Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Lyndoch Living spent $1.2 million on consultants and lawyers in 2020, and at least another $3 million on its ever-expanding administration.

A deeper dive into the 2020 financial figures reported to the Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission show Lyndoch has spent at least $1 million a year for the past three years – a total of $3.34 million – on legal fees, consultancies and auditors.

That $3.34 million over three years is more than the food budget for the 200 to 240 residents, but more on that shortly.

Behind the scenes at Lyndoch, a steady stream of consultants has been working on the $100 million masterplan, including – as I understand it – around $99,999 and 99 cents paid to one consultant for the business plan for the medical clinic that will be built on site later this year.

We haven’t seen that business plan, but we can only trust that it’s a good one, because Lyndoch is going into the uncharted waters of borrowing big to finance the estimated $23 million cost.

At the same time, Lyndoch’s administration costs are now more than $3 million a year, compared to $2.5 million in 2015.

The admin budget is hard to follow from year to year, because it keeps bouncing around the balance sheet like a bee in a bottle.

In 2018, it was $3.3m.

In 2019, it suddenly fell to $1.94m after an adjustment or “restatement”.

In 2020, it was back up to $3.07m.

While the figures are subject to the vagaries of various accounting methods, one thing we do know is that the number of admin staff at Lyndoch has gone up.

As has already been reported here, admin staff at Lyndoch shot up from 37 in 2016 to around 60 in 2018, and several other, highly paid souls have joined since.

(Since 2018, Lyndoch no longer publishes a staff breakdown of how many people work in each area.)

In addition to these costs, just under another $1 million has been spent in the past three years on advertising and marketing, including Lyndoch’s sponsorship of the grand annual jumps race at the Warrnambool May Races.

This sponsorship, which was renewed in 2019 and now runs until 2022, was designed to promote its Waterfront Living apartments.

I am yet to hear of anyone buying one of the apartments because they were at the races, but perhaps in between punts they were persuaded.

As it happens, the last of the apartments were sold at heavily discounted prices late last year so Waterfront could finally reach full occupancy.

But enough of the fascinators and corporate suits, what of the budget for residential care?

This brings us back to the kitchen.

I always like to check how much is being spent on food, given this – unlike the races – really is the core business of an aged care home.

In 2019, Lyndoch spent $1.2m on food for around 200 residents, or about $16.50 per resident, per day.

In 2020, this had risen to $1.44m, which looks good on paper, but Lyndoch has also since bought the May Noonan Hostel in Terang, so the number of residents has also increased to around 240.

This means the food budget works out to be the same – around $16.50 per resident, per day.

That is around $6000 in food per resident, per year.

(I suspect the various legal battles funded by Lyndoch against The Terrier have cost the equivalent of that per month.)

Again, I provide this information so the community, which owns Lyndoch, can keep an eye on its direction and priorities behind the marketing and public relations. If you wander over to the Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission, you can check it all out for yourself.

In the meantime, we keep digging.

More soon.

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

The story behind the axing of the Warrnambool City Council CEO is becoming murkier, with news that the very expensive lawyers involved didn’t charge a cent.

I can tell you the lawyers did in fact charge the council, but then they pulled the bill.

But let’s go back a step.

In one of the most staggering revelations of this whole messy affair, Cr Sue Cassidy told the Standard on Thursday that, “no legal fees were charged by our solicitors” for advice around the dumping of CEO Peter Schneider.

Cough! Splutter! Choke!

When, in the long history of the esteemed legal profession, have you ever heard of top-class lawyers from Melbourne working for free?

Why would any lawyer knock back a lazy $650 to $800 an hour to provide advice on how to sack a CEO?

We now know the four councillors involved sought legal advice and didn’t just Google “how to dump a CEO and still get re-elected”.

This was a very serious matter, given they were about to toss the CEO out the door and hand the cost to ratepayers . That cost, so far, is hundreds of thousands of dollars – around $400,000 in fact.

Yet Cr Cassidy tells us the lawyers never charged a cent for what must have been considerable, specialist advice.

Well of course they charged the council – they sent a bill – but there’s a twist.

