A formal complaint has been filed against a senior district councillor from Warwick after efforts to resolve a spat with a political rival hit the buffers.

Cllr Jim Sinnott, Warwick District Council’s portfolio holder for communities and leisure, has been accused of misleading comments and being disrespectful towards Cllr Jan Matecki in a council meeting in October.

The council referred the complaint back to the two political groups involved in the hope of reaching an informal resolution but complainant Cllr Matecki confirmed that “agreement could not be reached”, adding that he was “disappointed “ it could not be settled amicably.

Cllr Matecki said Cllr Sinnott had apologised via email for referring to him by surname only during the meeting but that he had not been prepared to express that publicly at the next meeting of council.

He argued any apology should be done as publicly as the remark it related to in order “to maintain public confidence in the way that we interact with each other”. 

The other element of the complaint remains a bone of contention with Cllr Matecki stating: “He doesn’t accept that he misled council, which I disagree with.”

That relates to questions put to Cllr Sinnott on October 2.

Cllr Matecki’s queries centred around the ability of some councillors to fulfil duties through attending meetings.

They were diplomatically worded to avoid naming the councillor he had been referring to but Cllr Matecki argued that Cllr Sinnott’s references like “cloak and daggers” had been “somewhat misleading” because he had emailed the nature of his query prior to that meeting. 

Councillors can only ask one follow up during questions to cabinet members and Cllr Maetcki was stopped from going further than that on the night but one other councillor can make a further query, which Cllr Pam Redford did later on. That led to Cllr Sinnott’s reference to the “famous Matecki third question being slipped in”.

Cllr Sinnott confirmed he had apologised via email for that comment, acknowledging that it had been “poor form”, but said he would await the outcome of the formal process before deciding whether to go any further than that. 

He “completely” disagrees that he misled council, adding: “WDC is the neutral arbiter and will come to their conclusions on both matters. I’ll wait to see what they say.”