Services, before her career took her to Melbourne.
Since leaving Lyndoch, Janet has managed several nursing homes – both private and not-for-profit – and, unlike Lyndoch in recent months, has never failed any standards.
A quick look at Janet’s Linkedin profile reveals she has managed up to 300 staff, has in-depth knowledge of the aged care accreditation and funding systems, has worked on several state committees, including Ministerial Advisory Committees, and holds several post grad qualifications, including an MBA.
Oh my goodness.
Not only should Janet be a member of Lyndoch, she should be urged to nominate for the Lyndoch board at the AGM on 26 October.
The board, which has two vacancies and only one person with any nursing or aged care experience, needs people like Janet.
But while Janet has 30 years experience in aged care management, she is not able to become even a member of Lyndoch.
What is the criteria?
Did chair Sue Cassidy (Unisexcuts) and members Andrew Paton (WCC director), Kerry Nelson (former MPower CEO), Ron Page (dairy industry), Lorraine Milenik, Prof Rob Wallis and treasurer Kane Grant (Sinclair & Wilson), decide that because The Terrier was urging people to apply, that anyone who did apply was immediately ruled out?
Was that the criteria?
I have never met Janet and I only discovered her background after she commented on The Terrier Facebook page, but like the other 114 people, Janet’s application was dismissed without comment.
The board can do this under the Lyndoch Constitution and there is nothing, it seems, us mere mortals can do about it.
But surely it is wrong, so wrong, that a community owned asset can be controlled by a board that has no obligation, or desire, to explain itself.
Given this, I would like to see the whole board put up for re-election on 26 October.
Imagine that: a fresh start.
Lyndoch could then open up itself up to nominations from existing board members AND the general public, just like the “good old days” of three years ago.
It won’t happen, of course.
Because Lyndoch has shown it’s now fearful of any involvement or examination by the very community it was set up to serve.
How did it come to this?