Mornington Peninsula ratepayers are facing a potentially significant and ongoing financial burden following the appointment of two State-appointed monitors to Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, as Mayor Anthony Marsh attempts to reframe the monitor appointments as his own idea.
STPL News contacted the office of the Minister for Local Government, which confirmed municipal monitors are paid $1,375 per day, per monitor, plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. Under the Local Government Act 2020, the cost of monitors is borne by the council, not the State Government.
That cost is therefore carried by ratepayers.
What the monitors could cost
The final bill will depend on how many days the monitors are engaged and the expenses incurred. Based on the confirmed daily rate and the appointment of two monitors, the potential cost range is substantial.
The estimates below are monitor fees only, excluding expenses:
- One day per week each (2 monitor-days per week): about $143,000 per year
- Two days per week each (4 monitor-days per week): about $286,000 per year
- Three days per week each (6 monitor-days per week): about $429,000 per year
- Five days per week each (10 monitor-days per week): about $715,000 per year
The Minister’s office also confirmed the number of days worked can increase or decrease depending on the level of support deemed necessary. This means the final cost to ratepayers is not fixed and there is no publicly stated cap.
The Mayor’s claim raises accountability questions
Mayor Marsh has publicly framed the appointment of monitors as his idea. If accurate, that claim carries serious implications.
Municipal monitors are not appointed to councils where there are no governance concerns. They are deployed when the State determines independent oversight is required. Claiming ownership of such an intervention does not lessen its significance. It sharpens the accountability test.
If the Mayor initiated the request, ratepayers are entitled to ask why the elected leader of the council believed State supervision was necessary, and why the likely financial impact was not disclosed publicly beforehand.
If the request did not originate from the Mayor or the council, then the claim itself becomes a matter requiring clarification.
Evidence and paper trail not produced publicly
STPL News has sought documentation to substantiate the Mayor’s claim, including whether any formal request or correspondence was made in relation to the appointment of the monitors, when it was made, and whether councillors were consulted or informed in advance.
To date, no documentary evidence has been released publicly demonstrating that the monitor appointments originated from the Mayor or the council.
STPL News has made further enquiries regarding the matter, which we hope to receive answers on soon. Given the timing and holiday period, we anticipate an initial delay.
A mayoralty marked by controversy
The appointment of monitors does not occur in isolation. It follows a mayoral term marked by a series of significant and ongoing controversies that have fuelled community concern and internal unrest.
These include:
- The sudden axing of arts, cultural and environmental funding, which drew backlash from community groups and advocates who said the cuts occurred without adequate consultation.
- A mass exodus of senior council staff, with multiple high-level departures during the term.
- Major staffing restructure and redundancies, which was forced by the Mayor after he and his bloc of 6 voted to significantly reduce staff funding.
- The McCrae landslide, followed by a report that found Mornington Peninsula Shire Council was partially responsible (along South East Water) and criticised council conduct, including poor form following the event, including the lack of proactivity and failures in communication with effected residents.
- Deteriorating relations with neighbouring councils, including a public dispute with the Mayor of Frankston and the dramatic exit from a cross-council collaboration agreement involving Frankston and Kingston.
- Regular protests at council meetings, with residents repeatedly voicing anger and frustration over transparency, decision-making and leadership.
- The emergence of a dominant voting bloc of six councillors, which has effectively sidelined other elected councillors. In an on-the-record interview with STPL News, existing councillor Cam Williams confirmed that certain councillors by the bloc of 6.
It is within this broader context that State-appointed monitors have now been introduced.
What the community is saying
The appointment of municipal monitors, and the Mayor’s claim that it was his idea, has triggered a strong and often heated response from readers.
Many comments received by STPL News reflect frustration and mistrust, with residents questioning whether the intervention points to deeper governance and transparency issues, and what it ultimately means for ratepayers.
Some commenters said they hoped external oversight would curb what they described as entrenched behaviour at council and restore transparency.
“Not surprised anyone who has seen the voting block of six in action and the Mayor shut down any transparency will welcome this.”
“Let’s see if the underhanded and bullying behaviour stops.”
Others questioned whether the appointment suggested councillors could no longer be trusted to run the council independently, with concerns raised about escalation.
“Does it mean they are not trusted to run a council?”
“Appointment of an administrator is only one step away. What a waste!”
Several residents also raised concerns about financial stewardship and accountability.
“Now we are left to wonder what our council has really been up to with our money.”
A smaller number of commenters defended the Mayor, framing the oversight as a necessary reset rather than a failure, while others warned that criticism risked going too far.
“The pile on here is quite defamatory.”
Claiming the mayor has had to make unpopular decisions.
“He took over the ship and now has it well afloat – by cutting out all the immense fluff that had crept in – but let me guess you are a noisy arts minority who we were all funding.”
Much of the commentary defending Mayor Anthony Marsh was hostile and deflective, with name-calling and bickering replacing substance. Some responses shifted blame onto others or alleged media bias instead of addressing the monitor appointments and the cost to ratepayers.
STPL News encourages readers to verify what they read, including our own reporting, and to apply the same scrutiny to all media organisations and public personalities.
In reporting, narratives are sometimes shaped by access, relationships and financial interests, and the public is not always told when those pressures exist. In political circles, even in local government, this is sometimes described as “protecting the golden goose”.
Readers should ask:
“Who is benefiting from this version of events, and how will the truth negatively impact them?”
Further information pending
STPL News has requested additional information from the Minister for Local Government’s office, including clarification on the expected engagement level of the monitors, whether any estimate or cap exists on the total cost, and what reporting requirements will apply. STPL News has been advised a response is forthcoming.
Ratepayers deserve transparency
Whether the appointment of monitors was imposed by the State or invited by the Mayor, the outcome is the same. Mornington Peninsula ratepayers are paying for it.
What remains unclear is how much it will ultimately cost and why a level of intervention requiring external supervision became necessary.
If the Mayor’s claim is accurate, it suggests either a willingness to impose a substantial financial burden on the community or an acknowledgement that his leadership required oversight. Neither outcome diminishes the seriousness of the situation.
You can bet that Councill Watch Victoria ( Dean Hurlston ) will not be saying anything about this unless it is to say how unfair it is.