Senate committee reviews monument-protection bill, names subcommittee to resolve local-authority concerns

The West Virginia Senate Government Organization Committee on an unspecified date considered a committee substitute for Senate Bill 71, a proposal to create a new section of code protecting monuments, memorials and similar items on public property from removal or renaming.

The bill text presented to the committee would create a new code section titled the West Virginia Park, Preserve, or Reserve (as described in the committee substitute) and apply to monuments and memorials that commemorate military, labor, civil rights and Native American history. The substitute says no person or entity may prevent the responsible governmental body from taking measures to preserve, maintain, repair or restore such items, with a limited exemption for items under the control of the Department of Transportation when interference with construction, maintenance or operation of the transportation system occurs. The substitute also made a technical title change and removed earlier language referencing waivers from the State Historic Preservation office.

Committee members pressed staff on several scope questions. Senators asked whether the word "significant" appears in the bill’s language; the staff intern (Davis) and counsel said the word is not in the committee substitute. Members asked whether the bill would bar local governments or county commissions from removing monuments on their property; counsel stated the committee substitute, as written, does not provide a mechanism for removal and would prevent local removal in many cases. Members pursued whether presently existing statutes governing the State Capitol Building and Capitol Complex — cited in the hearing as a separate code section that governs renovations and improvements to the Capitol — would conflict with SB 71. Counsel and other members said the separate Capitol code section applies specifically to the Capitol Building and complex, and that the other section concerns renovations or improvements at the Capitol; they debated whether the two code provisions could be read together or whether the effective date or sequencing should be adjusted to avoid contradiction.

Several members raised practical concerns about municipal and county autonomy. One senator argued municipalities and counties own the property where some monuments sit and that communities should be able to remove a monument "for good cause." Counsel and other senators acknowledged that the substitute applies to existing statues and may apply to newly erected statues but said the language was not always clear about future cases; staff said some questions about new monuments and later-discovered misconduct by commemorated individuals remain unresolved with the current draft.

Rather than vote on the substitute that day, the committee chair named a subcommittee to work on the bill’s problems and to propose fixes. The chair named the senior senator from the sixth and the junior senator from the sixteenth and said the senator from Cabell would be included in absentia. The committee then moved on to the next agenda item.

Next steps: the named subcommittee will review SB 71’s draft language and return proposed changes to the full committee; no final committee vote on the committee substitute was recorded in the transcript.