Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Tonight I can reveal that a group of Lyndoch staff tried to alert the Lyndoch board to a looming staff crisis more than a year ago, but was ignored.

An explosive letter has emerged that was written by a group of experienced staff to the Lyndoch board on 2 April 2020 – 18 months ago.

The letter was delivered to the board via a trusted intermediary, a Warrnambool GP.

Staff are forbidden under Lyndoch policy to approach the board directly, but the authors, who represented a cross-section of Lyndoch, clearly felt they had no choice.

“It is with grave concern that we feel compelled to formally address the Board of Directors of Lyndoch Living,” the letter begins.

“Our knowledge that this direct communication may lead to employment termination must also demonstrate the gravity of our actions and the reason we undertake this anonymously,” it says.

Between them, the letter says, the authors have more than 50 years experience in aged care and they came with a warning:

“Over the last four years we have seen a significant deterioration of staff morale, and poor and highly detrimental decision making…,” they write.

“This has resulted in a very poor culture, significant stress and distress among staff, sick leave and resignations”.

Let’s just stop there for a moment.

I wish I could publish the entire letter, but Lyndoch is too litigious for me to take that risk, so what follows is my edited version of what the authors outline as their issues of major concern, the alleged causes and the request for action.

The staff tell the board that they tried to raise their concerns through the normal channels, but have got nowhere.

In fact the situation only got worse.

“Unfortunately we have met with obstruction, denial or dismissal at each point,” they write.

Either a lack of action or consequences for speaking up, meant other staff remained silent, which led to more “inappropriate and detrimental behaviour”.

The authors say they turned to two politicians for help who were alarmed by their claims and urged the staff to contact the board directly.

So they did, via a letter that could not be more direct.

They urged the board to do a “fearless review” of Lyndoch Living that would include three things:

1. Engage an independent company to undertake a cultural staff survey. (The) previous cultural review was prepared for the law firm that represents Lyndoch Living.

2. Ensure that the recommendations within the independent survey are tabled, considered and actioned by the Board;

3. Engage an independent forensic accountant to review appropriate resident related expenditure and review the current investment portfolio and commitments in line with a not-for-profit culture.

And at the end of the letter came the kicker.

The authors offered to meet with the board, to show their faces, and to step away from anonymity.

They would do this, they said, provided they could be protected from any threat to their jobs, and assured confidentiality.

This is huge.

Anybody who knows a Lyndoch worker who wants to speak up, but doesn’t, knows that the number one reason given is fear of being targeted, or losing their job.

The courageous staff behind this letter swallowed that fear because they believed if they did nothing, the situation would only deteriorate.

They decided to trust the board.

So they wrote their letter, they had it delivered via the GP and they waited for a response via the same intermediary.

And nothing happened.

They didn’t get a reply, much less an invitation to come and talk with the board in confidence.

I know the board received the letter and I know it was discussed, but it went no further.

The board stayed silent.

And the brave staff, their hearts swollen with disbelief and disappointment, felt that they were entirely on their own. They retreated back into the shadows and got on with caring for the elderly and vulnerable residents of Lyndoch.

That was 18 months ago.

I don’t know what has happened to the staff who wrote this letter, but their predicted catastrophe has come to pass.

The steady loss of experienced and dedicated staff from right across Lyndoch over the past five years has, in recent weeks, become a flood.

And still the board says, and does, nothing.

* Board members Percy Eccles and Suzanne Coulson resigned in March and May of this year. They have not been replaced.

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Even South West MP Roma Britnell can’t get straight answers from the Lyndoch Living board.

The board has given short shrift to Ms Britnell’s recent questions about its blanket rejection of 115 membership applications from the community.

Its fulsome response to Ms Britnell was, wait for it, that it was “acting within the Lyndoch constitution.

End of conversation.

Ms Britnell was told nothing more.

At least the board is even handed when it comes to answering questions: it ignores everyone.

Ms Britnell, like the rest of us, learned nothing about why the applications were rejected, the criteria used, or the process followed.

We can only surmise, therefore, that there was no process or selection criteria.