They later tore it up.

“Council received a bill that was later withdrawn,” a council spokesman told me today via email.

What? Withdrawn?

Righto, we are in seriously weird territory.

Why would a law firm invoice the council for legal services, and then withdraw that bill?

I asked that question back to the council.

The council didn’t ask why, the spokesman replied.

Oh come on. Seriously?

A top law firm wipes off a bill for what must have been thousands of dollars worth of work and the council just shrugged?

Nothing makes sense and we are – still – not being told the full story by the council, or the four councillors involved: Crs Neoh, Cassidy, Gaston and Owen.

Instead the story drips out in little dark droplets of detail that we all have to try and piece together.

The former CEO has been gone almost two months and we still don’t have the full picture.

As was revealed here, the Local Government Inspectorate is now investigating to see if there were any breaches of the Local Government Act.

Regardless of why the CEO was dumped (“no reason” is the official reason), this whole thing has been handled appallingly on behalf of the people of Warrnambool who, from my reading, are justifiably angry and embarrassed.

Western Victoria Upper House MP Bev McArthur this week raised the whole mess in Parliament, and pulled no punches:

“My question is to the Minister for Local Government and concerns the recent turmoil at Warrnambool City Council and the choice facing voters at the forthcoming October elections.

As the minister knows, the chief municipal inspector has announced an investigation into the sacking of the council’s CEO.

This shoddy backstairs intrigue saw four councillors conspire to seek legal advice behind the backs of their colleagues without spending authorisation and spring the sacking on an otherwise well-regarded CEO whilst simultaneously appointing an existing director to the job.

I welcome this review and thank the minister for his assistance in securing it. On top of this, last December the Victorian Ombudsman began investigating potential credit card fraud at Warrnambool City Council.

The question I have for the minister is: can he ensure that all relevant information from both reports will be released prior to the upcoming local government elections?”

—–

Questions upon questions – and they will keep coming until we get all the answers.

The Terrier telethon is now on! If you would like to support The Terrier, please visit the tip jar.

Terrier Tip Jar

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

Lawyers for sacked Warrnambool City Council CEO Peter Schneider have issued defamation proceedings against four councillors.

Those four councillors are Cr Mike Neoh, Cr Kylie Gaston, Cr Sue Cassidy and Cr David Owen.

This partly explains the flurry of confidential business happening behind closed doors at the council meeting last night.

The second matter, according to sources, is believed to relate to lawyers for Mr Schneider arguing that he be reinstated as CEO: in other words, he gets his job back.

There is a precedent for such a thing, with a sacked CEO of Logan City Council, in Queensland, being given her job back after challenging the motives of the seven councillors who deposed her.

Wouldn’t that be a turn up for the books!

With the council elections just two months away and a new council to be elected, it may not be as unthinkable as it sounds.

And the third matter, twisted up in all of the above, is understood to be a heated, ding-dong, hair-pulling (except for Cr Sycopoulis, no offence to him), full-blooded barney over who should pay for the legal expenses racked up so far and those yet to come.

Should it be the individual councillors involved in the coup? Should it be ratepayers?

Discuss.

I emailed all seven councillors today to ask for comment on the legal action, whether ratepayers would be footing the bill, and how much had been spent so far on council lawyers.

Only three replied by deadline and no prizes for guessing who.

Here are their statements in full:

Mayor Tony Herbert:
“Thanks for your email.

As you are aware I am unfortunately unable to confirm most of your queries although some of the info might be able to be sought through channels of FOI. We lost the resolution on the night of the 13th July regarding confidentiality.

It is a very unfortunate situation the council has decided to thrust itself into especially in light of the further and greater impacts of the pandemic on council, staff, council budgets and our community ongoing.

I certainly would have preferred when such significant costs have been incurred, to have spent funds in a more productive and positive way…as a stimulus for our community post COVID for example.

I also implored councillors on a number of occasions to take alternative actions to manage our CEO  through discussion and negotiations rather than this drastic and expensive action as our only management tool!

As far as legal costs questions, I’m unable to comment at this time.

