The councillor of five years doesn’t deny his mistake but said the $10,000 could have been better spent.

“At the end of the day the complaint was upheld but the basis of it was ridiculous,” he said.

“If it had cost ratepayers zero then happy days. But what bothers me is it cost $10,000, which could have been used on parks, improving infrastructure or many other things.”

At the most recent council meeting, Cr Banfield named the complainants, which should have been kept confidential under Code of Conduct guidelines.

Nancy Cheetham and Doug Rawlinson alleged that Cr Banfield had a conflict of interest in a proposed motorcycle facility at north Goulburn. 

Council unanimously approved the controversial development last August. It had generated a flurry of opposition based on noise and amenity impacts, including from Mrs Cheetham and Mr Rawlinson.

At that meeting Cr Banfield successfully argued that open class bikes be allowed at the track, rather than being restricted to 125cc, as planners recommended.

From the meeting’s outset, he declared that he did not have a conflict of interest in “any item” on that night’s agenda.

But last month an independent reviewer found this statement was inadequate.

Cr Banfield confirmed that the report found he should have been more specific and stated that he had a nonpecuniary interest in the matter.

As such, the reviewer made an adverse finding and recommended Cr Banfield undertake counselling on the code of conduct.

Amid heated public debate, opponents of the development alleged Cr Banfield was previously a member of the Goulburn Motorcycle Club.

Cr Banfield has denied this and told the Post the independent review confirmed this point. He said he owned a motorbike and had past “minor” involvement with club events.

The report has been kept confidential under code of conduct provisions because stronger sanctions, such as censure or apology, were not recommended.

But at the most recent meeting, he made the following statement on the back of the report: “I wish to clarify my position in relation to the proposed motorcycle facility at north Goulburn,” he told the meeting.

“Following an independent review into complaints by Nancy Cheetham and Doug Rawlinson of my role, I am now aware it could have been seen that I have a conflict of interest in the proposal.

“This conflict is not a pecuniary interest.

“The conflict is a non-pecuniary interest as I have had past minor involvement with events involving the club and is not significant.”

On the same night, Cr Banfield also declared a non-pecuniary, non-significant conflict of interest in the Classic Riders Club’s request for a review of Council’s previous decision not to grant a fee waiver for the hire of Montague St for its recent gathering.

“…As I own a motorbike and although not a member, I have on occasions been on rides with members of the club,” he said.

“As this is not of a significant nature, I will remain in the meeting for this item.”

Cr Banfield said he wouldn’t be declaring an interest in another item concerning the Southern Phone Company even though he “owned a phone”.

His latter statement rankled with former councillor Geoff Peterson, who opposed the motorcycle facility on the basis of noise and amenity impacts.

“It demonstrated contempt for that section of the meeting that requires councillors to declare conflicts of interests in agenda items,” Mr Peterson said.

“He made a mockery of that process and that’s very disappointing.”

Cr Banfield said he made the statement because “that’s how pedantic it had become,” but he accepted the umpire’s decision.

“I’m happy to do the counselling,” he told the Post.

“If you make a mistake and don’t learn from it, you’re an idiot.”

He said he’d since met with Mayor Geoff Kettle and general manager Chris Berry who had set out guidelines to which he had to adhere.

At the same time he maintained he would have remained in the meeting that night if he had made the correct declaration as the conflict was non-pecuniary and nonsignificant.

Cr Banfield said he had not met with members of the Motorcycle Club before the meeting to discuss the development.

He believed he had been consistent in declaring conflicts of interest at Council meetings. 

Cr Banfield frequently does so, given that his brother-in-law, Andy Divall, is director of Divalls Earthmoving which tenders for numerous Council contracts.

Cr Banfield said he’d be extra vigilant now.

“I will certainly be making a declaration on every single item if I think that through my work activities or relationships with people, that I have a non-pecuniary interest,” he said.

But he argued that at the end of the day two people had questioned his integrity in order to have a nine nil council decision reversed.

Cr Banfield believed complainants would think twice before lodging such complaints if they had to foot half the cost.

Neither Mrs Cheetham nor Mr Rawlinson wished to comment.