It doesn’t matter that Ms Britnell, a State MP and our elected representative, was asking questions on behalf of her local constituents.

She was given zero from the board that, in theory, is also supposed to represent the community.

So if Ms Britnell can’t get an answer, what hope does someone like Warrnambool resident Margy Jackson have?

Margy, a retired school teacher, recently wrote to Lyndoch chair Sue Cassidy expressing her concerns about Lyndoch and the cutting out of the community.

Margy has had no response.

Former Deakin Professor James Dunbar and retired naval officer Jim Burke wrote to the board some months ago expressing their concerns about the viability of the $22m medical clinic being built at Lyndoch.

They have had no response.

It appears that the current board of seven volunteers – Ms Cassidy, Kane Grant, Andrew Paton, Kerry Nelson, Prof Rob Wallis, Lorraine Mielnik and Ron Page – has decided they are answerable only to themselves and the CEO.

Have they lost sight of who built and supported Lyndoch for so many decades?

Why else would the board agree to turn its back on their own community?

And why would these remaining board members (Percy Eccles and Suzanne Coulson quit earlier this year) want to be a part of such a closed shop?

Only they can answer that question.

I don’t expect any answers soon, but with Lyndoch’s staff and residential care – its core business – suffering under the board’s watch, the questions will only keep coming.

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Warrnambool has two choices. It can accept that the community has been cut out of Lyndoch, or it can fight back.

Warrnambool vet Dr Michael McCluskey is among those now doing the latter.

Dr McCluskey is challenging the rejection of his membership application to Lyndoch Living on the grounds of discrimination.

Dr McCluskey lodged a complaint with VCAT today, arguing that the decision by the Lyndoch board was illegal under the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act.

“The only information that can be filled out on the Lyndoch membership form is my name and address,” Dr McCluskey said.

“There was no request from Lyndoch for any further information from me.

“Given this, the Lyndoch board could only have rejected me on the basis of my name and my gender, because they know nothing else about me, my background, or my qualifications, or interests.”

A very good point, because if the Lyndoch board had bothered to find out more about Dr McCluskey, they would have discovered the following:

He holds a University degree with Honours in the field of biological sciences (Bachelor of Veterinary Science);

Extra post graduate University level study with multiple units in the fields of psychology, law and economics;

Five years as Director of Finance on Board of Management at a local community sporting organisation handling a multi-million dollar annual turnover;

More than six years as both volunteer and member of committee of management of  Warrnambool Riding for Disabled;

Is a current member and also serving on committee of management of Water for East Timor, a locally-based charity that is overseas focussed.

Dr McCluskey didn’t apply for membership to Lyndoch as part of the recent community membership drive – he applied several months earlier.

He is now among a long list of community minded souls who have had their applications flatly rejected.

This means everyone who applied is also automatically ruled out of nominating for the board at the AGM on 26 October, as only members can apply.

Having read that 115 people from across the community were rejected last month, Dr McCluskey decided it was time to push back.

“I’m hoping this can become a test case on behalf of the community,” he says, “and that VCAT will at least decide that Lyndoch has a case to answer”.

He hopes others will be encouraged to follow his lead, particularly as the VCAT application is free of charge due to the issue falling under the Equal Opportunity Act.

Lyndoch Living has used the “no reason” clause in its Constitution to dismiss every single membership application from the general public these past two years.

Those who have tried these past two years include now Mayor Vicki Jellie, AM, senior SWHC nurse Kate Sloan, aged care expert Janet Dunn, leading local businesswomen Natalie Stevens and Marie Bird, the inaugural Director of the Greater Green Triangle University Department of Rural Health, Professor James Dunbar, educator and MPower board member Helen Bayne, former Lyndoch senior nurse Tracey Dean, educators Tina Reilly and Claire Bishop, retirees in Lyndoch’s Waterfront Living apartments, and dozens of locals who care about Lyndoch as a much-loved community asset.

All were bumped by the board without reason.

But a “no reason” clause can be fragile, as WCC CEO Peter Schneider proved with his Supreme Court case.

