It's been wildly exciting around here. I sometimes think the battle over Broughal School is the second fiercest historic preservation fight around. My choice for the first? The Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which at an important level certainly IS about preservation--and also, of course, about destruction; and about a whole world of meanings, spiritual and otherwise.
We have now been presented with word that the boiler room and teachers' room in Broughal have collapsed; and with pictures to prove this.
Collapsed or "been collapsed?" Since I can't prove anything, I can't do anything but wonder. Let us remember that just a few months ago the administration took hammers and other tools to this building's facade. I am one of those who will always believe that this was an attempt to destroy the school's historic significance. But again, I can't prove anything. Just wondering.

I realize that only recently, and by a split vote, did the School Board renew the contract of Superintendent Joseph Lewis. Even then, the board knew enough for some of its members to have serious doubts. The board should have taken counsel of its doubts.
At that point, Lewis had "only" proposed to siphon millions out of taxpayers' wallets to pay for destroying a usable school and replacing it with another. He has since held to that policy, despite telling the Bethlehem Press that the coming casino will probably mean a need for new schools or at least new classrooms. Also, he has steadfastly refused to deal with the severe overcrowding that exists right now. He has never asked the question why the usable Broughal School cannot be refitted as an elementary school, rather than having it torn down for an athletic field that would benefit only a handful of children. He has even refused to give serious consideration to selling the Broughal building to a private developer who would preserve the old school's historic appearance but put it to private use.
These real estate maneuvers have turned out to be only part of what the superintendent is doing and leaving undone. Even worse is the mess that has been revealed at Nitschmann--and who knows where else?
At Nitschmann, the problem--which has put Bethlehem on the map nationwide, and not as The Christmas City--seems to go back to former Superintendent Tom Doluisio, who recommended John Acerra's appointment as principal over the wishes of the Nitschmann faculty. But the problem blew up on Dr. Lewis's watch, as he himself has observed. And that suggests inept handling of personnel issues, and total insensitivity to what is happening in the schools.
Bethlehem cannot afford any more of this mismanagement.
Oh, and as to the $400-an-hour lawyers who have been hired to help the district through the current "embarassment"--send the bill to Dr. Lewis.
Taxpayers have a right to be fed up.

Once again I was unable to make this week's meeting of the Bethlehem Area School Board's facilities committee. However, I was told by several in attendance that Board President Dr. Craig Haytmanek looked around the room and announced that "no Southside leaders were there."
Just wait a minute, Doc. I define leaders as "people who have followers;" and I know for a fact that several South Side leaders WERE in attendance. They included Stephen Antalics, Mary Pongracz, and Louise Valeriano.
These are people who have spent significant parts of their lives trying to make the South Side and the entire city better for everybody. I met Ms.Valeriano and her sister, now-Councilwoman Magdalena Szabo more than 30 years ago, when they were among Southsiders noted for trying to help the incoming Puerto Ricans adjust and make their way.
It was a great effort. However, considering the way things have gone since in the city, I consider it pretty ironic.

The terrible tragedy that has engulfed life at Nitschmann Middle School has for the time being muted all other discussion on school matters--as well it might.
It would appear that former Superintendent of Schools Tom Doluisio may have set the chariot of catastrophe in motion when, a few years ago, he recommended Mr. Acerra for the principalship of Nitschmann even though the school's faculty opposed the choice. Mr. Doluisio could not have foreseen the consequences when the members of the school board voted to accept his recommendation--as well they might. A Superintendent of Schools is supposed to be a board's and a district's chief educational advisor.
Yet no one person's advice is infallible; and the "bite-back" of this particular suggestion on Doluisio's part will doubtless be felt in many lives, and for years to come.
How can future episodes of this sort be avoided? It might help, I think, to give the teachers a larger part in the selection of the principals under whom they work. In fact, it should be rarely, if at all, that their advice in this matter is ignored. With their training, they sensed that Mr. Acerra was not a good psychological match for the job he was asked to take over. They should have been heeded.
Also, I do not know just how much input the school board normally has over the appointment of principals and assistant principals. That input should be increased, until it amounts to rigorous oversight by a committee of the whole.
Considering the importance of school leadership, anything less than this is not good enough.