Councillors Brian Kelson, Peter Hulin and Peter Sycopoulis were found to have met the journalist the day before the newspaper’s ‘‘exclusive’’ May 1 article.

The story alleged then-premier Denis Napthine had “direct involvement” in helping pave the way for proposed expansion of Midfield’s Warrnambool operations — something Dr Napthine has always denied. 

The Age questioned the Napthine government’s $1.5m Regional Development Victoria grant for Midfield and the proposed sale of Crown land to Midfield and transfer of title ownership for its proposed milk plant.

The story cited parts of a confidential council meeting on February 10, 2014, when councillors voted to support the sale of the Crown land to Midfield. The meeting heard Midfield boss Colin McKenna had discussed the expansion plans with Dr Napthine.

City chief executive Bruce Anson hit back at The Age’s attack on Dr Napthine the next day, telling The Standard that it was the former Bracks Labor government that in 2003 had given in-principle approval for Crown land adjoining the meatworks to be sold to the council which would sell it to Midfield for expansion. Midfield had shelved the plan at the time. 

Following an investigation of all seven councillors’ phone records and documents, the Local Government and Compliance Inspectorate said this week that it was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any of the three councillors leaked confidential information from the February meeting.

But it did establish that the trio had met The Age journalist Ben Schneiders on April 30 to discuss “matters relating to council business”.

Following The Age story’s publication on May 1 councillors scrambled to deny their involvement as the inspectorate was called in. 

On May 7, Cr Peter Hulin, who has been implicated in previous confidentiality breaches, told The Standard he had ‘‘serious concerns’’ that someone in council had gone to ‘‘devious means in an attempt to unseat the Premier and our local member’’.

Crs Kelson, Hulin and Sycopoulis also said they would sign affidavits to make sure the ‘‘heat of suspicion’’ would not be on them. 

None of them has signed the council’s code of conduct. The two journalists who wrote the story refused to identify their sources.

The inspectorate confirmed that it has no evidence to indicate who actually released the confidential report.

“As such, the inspectorate has concluded its investigation and unless new evidence comes to light, no further action will be taken in relation to this matter,” the inspectorate said.

The inspectorate found none of the trio advised council chief executive Bruce Anson, communications manager Nick Higgins or colleagues of their meeting with Schneiders and Millar, or of The Age’s intentions to publish information relating to the confidential report.

It called for tighter monitoring of what councillors discuss with the media, particularly in relation to sensitive commercial information. 

“Council is encouraged to consider and adopt appropriate steps to minimise the risk of this occurrence in the future,” the inspectorate said. 

“Releasing of confidential information undermines confidence of the community in governance of the council.

“In addition it can potentially cause reputational damage, and discourage individuals, organisations and other levels of government from dealing with council.”

The inspectorate recommended the council’s media policy be beefed up to state that councillors must (rather than should) notify the communications manager of comments made to the media.

The inspectorate also said council should consider engaging a facilitator to work with councillors and staff on achieving “improved relationships that ensure everyone is working towards the overall objective of serving the community”.

Councillors will consider the report and recommendations at an open meeting on Tuesday evening.