Blog

In governance circles, selecting a chairman is a defining move, especially in organizations as crucial as Orygen, a mental health organization dedicated to youth mental health and advocacy. This role demands a leader who embodies reliability, integrity, and accountability. So when Orygen’s board appointed former Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews—a figure with a recent history of “I don’t remember” responses during the Hotel Quarantine Inquiry—as chairman, it raised more than a few eyebrows.

Governance and the Risks of Selective Amnesia

How does a board appoint as its chair a former executive with a recent public record of memory lapses? For those concerned with governance, this choice is perplexing. The chairman role isn’t just symbolic—it’s a position of strategic importance. The chair sets the tone for integrity, ensures the board’s actions align with ethical standards, and holds executives accountable. If a chairman has trouble recalling important events in one role, it raises questions about their dependability in another.

One might ask: Did the board consider that this memory issue may be more than just inconvenient? In an organization like Orygen, where public trust and transparency are paramount, appointing a leader with selective recall could undermine the organization’s credibility and affect stakeholder confidence.

Integrity, Accountability, and Board Responsibility

A chairman’s memory, or lack thereof, could be seen as a matter of integrity. If an executive can’t remember significant decisions or communications, stakeholders might wonder if they’re sidestepping responsibility. Indeed, executives are often asked to “recall” in order to assure shareholders and the public that they are acting in good faith. When those assurances aren’t there, or when evasive responses replace transparency, it reflects poorly on the organization.

Here’s a hard question for the board: Did the Risk Committee evaluate the potential implications of appointing a chairman with such memory issues? Ignoring a well-documented history of “I don’t recall” responses in a candidate’s record may point to a governance gap within the board itself. After all, if memory lapses were acceptable in a crisis previously, what assurance does Orygen have that similar issues won’t arise again?

The Role of Due Diligence in Leadership Appointments

An organization as influential as Orygen needs a chairman who projects stability and confidence. The governance mandate to conduct thorough due diligence and uphold risk management standards means considering every aspect of a candidate’s record. This goes beyond reputation; it includes a critical look at past performance, ethical standards, and—yes—memory.

One might question: Was the board hoping that these lapses were behind him, or did they decide that the chairman’s strategic memory wasn’t relevant? Leaving these questions unanswered does a disservice to the organization and to those who rely on it for leadership in mental health advocacy.

Points for Consideration: Asking the Right Questions

When the public, stakeholders, or staff hear of such an appointment, they’re entitled to ask questions like:

• Did the board genuinely consider the risks involved in appointing someone with a documented history of forgetfulness regarding crucial decisions?
• Was this a case of overlooking a red flag or simply a misjudgment in assessing the candidate’s suitability for a role that demands keen memory and accountability?
• Does the board believe the chairman’s memory will improve under new circumstances, or was this aspect of his record not a consideration in the decision?

Final Thoughts

Leadership in any organization, especially in sectors as sensitive as mental health, demands more than reputation; it demands reliability and clarity. A board that sidesteps a candidate’s history of memory lapses not only takes on a risky decision but also sends a message that accountability is optional. For an organization like Orygen, this choice raises uncomfortable questions about what kind of governance and accountability it prioritizes.

Perhaps the real memory lapse here wasn’t in the chairman’s past role but in the board’s decision to overlook it.

References

1. COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry Final Report, Jennifer Coate AO, 2020. Available at: Royal CommissionArchive
2. Analysis on governance implications of memory lapses in executive roles: “Daniel Andrews and Accountability in Governance,” ABC News.