Jon Ralston deciphers the agenda of the newly formed Council for a Better Nevada spin-off group

Friday, March 31, 2006 | 7:10 a.m.

You might have thought that the Council for a Better Nevada would have learned its lesson from its clumsy and heavy-handed attempt to bludgeon the Clark County School Board into hiring its favored superintendent.

Indeed, some of the members realized that intimidation and threats might not be the right approach, and its public agent, Maureen Peckman, even announced the insular, elitist group would reach out to new Superintendent Walt Rulffes and others. Hence, a new group was formed, the treacly-named Community Alliance for the Reform of Education (CARE, get it?).

But haughty closed-mindedness by any other acronym is still haughty closed-mindedness. And if this week's inaugural meeting of CARE is any indication, what these folks care about most is their ideas or no ideas at all.

To be fair, I am not sure how many members of CBN, many of whom are well-intentioned folks, know what Executive Director Peckman had in mind. But I can tell them: She had in mind a fait accompli, where members who attended were greeted to the worldview of CBN education consultant Bill Ouchi, a UCLA professor who favors autonomy and decentralization, and an agenda set by Peckman, who declared she was the only one who could talk to the media.

Some of those who attended were quite startled by the set agenda provided by Peckman - presentation by Ouchi, who helped the CBN folks find Eric Nadelstern, their failed choice for superintendent, followed by six preordained task forces. It seemed not a forum for community consensus but for the CBN way of the world to be jammed down their throats. Not very caring if you ask me.

Longtime education activist Bill Hanlon asked Ouchi a series of pointed questions after his lengthy presentation and was shocked the next day to receive a call from Peckman. "She told me, 'You're no longer invited to these meetings,' " Hanlon said.

Hanlon was stunned and has begun calling CBN members to see whether this was their directive or Peckman's. (I talked to university system Chancellor Jim Rogers, who had no idea the CARE meeting had even occurred and was distressed that antagonism had resurfaced. Rogers, to his credit, has been conciliatory toward Rulffes and tried to work with him.)

"I will be going to (the) board of trustees next week asking them not to participate with a group such as this, who demands you cannot talk to the press - only Maureen can - and then dismisses anyone from the group that asks questions," Hanlon said.

The trustees already distrust Peckman, whom they see as disruptive and arrogant. And Hanlon, an anti-establishmentarian for years, is not alone in wondering about the meeting and the agenda.

When Peckman tried to get the group to agree to be forced into her task force rubrics, the group rebuffed her. And others there were furious that they were not informed that Rulffes already had agreed to some of what Ouchi had proposed and that it would be unveiled in the morning newspaper. Why not tell them?

I wanted to know the answer to that and many other questions about the meeting from the putative CARE spokeswoman. But Peckman did not care to respond to a phone call and e-mail full of questions.

This is all-too-familiar behavior from a group that apparently sanctioned Peckman rounding up folks to stalk the trustees when they went to New York City to check up on Nadelstern and then was amazed that the board members might be offended by such a maneuver.

I actually think many of these CBN folks, including Rogers, believe mistakes were made in the Nadelstern fiasco and hope to try to build bridges with Rulffes and the School Board. But their spokeswoman Peckman has been relentlessly hostile and condescending, and it has not gone over well.

As for the School Board members, yes, they deserve criticism and don't elicit much sympathy. And, yes, some of them are eager to drink the CBN Kool-Aid because they want to suck up donations for their campaigns from these major donors.

But these are elected officials who deserve some respect and do not deserve this outlandish behavior. Either CARE is an acronym with significance or it's a cosmetic attempt to simulate outreach while stifling dissent. So far, it appears that compromise and openness are concepts that this bunch, by any acronym, left behind.