Hopefully things will become clearer.

One thing I will add further, is that personally,  I feel the community has a right to know what happened in the lead up to the sudden termination, reasons for  the termination and also the costs.”

Cr Robert Anderson: 

“Thank you for your email Carol, unfortunately because of the confidentiality on the above subject I am unable to make any comment.”

Cr Peter Sycopoulis:

“Thank you for your enquiry. Due to confidentiality requirements, I am not at liberty to provide an answer to your questions. What I can confirm however, is that I personally have not received correspondence from any law firm in relation to this matter.”

So the council is about to enter a legal shitestorm, to be frank, and – so far – we are officially being told nothing.

Please keep this in mind when we all vote in October.

Think about integrity, transparency, openness, honesty, accountability and the-right-to-know: these, to me, are now the key themes of election 2020.

If you would like to support the work of The Terrier, please consider throwing something in the tip jar.

Terrier Tip Jar

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

A lot of people have asked me lately whether I was sued for defamation by Lyndoch Living CEO Doreen Power and if it all ended up in court.

The answers are: yes and no. Let me explain.

After I wrote a series of four stories late last year about my concerns around Lyndoch, its direction, and its leadership, I received a letter from Melbourne law firm K&L Gates, who represent Lyndoch Living.

(The Gates part, by the way, relates to the firm’s founder, the father of US billionaire Bill Gates, so this was not some tin pot law joint with broken blinds and wonky lampshades, but a downtown Collins St law firm with city views and a serious letterhead.)

K&L Gates wrote that they were acting on behalf of the Lyndoch CEO who was:

“disturbed by a series of recent articles, written and published by you on (The Terrier), attacking our client’s reputation and character”.

Gulp.

Naturally, I felt slightly sick, but only slightly, because in 30 years’ of working as a journalist in search of the ever-elusive truth, I have received one or two of these letters before. The scary bit was that I now work alone.

The letter then set out the CEO’s particular grievances – or imputations.

You can download the whole letter here, it is not confidential, but here is the list:

• That in carrying out her functions as CEO of Lyndoch, our client bullies and intimidates staff and other third parties;
• That in carrying out her functions as CEO of Lyndoch, our client manipulates staff by psychological means into doubting their own sanity;
• That in carrying out her functions as CEO of Lyndoch, our client unfairly favours some people over others;
• That in carrying out her functions as CEO of Lyndoch, our client has caused a detrimental impact on the care of Lyndoch’s residents;
• That in carrying out her functions as CEO of Lyndoch, our client lacks transparency and endorses secrecy;
• That in carrying out leadership roles as CEO of Seymour and Plenty Valley Community Health, our client destroyed the culture and workplace environment of those places, and caused irreparable physical and/or psychological harm to their staff;
• That our client is a disinterested CEO who does not care about her staff or the residents of Lyndoch; and;
• That our client is unfit to be the CEO of Lyndoch or of any other organisation.

Defamation law is an important law and one that I take extremely seriously.

It is there to protect all of us from malicious untruths, but it can also be used by powerful people to “chill” journalists from investigating or writing about issues of public interest.

Back in the days when journalists worked in robust newsrooms with bottomless budgets, such legal battles could be fought with vigour.

Those days are almost gone.

Now, like many journos out on their own, I have no newsroom and no budget for legal battles, and I rely entirely on insurance via my union, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance.

Like all journos, I also rely on thorough research and credible sources to get things right in the first place, but it is one thing to argue a fact like, “you have no money” compared to “why do you have no money?”

WHY is the very guts of investigative journalism, but it is time-consuming, expensive, and it attracts law suits. Many newsrooms have given up on it, but it is what I do.

So I got my legal letter, paid for by Lyndoch, which confirmed that the aged care home which once looked after my own Mum was now threatening to sue me.

This was serious and it’s precisely why I waited until my Mum passed away last April before I started to write this current series of stories: as feisty as Mum was, she would have been worried sick.

Over the holiday period K&L Gates talked to my lawyers and vice versa. Letters were exchanged.

