Kenilworth and Belvedere Park Nursing Homes

These two companies and their owner and manager provide an insight into the way in which totally unsuitable people enter the industry and the authorities not only fail to utilise the system to stop them but the system itself fails abysmally.

Neviskia was the owner of the Kenilworth Nursing Home and Saitta of the Belvedere Park Nursing Home, both in Melbourne. Graeme Menere was the manager of both. He owned half of Saitta and two thirds of Neviskia and the department’s attention was drawn to his criminal history in 1998. The Kenilworth home was shut down when Neviskia entered bankruptcy in 2001. The Belvedere Park home had recurrent problems between 1998 and 2003. It is still operated by Saitta.

The Kenilworth home’s recurrent problems, appalling standards of care, its failure to pay its nurses, the belligerent approach of its manager, and the failure of the minister to act engendered international press coverage. It was owned by Neviskia.

The accreditation agency's assessor found there were problems at the home but a politician leapt to their defence.

During 2000 the situation steadily deteriorated with multiple inspections at frequent intervals. Instead of complying the company’s manager attacked the findings and largely ignored the remedial steps required. The home was visited repeatedly.

To press the matter and expose the regulator’s failure the findings of the more recent audits were publicised by the nursing union and the international UK paper The Guardian took up the matter. Accreditation was finally withdrawn.

Matters had come to a head at the end of 2000 and the department had finally withdrawn accreditation and so funding. Graeme Menere the company’s manager had bitterly criticised the agency, accused it of victimising the homes, and blatantly ignored their requirements. He now appealed the sanctions imposed and effectively won a legal reprieve of sorts. The department did not restore accreditation.

Menere continued to fight but by now he was not paying his bills and the nurses had walked out when their salaries were not paid. The National Australian Bank finally moved to put the company owning Kenilworth Nursing Home into receivership.

The Belvedere Park Nursing Home was operated by Saitta Pty Ltd and this company still owns and operates it. Belvedere Park has been a dysfunctional entity for a far longer period than Kenilworth Nursing Home. In spite of multiple problems and repeated sanctions over the years it is still owned and run by the same company. The role which Graeme Menere now plays in its operations is not known.

Problems continued during 1999 and Belvedere Park was repeatedly named as a problem home.

Things got steadily worse during 2000. When sanctions were imposed Menere attacked the agency and after appealing the decision repeatedly the sanctions were overturned.

In early 2001 Graeme Menere was removed as a director of Saitta but continued to be an owner. There continued to be problems at the home and at one stage it almost lost accreditation. When it corrected the problems this home which had been a chronic and recurrent problem was accredited for 3 years - out of sight and out of mind.

Menere’s record for not paying its bills reached a head in January 2001 when the companies were under pressure. Menere stopped paying into their superannuation and then stopped paying their salaries. The union took their case to the Industrial Relations Commission and the nurses at Kenilworth eventually walked off the job. One report indicates that he had a 10 year history of not paying his nurses.

Menere blamed the department for not paying him what they owned him and even claimed he had paid into the nurses accounts when he had not. Menere’s character is illustrated by his failure to attend the Industrial Relations Commission when summoned and then claiming misunderstanding when he was required to pay.

Mr Menere and his companies both have a chequered history. This is not the first time one of them have entered bankruptcy. Siatta was under an administrator between 1995 and 1997. Graham Menere owned half of Siatta and two thirds of Neviskia. It seems likely that members of this family own the rest as another Menere was listed as a director.

By any standards Graeme Menere was a different sort of person. He seems to have had no doubts that he was correct and that he was being victimised. He challenged and fought every step of the way and had some success in overturning sanctions imposed on his nursing homes. Whether he falls into the category I have described in the web page on sociopathy is for you to decide. The press reports tell the story.

His response to financial problems and the agency’s criticisms of his homes in 1998 is interesting. When there were more criticisms he sued the department.

When further adverse reports appeared in 2000 Menere denied the findings and took to the courts.

Menere claims to be a past vice-president of the Victorian Nursing Homes Association. By 2001 his former colleagues didn’t want anything more to do with him.

Mr Menere’s repeated failure to appear before the Industrial Commission after being summoned has been commented on. Here are the commissioner’s comments.

