GLENELG Shire Mayor Scott Martin will be forced to apologise to fellow councillor Gilbert Wilson for saying the latter “has been rocking up to meetings in a bathrobe”.

Cr Wilson lodged a complaint against Cr Martin, then Deputy Mayor, in September after a lengthy social media post by the latter in the weeks following the decision to adopt the 2022-23 budget.

That budget, with substantial rate rises for both residential and primary producer ratepayers, was passed on the casting vote of former Mayor Anita Rank in late-June at a meeting which Cr Martin did not attend due to illness.

 Cr Martin posted a long response to the events surrounding the budget and rate rises on the Portland Bay Beacon Facebook page on July 12.

In it he said: “It is disappointing to see all councillors didn’t take the opportunity to provide a clear voice to ratepayers on how the rate system works although I wasn’t surprised as one councillor has been rocking up to meetings in a bathrobe of late.”

That and nine other statements in the post were referred by Cr Wilson – as breaches of standards in the Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Regulations – to the internal arbitration process seeking a finding of misconduct against Cr Martin.

Independent arbiter Louise Hill held a hearing in December and her decision, made on January 9, was tabled at the council’s monthly meeting in Portland on Tuesday night.

Ms Hill made a finding of misconduct against Cr Martin, saying he had “failed to show respect” to Cr Wilson by making the bathrobe comment.

She directed Cr Martin make a written apology on the same Facebook page within 14 days of the tabling of the report to the council meeting, as well as a personal written apology to Cr Wilson “acknowledging the personal negative impact on him and to provide assurances to Cr Wilson that he will work as Mayor and councillor to build positive constructive relationships with him and between all councillors throughout his term(s) on (the) council”.

“It is regrettable that the arbitration process is being used in this manner and the councillors are reluctant to discuss their differences and concerns directly with one another,” Ms Hill says.

“The community expects their elected representatives to uphold high standards of behaviour and without this, our trust and confidence in them is diminished unnecessarily.”

While Cr Martin had not directly named Cr Wilson as the councillor wearing a bathrobe, Ms Hill says “as the article only names two other current councillors in respect of the rating system decision, it can reasonably be deduced it is one of them”.

“The statement is without context as it implies multiple meetings and is silent whether these are in person or virtual meetings,” she says.

“It is designed to belittle, embarrass or possibly humiliate a councillor by implying that the councillor is not putting sufficient importance on the manner of attending council meetings.”

Cr Wilson told the hearing that while he was not named “people who know him believed it was him who was referred to”.

“He had been ill and was required to attend a confidential council meeting via (online platform) Zoom.

“To get a good digital connection, he had to go to his garage and wore his bathrobe, as it was very cold.”

Cr Wilson also said he found it “distasteful and abhorrent” that his views on the rating system were about getting votes.

Cr Martin told the hearing that he did not believe the bathrobe comment to be disrespectful “and conversely that it is disrespectful to attend council meetings in a bathrobe”.

He also said that it was robust political debate “all part of the theatre of politics”, but Ms Hill says she disagreed with that.

“Robust political debate is about the contest of ideas, options and the impact of council decisions,” she says.

“Personal attacks are not consistent with the standard of conduct.”

While she did not find the other nine comments to have breached the standards some did “seem politically motivated given that the council’s decision for rating system change was already made and was not still under consideration by the council”.

“All councillors are entitled to vote as they consider is in the best interests of their community,” Ms Hill says.

“Public discussion of issues and which way councillors voted is not bringing discredit on the council nor misleading the public.”

While he will have to apologise, Cr Martin was not repentant about his comments.

“My job is to abide by her decision,” he told the Observer.

“It’s not about whether it was right or wrong, it’s her decision.

“I’ve made the comments and I stick to facts as much as possible.”

Cr Wilson told the Observer that he could only comment as a resident, not a councillor.

“It concerns me that he has had to wait until an arbiter made a decision before he considers acting,” he said.

“It is disappointing that this occurred, it shouldn’t have occurred, but I’ll continue to stand against anything that goes over the line of how we should perform.

“I’ve faced some challenges in the past where I didn’t cross the line but I’m sure I must’ve been close.

“The (Local Government Regulations are) quite clear, it’s how people perceive actions.

“You can’t act the way the old councillors used to act, where we used to have significant robust discussions.

“We’re still able to have robust discussions but it should be at the council table, which most of it is these days.”