And in the end, my insurers decided not to fight the imputations, because who knows if I would win or lose in trying to prove the “why?”

I agreed to pull the stories from the website and remove them from Facebook and I cannot publish them again. I also agreed to pay costs.

All of this cost me $2000 in an insurance excess, but, because of you wonderful beings, it actually cost me $200, because Foxy the Fighting Fund kicked in and helped me to cover that excess.

Did it go to court? No.

Did The Terrier win or lose? I will leave that up to you to decide.

Is it important that we keep going? More than ever.

Defamation can be designed to “chill”, and frighten journalists into tightening their buttocks, but you know what? I am being cautious, but also reaching for an extra coat.

If you are reading this and would like to support The Terrier, please throw something in the tip jar below. 

The Tip Jar

Carol Altmann – The Terrier

In the past two years, Lyndoch Living spent more on lawyers, consultants and accountants than it did on food for residents.

In 2018 and 2019, Lyndoch shelled out an astonishing $2.318 million on accountants, lawyers and consultants, while it spent $2.194 million on food supplies.

In 2018, the gap between the two was especially stark, with less than $1 million spent on food supplies – $994,068 – compared with $1.238 million on accountants, lawyers and consultants.

Chew on that for a moment and I suspect you will feel the same sense of indigestion that came over me.

These unpalatable facts are among the many that fall out when you take a close look at Lyndoch’s financial statements – and a lot of terriers are now taking a good, hard look at the figures, both old and new.

This is how we know that in 2013 the food bill was $992,516, which is not that far off the $994,068 that was spent five years’ later.

Did I miss something? Has the cost of groceries gone down?

I can tell you that what residents pay to live in a nursing home has certainly not gone down nor stayed the same for the past five years.

If you are going to cut costs, surely as an aged care home you don’t start with the food bill?

Judging by the 2019 financials, there is plenty of fat to trim elsewhere, starting with administration costs and the ever-growing number of staff  in the corporate area (59 and counting).

Not surprisingly, the cost of food vs lawyers/consultants/auditors was not mentioned at the Lyndoch Living annual general meeting last October and we can only make the comparison now because of two things:

The full figures have finally been released via the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, and, for the first time, legal fees and consultants’ fees have been published in the audited statements.

Speaking of auditors, wow, has that bill shot through the roof.

Last year, Lyndoch’s auditing costs tripled from $13,950 in 2018 to $48,500 in 2019, which is five times what Lyndoch paid for auditing in 2013 ($9800).

Lyndoch changed auditors from local firm McLaren Hunt (which used to be Coffey Hunt) and replaced them with RSM Australia.

Perhaps a stack more number crunching needed to be done because Lyndoch decided to become a company limited by guarantee, buy two medical centres and also the May Noonan nursing home in Terang (I will write more about the medical centres soon).

But even the auditors were paid small beans compared with the $2.25 million spent on lawyers and consultants in the past two years.

$2.25 million.

Oh my goodness, I really am in the wrong business.

This $2.25 million would include hiring consultants for the $100 million masterplan and to write the (secret) business plan for the new medical centre that Lyndoch intends to start building soon, even though it’s still not sure how much money it needs to borrow to pay for it.

The lawyers, I assume, would also have been hired to guide the masterplan, to set up Lyndoch Healthcare Pty Ltd, and to oversee how Lyndoch now operates as a company limited by guarantee.

There are also the less obvious fees, such as the solicitor “retained” to provide advice to the company secretary, who doesn’t have legal or accounting qualifications.

All of this – millions of dollars in consulting, legal, accounting and administration bills – is such a long, long way from where Lyndoch started as a much-loved, community owned facility for our aged to see out their final years in comfort.

Back in the beginning, people donated their time and their own money to make sure Lyndoch found its feet and this is why there remains such a strong, emotional connection between Warrnambool and our iconic aged care home.

The board needs to get that.

Lyndoch has to grow and keep up with the times, we all get that, but how it is growing – and at what cost – remains at the heart of this investigation and we will keep going.

More soon.

If you would like to see The Terrier keep digging, click on the link below to throw something in the tip jar.