In 1994 I was assured that the federal department carefully checked the probity of aged care providers. In 1996/7 the newly elected federal government rewrote the regulations in order to turn this into a competitive marketplace. The probity requirements were removed.

That Menere had a criminal conviction had been known to the department since 1998 and it received publicity in the press in 1999. In the market the rights of the individual are enshrined over the rights of the public to protection and it proved impossible to act on this. It was not until the regulations were changed in 2001 that those with criminal convictions were prevented from becoming directors.

Responses by agency officials to a senate committee are fascinating (see more later). One can only ask whether the agency and the minister are for some reason denied access to court records so that they cannot confirm criminality when the culprit simply denies it? Even after Mr Menere admitted it to the press the department sat on its hands for another 7 months. It did not have the legal backing to act.

National Australia Bank eventually stepped in and called in the receiver putting Neviskia and the Kenilworth Nursing Home out of business.

In 2001 government moved to revise the regulations making it illegal for any one with a criminal conviction to be a director of a nursing home company. Menere had no choice but to step aside as a director and manager. He was not prevented from holding a dominant share and from appointing a director or manager who would do what he required.

Menere and the department were locked in a bitter battle. The opposition took up the issue and attacked the minister for her inaction. She ducked.

The problem of course was an ideological one - the belief that health and aged care were like any other business and could be treated in the same way. Government made major regulatory changes in 1996/7 to turn the care of vulnerable aged citizens into a competitive marketplace. One consequence of this was that businessmen entering the sector would be treated like, and have the same rights as, businessmen in any other sector. The Nursing Union challenged the utility of these regulations in regard to the failure to act against the Kenilworth Nursing Home.

A long and penetrating analysis in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee in 2001 in which the department tried to stone wall provides interesting insights. It appears that even when regulations were brought in to remove directors who had criminal convictions these undesirables could continue to own large sections of the company and appoint directors and managers of their choosing. Control by the undesirable person was simply changed to a lever which that person could use without the public being aware of it.

In addition to this the onus was put on the private company to vet directors criminality - the department was not going to take any action in this regard. A bizarre and invisible form of self regulation. The government and the department is simply washing its hands of the issue. I have removed some repeat statements and irrelevancies as attempts were made to avoid the questions.

It took 4 years of continuing problems, as Menere almost certainly continued to pull the strings in the background, before Belvedere Park was finally closed. Once again the legal system, structured to preserve the rights of individuals rather than protect vulnerable citizens, tried to rescue Menere in 2007.

Graham Menere was barred from managing the company but companies can get around this by appointing a family member to do what they tell them. Who is Russell Menere?

We can only imagine what went on in the nursing home during that period and how much better off the residents would have been had the home been closed with Kenilworth in 2001. This is what any sensible handling of the situation would have ensured.

Once again we hear the "isolated incident" rationalisation from the industry, and the platitudes from the minister who will do nothing to fix the problem he describes so accurately. The minister for aging only 2 months earlier gave an undertaken in writing (read his letter here) to fix exactly this problem yet remarkably he refrains from saying so publicly now - a media opportunity. This looks like another example of tricky wording and unfulfilled promises - or is he simply buckling under pressure from his corporate supporters before an election.

(When the minister was confronted, by a parliamentary colleague, with the automatic granting of approved provider status to a Citigroup company, inspite of Citigroups track record, he promised to close the loophole.)

Menere can open another nursing home any time he likes and we might hear more about him in relationship to nursing homes in a year or two.

Siatta Pty Ltd closed the home but appealed the decision to the Administration Appeals Tribunal even though the home had closed. The decision of the tribunal was finally handed down a year later on August 5th, 2008. The tribunal considered the evidence that the home posed a risk to residents at some length. The comments are interesting because of the legal difficulties they reveal in determining whether an owner is actively interfering in the operation of the business. It would be pretty obvious that someone living in Brisbane and Sydney who seldom visited the facility in Brisbane could not be responsible for running the facility and being responsible for the residents. Crossing the t's and dotting the i's to determine this legally was not so easy.

In this instance we have someone who the evidence suggests is unable to be objective and logical, and who was not advised by a lawyer. It would be a very different story if this were a big company that had hired the best legal minds to help them to do so and then defend them when they were sanctioned. The tribunal did conclude this and rejected Menere's application to have the decision overturned.

