Warwick councillor's refusal to apologise elongates disrespect row

Councillor Jim Sinnott (Lab, Warwick Saltisford), Warwick District Council’s portfolio holder for communities and leisure, admitted he had been “incorrect” to refer to a fellow member – Councillor Jan Matecki (Con, Budbrooke) – by surname only while answering a question in October.

Cllr Matecki raised a formal complaint with the district council for two reasons, arguing he had been disrespected and that Cllr Sinnott had misled council in his response to the initial question.

In mid-November, an emailed apology over the surname issue was acknowledged by both councillors but Cllr Matecki did not feel that was adequate given that the original comment was made in public.

There was another meeting of council this week with Cllr Sinnott using his platform in portfolio holders’ updates to admit fault.

“Reflecting on my responses to questions at the last council meeting, I appreciate that I did not say Councillor Matecki and simply (said) Matecki,” said Cllr Sinnott.

“This was incorrect, and actually poor form to be fair. I held my hands up at the time and I do now.

“I appreciate the guidance that has come to committee chairs for consideration in respect of naming protocols at meetings.”

Cllr Matecki picked up the baton in questions to portfolio holders.

“As councillors we recognise that regardless of our party politics, we are all here to serve the good people of Warwick district,” he said.

“They rely on us to uphold the highest standards in public life. When we fail to do so, out of respect to them and our important public office, it is customary that we make an unreserved apology with good grace.

“I’d like to thank Councillor Sinnott for recognising he was incorrect in the way he addressed a councillor in this chamber, but at a time when public trust in our politicians – national and local – is at a low ebb, do you, Councillor Sinnott, agree with me that we must do all we can to maintain and strengthen respect for this council and the office of councillor?

“If so, when any of us diminishes this standard, albeit inadvertently, do you also agree with me that a public apology should be made without hesitation and in good faith?

“I therefore ask whether you are prepared to offer an apology to this council for your conduct at our meeting on October 2.”

Cllr Sinnott declined.

“I’ll hold that offer in abeyance, if I may," he said.

“I intend to dig deeper into the leak of confidential information to the press because I think that is actually the only rule breaking that has taken place here. I’ll happily take advice on that.

“I believe the matter has been dealt with and refer you to my earlier statement.”

Council rules afforded Cllr Matecki one follow-up.

“Councillor Sinnott, it is a quite simple question,” he said.

“This is regarding you referring to a member of this council by their surname, which you say you hold your hands up to. Are you prepared to apologise for that? Yes or no.”

Cllr Sinnott replied: “I refer you to my recent answer.”

The initial query in October related to the attendance of councillors at meetings, particularly in the daytime. It was not directed at Cllr Sinnott’s availability but related to his portfolio.

On that, Cllr Sinnott said: “I have sought guidance since the last meeting in respect to a councillor having concerns about the chair or vice-chair of a committee.

“I was reminded these roles are appointed by the respective committees. If you have concerns about the member undertaking these roles, you could direct them to the chair of the council, the specific group (party) leader or head of governance and monitoring (Graham Leach).”

The Local Democracy Reporting Service has approached Warwick District Council for clarification on the status of the complaint.