Letter to the Editor

Is it too much to ask for truth in political advertisements?

I took issue with a claim in last week’s ad that our current Young County Judge “restored a historic Young County cemetery” during his tenure. Let’s look at the facts.

The definition of “restore / restoration” from a historic preservation perspective means to take a property back to a point in its history, preserving what exists, and replacing missing / damaged items with something as close as possible to the original. It should NOT be changed into something it never was historically.

The “restoration” project undertaken by our current county judge included the following:

• A disregard for the findings of and disrespectful remarks regarding the Texas Tech archeologists
• Altering of the position of the historical entrance to the cemetery and failure to follow Texas Tech’s advice when installing fencing
• The creation of a parking lot over human remains–and after the results of the ground penetrating survey–the removal of that gravel
• Establishing a set of rules for visitors to the cemetery that violated First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights, requiring intervention from SMU’s Dedman School of Law First Amendment Clinic attorneys to force corrections
• Not allowing the installation of the medallion and marker approved by Texas Historical Commission
• Altering the historic name of the cemetery despite historical documentation in burial records
• Punitive actions toward family members of the interred and cemetery visitors who disagreed with his ideas and actions

Ironically, during a tour of the 1921 Young County Jail, Judge Graham told the group that he “hate(s) history.” You don’t have to love history to honor those who came before you and to do what’s right. But you can’t change history to fit what you think it should be and remain closed to others perspectives, research and the historical record.

The latest affront to Young County history is the plan to create restrooms in our Recorded Texas Historic Landmark 1921 Young County Jail. The idea changes the interior in an unsympathetic way and destroys the history of the building. Other, better uses for this building have been proposed and dismissed. One proposed idea was to open the ground floor to offices and meeting places for nonprofit entities. Those entities would in exchange write grant applications saving the county thousands of dollars. What a great service to the county and a natural continuation of the building’s function!

Judge Graham’s proposal also diminishes the public restrooms already in existence just to the north of the 1921 Jail, built by our own Lions Club. We should all take issue with this.