Councillor Adamant He Has Done Nothing Wrong

February 3, 2014

South Burnett councillor Damien Tessmann’s bid to have the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal review an adverse finding against him by the Regional Conduct Review Panel has failed.

Cr Tessmann received a formal letter back from QCAT on Friday stating the body did not have the jurisdiction to hear his application.

In January, the Division 3 councillor was ordered to apologise to Council for allegedly misleading a Council meeting and pay a $1000 fine.

However Cr Tessmann is adamant he has done nothing wrong and is concerned about the “unfairness” of the Review Panel process.

Cr Tessmann says he was given no opportunity to defend himself against the allegation, made by Windera resident Ralph Percy.

He said the Panel had asked him to provide his telephone number and be available between 10:00am and noon on November 12, but no telephone call came and there is now no avenue of appeal open for him.

He says he had no intention to mislead Council at the July 2012 meeting.

And he says it was impossible, anyway, for his fellow councillors to have been misled as all the information that he spoke about had been previously circulated to Council members by email before the meeting.

The complaint stemmed from a verbal report Cr Tessmann made to council about the reaction of descendants of Sir Charles Adermann to the proposed sale of a portion of Adermann Park in Kingaroy.

It was reported in the media the family had no objections, but it later became apparent in another report that at least one family member had some reservations about the issue.

Cr Tessmann says he recalls telling the Council meeting that the family had some “legacy issues”.

He deliberately did not table the family’s letter to the meeting as he wanted to protect the privacy of the letter writer from public harassment, however a copy of it had been forwarded to every Council member and all senior Council staff including the CEO.

southburnett.com.au has been given a copy of this correspondence (see letter below) between Cr Tessmann and his fellow councillors and other Council staff.

It was sent on July 16, 2012, two days before the July 18 meeting where Cr Tessmann allegedly “misled” the Council about the letter’s contents.

The email correspondence, which has been stored in Council’s Dataworks system, is a forwarded copy of an email received by Cr Tessmann from Adermann family representative Sid Bickerton following a meeting on-site at Adermann Park between him, Sir Charles’ two daughters Joy Gill and Nell Bickerton and St John’s Lutheran School principal Helen Folker.

“I don’t know how anyone could arrive at the conclusion that I intentionally misled Council,” Cr Tessmann said today.

“But it’s now the end of the line. And I can’t get a review. Even football players can get a review of a decision but not councillors.”

He said he would be writing to Local Government Minister David Crisafulli to highlight the unfairness of the current legislation and urge changes to the Act.

Cr Tessmann will now be forced to rise to his feet at the February 18 meeting of Council to apologise for misleading his colleagues; something he knows he didn’t do.

southburnett.com.au believes none of the Councillors feel they were misled by Cr Tessmann, either.

Attempts by southburnett.com.au to gain a comment from the Local Government Association Of Queensland have been unsuccessful.

* * *

The text of the email from Sid Bickerton that was forwarded to all South Burnett councillors on July 16, 2012, two days before Cr Tessmann spoke about the family’s state of mind at a South Burnett Regional Council meeting.

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us and Mrs Folker last Thursday aftemoon at Sir Charles Adermann Park and the opportunity to offer our thoughts and opinions as family of Sir Charles.

It was good to see St John’s Lutheran School in its present state of development; we appreciate the excellent work being done by the school.

We recognise of course that we have no “right” to state what SHOULD happen to this park, but are glad of the opportunity to express our views and feelings regarding possible alterations to this park, named to honour the memory of one who was very dear to us, and who was always a staunch and resolute advocate for his town and district.

We recall the statement by council representative when the portion of farm land was set aside for park, to the effect that council was considering doing something additional to honour the memory of Sir Charles. So you will understand our disappointment at plans to lessen the scope of the memorial rather than to increase it.

This discussion is unlikely to be present in written form in council records, but resides firmly in the memory of SDB who was involved in all negotiations regarding the sub-division.

With regard to council’s concerns over maintenance costs, it seems that the amount required to maintain the portion of land in question would be relatively small in proportion since this does not include toilet block, barbecues, covered lunch facilities, play equipment or sun-sails.

In the event that the council should decide to make part of the memorial park available for purchase (probably by the school) it seems to us that it would be preferable to survey off the top portion distant from Ivy St ; this would better maintain the shape and appearance of the park; access for residents on the top side could easily be provided through a pedestrian lane or walk-way. Survey costs would not be huge for someone wanting use of the land.

If a portion of the park were to be sold for use by the school, we would hope it would not be crowded with buildings in a way that would diminish the park atmosphere.

What happens when St John’s needs land for Years 10,11,12? Would it not be better to locate Middle School and Upper School on a separate Campus?

The above statement reflects the views and opinions of various grand-children, great-grand-children and other family members.

Yours Sincerely

Joy & Keith Gill
Nell & Sid Bickerton