Same Law. Same Council. Opposite Outcomes. Why?

This post is based on official public council minutes, correspondence and publicly available records. Residents are encouraged to read the records for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Why I Am Writing This

Over recent months, there has been a great deal of commentary online about why the Dunstable East by‑election will take place on 14th May 2026 and who was responsible for the resulting cost to residents.

A lot of that commentary has lacked important context.

So I want to set out, calmly and factually, what actually happened.

Not rumours.

Not anonymous social media posts.

Not political spin.

Just the timeline, the official records and the decisions that were made.

The Law — Section 85 Local Government Act 1972

Under section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, a councillor loses their seat if they fail to attend a meeting for six consecutive months unless their absence is approved by the council before the six‑month period expires.

This means councils have discretion.

They can decide whether to approve a councillor’s absence.

That discretion matters because life happens. People become ill. People experience family crises. People experience safeguarding issues. People experience disability impacts.

Councils are therefore expected to exercise judgment, fairness and proportionality.

April 2025 — A Different Approach

In April 2025, Dunstable Town Council considered the absence of Councillor Kenson Gurney, who had been absent for almost six months.

At that meeting:

• councillors discussed the fact that people may have private reasons for absence;

• that not knowing why a councillor was absent was enough reason not to 'punish' them with disqualification;

• compassion and discretion formed part of the discussion;

• councillors considered whether the absence should be approved;

• apologies were ultimately accepted.

  
  

At the time, I was serving as Mayor of Dunstable, working full time as a HR Manager overseeing 600 employees, and chaired that meeting.

I supported the principle that councillors should not be judged harshly when the full circumstances behind an absence may not be known, publicly or privately.

Importantly:

• there was no publicly recorded medical evidence;

• there was no publicly recorded safeguarding discussion;

• and there was no by‑election cost to residents.

  
  

The absence was approved.

The councillor remained in office.

The matter ended there.

The Town Clerk also stated during that discussion that this was the first time the council had dealt with a Section 85 situation.

The recording of that meeting later reportedly “failed”.

My Situation

Less than a year later, the same council considered my own absence.

By that stage, the council already formally held:

• GP fit notes;

• medical evidence;

• disability disclosures;

• safeguarding concerns;

• and information relating to the impact that unresolved council‑related issues were having on my health.

• evidence of online bullying, hostile conduct and targeted escalation involving a peer.

  
  

Unlike the April 2025 case, the reasons for my absence were formally recorded within the official minutes.

The minutes of 9 February 2026 record the following:

“Councillor O’Riordan’s absence is due to health impacts arising from unresolved council related safeguarding concerns and bullying, and ongoing recovery following that failure.” Despite the medically documented and evidenced reasons provided for my absence, the council formally resolved:

“Not to accept Councillor O’Riordan’s reason for non‑attendance.”

That decision ultimately triggered the Dunstable East by‑election that will take place on 14th May 2026.

Was the Correct Legal Process Applied? During the February 2026 meeting itself, the Mayor referred to “Section 82” while discussing the matter, despite the process relating to section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972.

That reference to the wrong section of the Local Government Act 1972 raises further questions regarding process, accuracy and understanding of the statutory framework being applied during the meeting.

A short extract from the meeting recording is included below.

Why This Matters

This is not about politics.

It is about:

• fairness;

• consistency;

• governance;

• safeguarding;

• equality duties;

• and public confidence in decision‑making.

  
  

The Equality Act 2010 is not optional. It is also not selective.

Where a public authority is aware of:

• disability;

• health impacts;

• safeguarding concerns;

• or vulnerability,

  
  

there is an expectation that these matters are properly and transparently considered within decision‑making.

Yet based on the records currently available, there appears to be:

• no recorded Equality Act discussion;

• no recorded consideration of reasonable adjustments;

• no recorded safeguarding discussion;

• and no recorded welfare discussion.

  
  

Residents are entitled to ask reasonable questions about that.

Public Records Show 2 very different approaches; just 9 months apart

The Cost to Residents

The resulting by‑election on 14th May 2026 is estimated to cost residents £25,000.

That was never something I wanted.

In April 2025, I supported approval of another councillor’s absence because I believed fairness and compassion mattered.

In February 2026, despite medical evidence and safeguarding concerns already being known to the council, my own absence was not approved.

That contrast is now visible within the official public records.

Questions Residents Are Entitled To Ask

Residents are entitled to ask:

• Why were two Section 85 situations treated so differently within less than a year?

• Why was compassion and discretion discussed in one case but apparently absent in another?

• Were Equality Act duties properly considered?

• Was safeguarding properly considered?

• Could the by‑election cost to residents have been avoided?

  
  

These are not unreasonable questions.

They are questions about governance, consistency and accountability.

The Importance of Public Records

Everything referred to in this post can be checked against:

• official council minutes;

• publicly available records;

• and formal correspondence.

  
  

People may reach different conclusions.

But facts matter.

Records matter.

Transparency matters.

Especially in public office.

Final Thoughts

I have consistently tried to approach these issues through the lens of:

• fairness;

• process;

• safeguarding;

• and accountability.

  
  

This has never been about seeking special treatment.

It has always been about asking whether the same standards are applied consistently to everyone.

Because if fairness and equality are not applied consistently within public bodies, residents are entitled to ask how confident they can feel that they themselves will be treated fairly when they need support, understanding or reasonable adjustments.

That is the wider issue here.

And ultimately, that is why this matters.

Sources 🎥 You can watch the full recording of the Dunstable Town Council Full Council chaired by Town Mayor Cllr. Sally Kimondo and clerked by Paul Hodson on 9th February 2026 here

📖 You can read the public record of the Agenda for Full Council on 9th February 2026 here

📖 You can read the public record of Minutes for Full Council on 9th February 2026 here