A DA investigation has revealed Mr Eldridge did not disclose his real estate agent son was a director in a company involved in the marketing of a parcel of land earmarked for a residential estate.

During a period Mr Eldridge was effectively running council’s planning department, he oversaw an application by Inglewood Estate Pty Ltd, of which his son Josh is one of two directors, to rezone 288 hectares of land at Gumly Gumly from farmland to residential.

On three separate occasions, he failed to declare a pecuniary interest in the application.

A member of council has a pecuniary interest if there is a reasonable likelihood they, or someone close to them, could make an appreciable financial gain or loss from a council decision.

By this definition, Mr Eldridge had an undeniable pecuniary interest in the rezoning of the Gumly Gumly land.

When the DA challenged him on the issue, Mr Eldridge lodged a retrospective pecuniary interest, claiming he was unaware of his son’s involvement.

The public is rightly cynical about this plausible deniability defence, which is often used by politicians.

It is, of course, entirely plausible Mr Eldridge did not know his son was a director of the company making the application.

But he should have known.

As Wagga’s highest paid and highest ranking public official, it is incumbent on Mr Eldridge to take reasonable steps to know when a family member may have a financial stake in a matter before council, especially a property development.

Mr Eldridge’s greatest appeal to the councillors that hired him was his corporate sensibility and can-do determination.

But the sphere of local government is vastly different from the business world.

With power comes responsibility and ratepayers demand nothing less than absolute transparency.

Robust scrutiny of politicians and powerful bureaucrats strikes to the heart of good governance and public accountability.

Councillors should support this principle and call for an independent inquiry into the matter.