Aug 2008 Tribunal's decision

Mr Graeme Menere was employed by the applicant in what was described as an administrative capacity until the closure of Belvedere Park in September.His role at Belvedere Park is the subject of consideration later in these reasons. The Tribunal advised Mr Graeme Menere to obtain independent legal advice with respect to some of the questions asked of him and suspended his cross examination to permit this to occur.

--------------------------

Mr Russell Menere, a Director of the applicant company and a person responsible for the executive decisions as well as some management and possibly some of the day to day operations of the applicant, was present during the first day of the hearing but was not called to give evidence. The failure to call him by the applicant is a matter of concern � particularly when, among other issues with which his evidence would have been of assistance, there was an issue concerning the extent of Ms Stekly's role and the involvement of Mr Graeme Menere in the executive decision making and/or management and/or day to day operations of Belvedere Park. The Tribunal will return to this issue later in these reasons.

------------------------

The applicant was incorporated on 30 September 1977. The shareholders of the applicant are the family trusts of Messrs Graeme and Russell Menere, each holding a 50% interest. At all relevant times Belvedere Park was the only business operated by the applicant. The directors of the applicant are Mr Russell Menere and his wife Mrs Joan Menere. The latter was appointed on 17 February 2001 and replaced Mr Graeme Menere who resigned as a director at or about the same time. Mr Graeme Menere's resignation followed his conviction for the indictable offence of stalking for which he was sentenced to three months imprisonment suspended for two years. That conviction resulted in him being categorised as a �disqualified individual,� a fact accepted by the applicant for the purposes of this hearing but not accepted by Mr Graeme Menere. Mr Graeme Menere seems to take the view that since his conviction occurred in a Magistrates' Court he has not been convicted of an indictable offence. This is not so. The Tribunal is satisfied that he stands convicted of an indictable offence which was tried summarily

---------------------------

Despite there being knowledge amongst some of the assessors and Departmental officers about the earlier involvement of the Agency and/or department with the Menere interests there is no material which evidenced a 'campaign' against any of the Meneres or the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the allegation of there being a 'campaign' was totally unfounded and not supported by any, let alone any creditable, evidence.

The Findings

The Role Of Mr Graeme Menere And The Responsibility For Decision Making At Belvedere Park

----------------------------

A disqualified person is not entitled to hold a position as a member of the �key personnel' of an approved provider

----------------------------

An issue before the Tribunal is whether Mr Graeme Menere took responsibility for some executive decisions and/or for some of the management or day to day operations of the applicant, that is, did he take a role as a member of the key personnel.

-----------------------------

On behalf of the applicant it was claimed that Mr Graeme Menere was an employee of the applicant undertaking administrative or clerical functions, including the payment of bills, staff wages, ensuring grants were received, and the preparation of annual budget for consideration by Mr Russell Menere. Mr Graeme Menere also claimed that he acted the conduit between the staff at the nursing home, conveying any requests which involved executive decision making to Mr Russell Menere and relaying the latter's decisions to the staff. This was also Ms Stekly's understanding.

------------------------

The Tribunal experienced considerable difficulty with Mr Graeme Menere's evidence. The Tribunal found him to be obtuse. For example, when asked about management he responded ��management has wide-ranging meanings. A person manages how they dress�� He was argumentative, for instance, in relation to who had authority in Victoria to sign cheques on behalf of the applicant he stated �Russell was in Melbourne from time to time, why wouldn't he be able to do that?� He was also unduly pedantic, for example when asked if he acted as a manager of the nursing home, he responded it was impossible to manage a nursing home as a nursing home was a building and that he did not know how to manage a building

------------------------------

In an affidavit, sworn on 21 August in support of an application to the Tribunal to stay the operation of the sanctions, Mr Graeme Menere stated that he had only visited Belvedere Park on �a few occasions��It is evident that he was there more often. - - - - - Mr Graeme Menere also attended the meeting of relations of the residents on the evening of 20 August. It follows that the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Graeme Menere made more visits than he was prepared to disclose and that Ms Stekly was mistaken in her evidence that Mr Graeme Menere only visited Belvedere Park about once every six months

------------------------

That Mr Russell Menere attended the first day of the Tribunal's hearing of this case but did not give oral evidence gives rise to an apprehension that he did not want to take responsibility for the executive decision making or management in respect of Belvedere Park.

