AN arbitration matter between two Kingston councillors has been dismissed without a finding of misconduct.
Cr Jane Agirtan made the application against Cr Hadi Saab, alleging that a comment left on his Facebook page by a third party had put him in violation of council’s code of conduct. The comment referenced Cr Agirtan encouraging her social media followers to attend March for Australia rallies last year.
Cr Agirtan alleged that Cr Saab had breached clause two of the Model Councillor Code of Conduct, which reads that “a councillor must treat others, including other councillors, members of council staff and members of the public, with dignity, fairness, objectivity, courtesy and respect”, by allowing the comment to remain on his Facebook page for multiple weeks.
The arbiter’s decision read that Cr Saab “has not breached clause two and, as such, I make no finding of misconduct against him. The application is therefore dismissed.
“Given that the post was by a third party, was not accepted or impliedly endorsed by the respondent, and voluntarily removed when it was brought to his attention, I do not find that the respondent failed to treat the applicant with ‘dignity, fairness, objectivity, courtesy or respect’. On the basis that there is no finding of misconduct.”
The arbiter’s decision, which was tabled at council’s April public meeting and published alongside the meeting minutes, read that Cr Agirtan submitted an application for conciliation without asking Cr Saab to remove the comment.
“As mentioned, a resident alerted the applicant to the post on 1 November 2025 by providing a screenshot,” the arbiter’s decision read. “The applicant however did not contact the respondent raising concerns about the post and asking for it to be removed. Instead, the applicant submitted an application for conciliation to the council on 2 December 2025.
“It is important to note that, consistent with the respondent’s evidence that he was not aware of the third party’s post until 17 December 2025, the respondent did not “like”, comment on, otherwise approve the post before removing it. Further, there is no evidence that the respondent facilitated the post. (…) Despite an acknowledgment on 5 January 2026 that the post had been removed, the applicant elected to continue with her conciliation application and then, once that process had ended, to submit the application.”
Ratepayers will foot the bill for the arbitration process. The News understands that further arbitration outcomes are set to be tabled by Kingston Council in the months to come.
The arbiter’s decision noted the cost of the process – it read that “both parties lodged a significant amount of material which had limited or no relevance to the allegation in the application. I give the benefit of doubt that their intention was to provide ‘background and context’ to the application, and not to use the hearing to ventilate their fractured relationship. Provision of irrelevant material does not assist the process, and simply adds to the cost of the arbitration to be borne by ratepayers.”
Although the allegation of misconduct was not upheld, the arbiter advised Cr Saab “that if he believes that he is not able to regularly monitor his Facebook page, the page should be deleted, or at least temporarily deactivated. Otherwise, the respondent is at risk of being held liable as publisher of any inappropriate posts he fails to notice and remove.”
Cr Saab’s original social media post was about a motion he raised at council’s October 2025 meeting calling for council to “reaffirm our unwavering support to our First Nations communities and our ongoing commitment to reconciliation through truth-telling, treaty, respect and Justice and condemn any attack or action that seeks to harm First Nations people including the alleged attack on Camp Sovereignty”. The matter was deferred last year, and ultimately considered at the April council meeting.
Kingston Council is currently being overseen by two state government-appointed monitors.
First published in the Chelsea Mordialloc Mentone News – 6 May 2026