No doubt the Lyndoch board, Sue Cassidy (hairdresser/salon owner), vice chair Kerry Nelson (ex MPower CEO), treasurer Kane Grant (Sinclair&Wilson), retired Deakin academics Lorraine Mielnik and Prof Rob Wallis, Ron Page (dairy industry) and WCC director Andrew Paton hope the community will just accept it.

In my opinion, the board’s loyalty is to the CEO. It is not to the wider community.

Those prepared to push back, however, are loyal to the spirit of Lyndoch, to its vulnerable residents who must be its first priority, and to the increasingly exhausted staff who care for them.

Dr McCluskey has cast another stone in what has become a David and Goliath battle. We shall see where it lands.

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

South West MP Roma Britnell has asked Lyndoch for an explanation as to why every single membership application from 115 lodged this month was rejected.

“I’ve had contact from a number of people about this issue,” Ms Britnell said.

“I understand that Lyndoch, as a community established and owned service, holds a special place in the heart of the Warrnambool and south west community and I am aware of concerns that some people have raised.

“As such I have made contact with Lyndoch Living asking for advice on the application process and why applications may be rejected.”

Lyndoch is not always rapid in its responses to Ms Britnell, but we can only hope she receives a fulsome answer shortly.

Ms Britnell’s views are shared by other community leaders, including Member for Western Victoria Bev McArthur.

Ms McArthur said she was concerned that so many membership applications had been rejected and “would like to understand why this has happened”. 

“As a community organisation, openness and accessibility to residents should be a high priority,” she said.

“Many of the membership applicants were highly qualified and motivated, and could surely have brought great energy and expertise to Lyndoch.”

Ms McArthur said the current members of Lyndoch should be on the public record, and the criteria for the application process properly explained.

“The existing situation seems needlessly secretive, and does nothing to cement the vital community link.

“I call upon Lyndoch Living to live up to its position as a community asset, and be more open and engaging in matters of ordinary membership, board membership, and AGM participation.”

Wannon MP Dan Tehan was less direct, but said the Federal Government expected “approved providers to select board members with relevant skills and expertise” to ensure “quality of care for senior Australians is prioritised and maintained.”

A good point, Mr Tehan, because as is stands, there is nobody on the Lyndoch board with experience in aged care.

Mayor Vicki Jellie and four other Warrnambool City councillors responded to a request for comment, with each speaking personally rather than on behalf of the council.

Mayor Jellie said Lyndoch Living was a valued and much loved local community facility that was “extremely important to us all”.

“As a community member, I would like to see diversity in the membership of our local community organisations to support strong, effective leadership and oversight.

“I acknowledge and commend all of those within the community who put forward applications to become Lyndoch members.”

Cr Ben Blain said “it would be good to see some new local faces on the board that represent the community” –  a view also shared by Cr Debbie Arnott.

“Lyndoch is a community owned facility and its board and membership should reflect that…I do feel it might be good to see some new faces on the board,” Cr Arnott said.

Cr Angie Paspaliaris said she believed that any community owned organisation should “seek to be as transparent, engaged and communicative as possible with the community they are there to serve.”

“There are many experienced, extremely well qualified people in Warrnambool who would be great members and contributors to the operation of our local aged care facility,” Cr Paspaliaris said.

Lastly, Cr Max Taylor said it was only “logical and permissible” that people from the community be allowed to become members of Lyndoch, and – if they so desired – to nominate for the board.

“I am sure that one of the original Board Presidents for many years in Stan Berlyn would most certainly permit this process,” Cr Taylor said.

The next Lyndoch AGM is on 26 October. Board nominations close on 12 October, but given there are no new members (that we know of), I don’t know who will be nominating for the two board vacancies left by Percy Eccles and Susanne Coulson.

We shall see.See you Sunday.

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.

Why?

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?

If so, what a wasted opportunity for Lyndoch to re-open its doors to the community, including to some extraordinary talent, like Janet, Marie Bird and Kate Sloan.

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.

Why?

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?