In November of 2000, the commission made a surprise vote to accept bids to demolish the jail despite the fact that it is included in the Downtown Charles Town Historic District as listed on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, it is afforded certain legal protections under section 106 of state preservation laws. When the commissioners refused to acknowledge those protections, local residents Carol Gallant and James Whipple sued in an attempt to force them to conform to the law. Circuit Court Judge Thomas Steptoe Jr. ruled for Gallant and Whipple and put in place an injunction against demolition pending an historic review.

The historic review process takes place under the auspices of the West Virginia Division of Culture and History and can be broken down into three steps. The first involves identification of properties of historical significance and, in the case of the jail, this step is de facto complete due to its listing on the National Register. The second step involves evaluating the impact that demolition of the jail would have on the Downtown Charles Town Historic District, and finally, step three, if necessary involves consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office in order to mitigate any adverse effects. The review process also provides for public participation.

The intent of the process is twofold. First it allows the structure in question and the public to have a day in court before irreversible decisions are made. In essence, it allows you to determine if you are looking at the Alamo or a Taco Bell before you knock it down. Second, it brings experts into the process to ensure that proper consideration is given to the effects of any alterations to the historic district.

In spite of the obvious benefits of such a review the commissioners found its requirements burdensome and so recruited state Senator Herb Snyder to sponsor an amendment to section 106 that had the effect of exempting West Virginia county governments from that statute. The timing of the vote was questionable and one Supreme Court Justice even observed during arguments that it appeared to have been "greased." The exemption that the amendment provides basically gutted state preservation laws and is the sacrifice all West Virginians must bear, all in order for the commissioners to circumvent Judge Steptoe's ruling and raze one building. A practical result of this maneuver is that the Jefferson County Courthouse could be bulldozed tomorrow without the review protections now guaranteed the jail. Upon passage of the Snyder amendment, the commissioners went back to court arguing that under the amended law, they were no longer obligated to conduct an historic review. The court agreed but stayed the injunction pending appeal which the plaintiffs did, to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

Gallant and Whipple's attorney Tom Michaels raised two issues before the high Court. First, he argued that the Snyder amendment was unconstitutional and second, that it could not be applied retroactively. Prosectuting Attorney, Mike Thompson, counsel for the commission, contested a ruling on funding made by Judge Steptoe. The court ruled in three parts with only one decision going in favor of the commissioners. In that decision the court ruled the amendment was constitutional but they also affirmed Steptoe's funding ruling and, more importantly, ordered that the amended law could not be applied to the decision to tear down the jail. The court then stayed the injunction pending completion of an historic review. The Court's decision barring retroactive application of the new law is based on the principle of ex poste facto. Simply put, this means that you cannot apply a new law to a past event. For example, you cannot pass a law that makes it illegal to trick-or-treat, and then arrest everyone who did so last fall. Incredibly, despite the Court's clear ruling on this issue, Mike Thompson and the commissioners have publicly taken the position that by simply voting anew, they can be relieved of the high Court's mandate. They are arguing the same ex poste facto argument that they just lost.

The pro-demolition commissioners arguments in defense of their position rings hollow. First they claim the jail's historical significance is marginal. There are a few who disagree including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service, the WV Division of Culture and History, the Labor Heritage Foundation, the United Mine Workers of America, the Charles Town Landmarks Commission, and the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. Every one of these organizations has written the commissioners numerous times offering technical advice and funding and imploring the commission to allow a review and to seek alternatives to demolition. Other than trial related correspondence with the Division of Culture and History, the commissioners have never responded. It is unprofessional conduct for public officials and contrary to the taxpayer's interest.

The commissioners also claim that the jail cannot be incorporated into their needs for new judicial facilities and would cost "millions" to restore yet they provide no hard evidence. They recite their needs in general terms but have no blueprints or proposals and there is no funding in place or even on the horizon at this time. This begs the question, what is the hurry to demolish the jail? The commission simultaneously claims costs would be excessive while fighting tooth and nail to prevent a review process that could provide them with hard figures. And over the objections of new commissioners Greg Corliss and Rusty Morgan, who have taken the position that an historic review would be in everyone's best interest, the last commission voted to seek new bids to raze the jail as one of their last acts of business.

The claim that they have the taxpayers interest at heart also does not wash. What little deterioration the jail has suffered was due to10 years of neglect by the county. And how does the commission explain the two years of litigation and the untold expense of taking a questionable case through Circuit Court, and then all the way to the West Virginia Supreme Court only to lose? Is that a wise use of the taxpayers money? And its not over. They appear determined to force the issue back to the courts.

The single-minded determinationof the commissioners to demolish the jail defies logical explanation. Initially, they tried to ignore the law. When Gallant filed suit, they challenged the law. When they lost, they changed the law in order to circumvent the law. Now that the Supreme Court has thwarted that plan, they appear ready to attempt to circumvent the Court. In support of their goals, they destroyed state preservation laws in the form of the Snyder amendment in another failed maneuver. The taxpayers have borne untold expense and public officials have been distracted from important business in order to pursue a two-year failed course of litigation. They have defied a mountain of evidence and a host of experts and in their stead offered us their humble and patient wisdom. All of this toward what end? In order to prevent a public review process that would allow for public debate and input and that would provide the county with information and guidance in making these important and irreversible decisions.

Three commissioners, James Knode, Al Hooper, and Jane Tabb now stand in the way of the collective wisdom of a dozen prominent organizations, the preservation laws of West Virginia, and the will of a large portion of Jefferson County. They have actively participated in a two year campaign to forestall the review process and thus, any substantive public debate on a very important public issue. If there is one defining characteristic of Jefferson County, it is history, and this issue concerns a VERY IMPORTANT HISTORICAL EVENT.