Exclusive: Missing board minutes become central to investigation of South Blooming Grove’s October election
State Sen. James Skoufis, who chairs the Senate Investigations Committee, investigated the election and has asked the Attorney General to invalidate the results.
More Stories
South Blooming Grove’s October village election is under continued scrutiny after months of previously missing board meeting minutes recently appeared on the village’s website, raising new questions about whether the process to move the election date was purposely concealed from voters.
State Sen. James Skoufis, who chairs the Senate Investigations Committee, investigated the election and has asked the Attorney General to invalidate the results. He says the records only surfaced after public scrutiny intensified. A News 12 review also shows that the minutes from the public meeting held just two days before the vote are still missing.
“For years, the village board posted minutes online like clockwork,” Skoufis said. “Then suddenly there was a five-month blackout. And when did that start? What a coincidence — the very first meeting where they started to go down this road and change the election date.”
Under New York’s Open Meetings Law, village boards are required to make meeting minutes public within two weeks.
Skoufis says the first key meeting tied to the election took place on June 10, when village officials began the process of moving the election to October 22 — five months before voters expected to go to the polls.
“In order to ensure that this election would be kept under wraps, they scheduled a special meeting,” Skoufis said. “What kind of notice did they provide the community? One hour notice with a flyer posted physically on Village Hall.”
Local resident Bonnie Rum, who runs the community watchdog group Preserve Blooming Grove and says she has attended and posted video from nearly every village board meeting for years, says the election was never publicly discussed during regular meetings — including the day of the vote to move the election date and just two days before the October election.
“Did they talk about the vote? No,” Rum said. “Are you kidding? No.”
Key meetings timeline tied to the election date change:
June 10 – Special village board meeting
• Public allegedly given about one hour’s notice via flyer taped to the front door of Village Hall
• Officials begin the process of moving the village election
• Referendum date is set for June 23
• Wallkill Valley Times is selected as the paper to publish the legal notice
June 23 – Referendum day
• Regular village board meeting is held
• Agenda makes no mention that a referendum vote is taking place
• No public discussion during the meeting about changing the election date
June 24 – Day after the referendum
• No agenda appears on the village website
• Minutes are posted showing the referendum passed
• Election date is officially changed to Oct. 22
• Local watchdog Bonnie Rum says residents did not know the vote had taken place
Oct. 20 – Two days before the election
• Regular village board meeting is held
• Agenda is posted
• No minutes are publicly posted
• No mention anywhere on the agenda of the upcoming Oct. 22 election
Skoufis says village officials intentionally concealed the vote and cherry-picked who would show up to the polls so the mayor and two trustees could be reelected.
“A single-digit percentage of residents cast a ballot,” Skoufis said.
Documents show that about 100 people voted in the October election — turnout that is roughly ten times less than the village's last regularly scheduled election.
“This strikes at the heart of everything that we should all not stand for,” Skoufis said.
News 12's report into the missing minutes comes just one day after our exclusive coverage of additional potential election irregularities involving the nomination petition used to reelect the mayor and two trustees. That petition, obtained through a Freedom of Information request by Rum, showed 91 signatures tied to just four addresses — two of which a News 12 investigation confirmed are private religious schools, and two are single-family homes. Fifty-six signatures were tied to a single school address.
Under New York Election Law, signers on a nomination petition must list the address where they actually live — not a school, business or religious institution where no one resides.
The Attorney General’s Office confirms it is now reviewing how the election was handled. Village leaders have not returned repeated requests for comment.
News 12 will continue following the Attorney General’s review and the ongoing investigation into how South Blooming Grove’s October election was conducted.
