A spiky exchange over councillors turning up for meetings has led to a complaint against one of Warwick District Council's senior politicians. 

The district's portfolio holder for communities and leisure Cllr Jim Sinnott has been accused of "misleading" council when answering a question.

Political rival Cllr Jan Matecki, who initiated the line of questioning, also felt "disrespected" by Cllr Sinnott referring to him by his surname only.

The council has referred the complaint back to the two political groups involved in the hope of reaching an informal resolution with group leaders set to mediate. If the matter is not resolved, it goes back to the council for consideration. 

It relates to the most recent meeting for all councillors on Wednesday, October 2, during which members could ask questions of the leader or portfolio holders. 

Cllr Matecki asked Cllr Sinnott to detail the roles and responsibilities of the chair and vice-chair of the council's licensing and regulatory committee.

Cllr Sinnott replied: "I am assuming you don't want me to read chapter and verse on the roles and responsibilities – can you clarify exactly what it is you are looking for?"

Cllr Matecki repeated himself and described it as "quite a simple question", to which Cllr Sinnott responded: "To run efficient and effective meetings, making good decisions."

Following up, Cllr Matecki asked: "Do you accept that all councillors have a commitment and responsibility, and that those who take on roles such as chair, vice-chair or portfolio holders take on extra responsibility and commitment.

"In fact, many of those positions carry an extra allowance – can you assure this council that anyone not fulfilling their duties as a vice-chair, or chair, on that committee will be removed?" 

Cllr Sinnott said he didn't have "that kind of power" and hit back.

"I think you are asking about your dislike for people working full-time, that people have a job in the real world but they should be turning up for council meetings and events, which I don't agree with," he said. 

"People who have the chair, people in the cabinet, they have lives, families, work to do. If you are suggesting people should not take on responsibilities because they have a day job, I disagree. Does that help answer the question?" 

Cllr Matecki was stopped from asking any further questions as he had already used the two permitted on any single subject but Cllr Pam Redford picked up the baton later on, which she was entitled to do under council rules on these questions. 

She asked whether Cllr Sinnott believed that those who are unable to fulfil such roles should step aside.

In response, he said he would take it "case by case" and challenged Cllr Redford to be more specific. 

"We seem to be cloak and daggers here. If you give me specifics, maybe I can answer it but we are tap dancing around things," he said. 

Cllr Redford confirmed she had been referring to Cllr Matecki's point, prompting Cllr Sinnott to say: "So this is the famous Matecki third question being slipped in."

Cllr Matecki replied: "Councillor Matecki to you." 

When approached by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Cllr Matecki said that Cllr Sinnott knew what he had been asking about.

"The answer he gave was somewhat misleading," he said.

"He gave the impression he did not know who was being spoken about but I put in an email a week before that asking him the same question, so he knew."

Cllr Matecki said he did not wish to identify who he was talking about because he had asked for data, arguing "it is only fair to that councillor" to have all the facts in place first. He confirmed he was still awaiting that data.

"I am hoping the informal meeting will resolve the matter," he added, confirming he would accept an apology if one was forthcoming.

Cllr Sinnott said it would be inappropriate to comment until the matter had been resolved.