-------------------------

The Tribunal doubts this evidence which could have easily been confirmed by Mr Russell Menere had he been called.

---------------------------

However, the following incidents leave the Tribunal satisfied that Mr Graeme Menere had greater responsibility with respect to the decision making at Belvedere Park than he was prepared to admit:

(a number of examples followed including - extracts only)

it was Ms Stekly's evidence that she had discussed with Mr Graeme Menere the notion of installing a key pad in place of a latch to control ingress and egress through the front door of Belvedere Park and that he approved the expenditure for the purchase and installation

-------------------------------

Mr Graeme Menere participated in the exit meeting at the end of Dr Lett and Ms Clarke's support visit of 3 August and asked questions,

-----------------------------
the role of Mr Graeme Menere as outlined by Mr Gilbert in negotiating an agreement confirmed in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the salary to be paid to Belvedere Park's nursing staff. - - - - - - - - It was Mr Gilbert's evidence that no mention was made of Mr Russell Menere. Finally, Mr Graeme Menere notified the staff in writing of the agreement reached and commended it to them. Ms Stekly confirmed Mr Graeme Menere was the person responsible for negotiating the agreement and commending it to the staff;

----------------------------

It was Ms Stekly's evidence that she had only met Mr Russell Menere twice, on one occasion at the end of 2006 or early in 2007 at Mr Graeme Menere's wedding. Otherwise she had telephone contact with him 'maybe once a year.' Mr Graeme Menere was unable in his evidence to say how often Mr Russell Menere visited Melbourne to attend to business associated with Belvedere Park. - - - - - - - - The Tribunal additionally notes the delegate's conclusion that on 20 August Mr Russell Menere was unable to name the person who was currently managing Belvedere Park following Ms Stekly's resignation. It would seem reasonable to conclude, and the Tribunal does conclude, that Mr Russell Menere was a very remote executive decision maker who took very little active involvement in Belvedere Park and rarely participated in the management of the facility. The Tribunal is satisfied that both Ms Stekly and Mr Graeme Menere participated in the responsibility for the executive decision making and management of the applicant.

-------------------------------

There is no evidence before the Tribunal which suggests that there was any correspondence, including email contact, between Ms Stekly and Mr Russell Menere. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Russell Menere lived initially in Brisbane and latterly in Sydney. At all relevant times he worked in a capacity which had nothing to do with the applicant's business. The evidence suggests that the first time since 2000 that Mr Russell Menere visited Belvedere Park was on 20 August (2007).

---------------------------------

However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence discloses that sometimes Mr Graeme Menere took it upon himself to decide and implement what ought be done in repair of day to day operations without reference to Mr Russell Menere.

The Tribunal considered the level of sanction which should be applied. However, the immediacy and seriousness of the areas identified left the Tribunal satisfied that the sanction decided by the delegate was the correct and preferred sanction. In addition to the immediate and serious risk to residents there were a number of other factors which influenced the Tribunal in reaching its determination. The Tribunal could gain no satisfaction from the fact that Mr Russell Menere was not prepared to give evidence that improvements would be properly planned and that leadership would be provided as required by Standard Part 1 Item 1.5. The Tribunal was not assured from Mr Graeme Menere's evidence that he would not continue to participate in the executive decision making, the management or the day to day operations of Belvedere Park, as he does not accept that he has a conviction which disqualifies him from participating as a member of the key personnel. Finally, the fact that the applicant reopened without informing the appointed administrator, and contrary to the Tribunal's direction, does not inspire confidence that compliance with any conditions imposed would be maintained. While these other factors do not play any part in the determination of the serious and immediate risk they do not act to bolster confidence that any lesser sanction than those applied would be more appropriate.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL :GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION No 2007/3964 Re SAITTA PTY LTD And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & AGEING August 5, 2008

To read the full text of these and the many other articles describing what happened at the Belvedere Park Nursing Home in 2007 in more detail go to the Aged Care Crisis search web page (link below) and search for "Belvedere Park" etc.

For Updates:- A good way to check for recent developments in aged care is to go to the aged care crisis group's search page and enter the name of the company, nursing home or key words relating to any other matter in the search box. Most significant press reports are flagged there. The aged care crisis web site has recently been restructured and some of the older links used from this site may not work.

Web Page History
This page created Sept 2006 by Michael Wynne
Updated October 2007, September 2008