Last week’s story ‘Two Kingston councillors sanctioned after arbitration’ contained a sentence “Agirtan was further found to have made comments Saab believed were referring to him, implying that Saab was following her, calling him a ‘little worm’ and a ‘chamber lurker’”.
The term “little worm” was not made by Cr Jane Agirtan but was a comment by a third-party in response to her post.
Agirtan also requested that further context be provided as to the arbitration outcome.
Agirtan was found to have engaged “in misconduct by failing to comply with the standards of conduct” due to violations of Clause 2(1)(a) and Clause 2(1)(b) of the council’s Model Councillor Code of Conduct.
Clause 2(1)(a) prevents specific conduct which, amongst other things, insults, name calls, or threatens someone. Clause 2(1)(b) prohibits deliberate behaviour contributing broader social harm because the person belongs or is perceived to belong to a particular group.
Agirtan was also found to have not breached Clause 4(1)(a) and Clause 4(1)(b).
Clause 4(1) requires an overarching obligation to act with integrity, exercise reasonable care and avoid conduct which may diminish public trust and confidence in the integrity of local government. Clause 4(1)(a) prohibits conduct which brings discredit upon the Council and Clause 4(1)(b) prohibits conduct which deliberately misleads the Council or the public.
First published in the Chelsea Mordialloc Mentone News – 2 September 2026