Indeed, the Goulburn Post at the most recent council meeting unsuccessfully objected to closed committee discussions about this issue.

The following day, we were given not only the open resolution from that meeting, but a copy of an internal investigation, a media release from Cr Kettle and Cr Saville's resignation letter.

That's certainly welcome but we question whether such transparency always applies.

Since changes to the NSW Local Government Act, the public is not entitled to know what code of conduct complaints Council receives or investigates unless a breach is proven and a sanction imposed.

Once upon a time, in fact not so long ago, the public did know because even allegations were reported to Council. The resulting investigation and outcome was reproduced in the council business paper for community consumption.

Who can forget the case of former councillor Geoff Peterson?

In 2011 he was censured by his colleagues for "offensive" comments he made about local Exclusive Brethren members the year before.

At the time, Cr Peterson complained about the investigation process, saying he was at least entitled to know who made the complaint.

Several years later, such reporting transparency went out the window when laws were changed.

Now there's a veil of secrecy. Mayor Geoff Kettle has revealed that he's had eight code of conduct complaints levelled against him in his time on Council.

We're aware one of these related to the Islamic Cemetery and the alleged leak of confidential information.

He says the Division of Local Government investigated and found there there was no breach. We can't independently verify this statement because the information is confidential. In fact, the allegation was never reported to Council.

He at least has told us that four other complaints alleged a conflict of interest in debate about the Marulan Driver Training.

Cr Kettle said these were also dismissed.

More concerningly, a report to December's council meeting only details the number of code of complaints received for the year.

It took further questions to general manager Warwick Bennett to discover that in fact one of these was investigated "in-house," found not to be a breach and therefore not taken further.

Why, and its details, we will never know.

While there may be good reason for not unjustifiably dragging councillors' reputations through the mud, the alternative is a secret society.

If it's good enough to publicly release the details of Mr Saville's matter, why not the rest? The public is entitled to greater transparency.