It has taken decades for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to earn its well-respected legacy — and now the agenda of one administration threatens to topple that. The agency is being used by the government to advance conservative ideas about civil rights, including a rollback of affirmative action. That national drive is playing out this week in Hawai'i in hearings over the Native Hawaiian federal recognition legislation.

The commission itself is a small federal agency, but one that has had a powerful influence on national policies concerning fair treatment of people who may have been marginalized because of their minority status. Most often, its work has aimed to protect citizens facing institutional racism, but it also has dealt with issues of rights for indigenous people.

It is assisted in this mission at the local level by state advisory committees. And in Hawai'i, this state panel has given official support to the idea of federal recognition for Hawaiians one of its centerpiece issues. The idea since has taken shape as the Akaka bill, named for its sponsor, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka.

Despite that longstanding position of its advisory panel, the national Commission on Civil Rights last year took a stand against the Akaka bill, one that was timed strategically to deter what was then a Republican majority from allowing the bill to progress.

That strategy continues.

Under the Bush administration, the commission has opted to reorganize the state advisory committees resulting in term limits for committee members, a maneuver that turned over many positions. The Western region of state committees had about 130 members, and under the new plan 78 of them termed out.

Hawai'i saw 14 new members appointed to its 17-member panel, including several members who have a clear agenda and are almost certain to tilt future votes against the Akaka bill. Among them are outspoken opponents such as lawyer H. William Burgess, who has represented groups challenging Hawaiian-only government programs, and Paul Sullivan, an attorney who has written against federal recognition.

Tomorrow, this newly constituted panel is convening the first of a series of community hearings (see box). The panel's first meeting, as well as this week's hearings, were rushed onto the calendar, and there seemed no truly urgent reason to give public notice such short shrift. The hearing could have been held later to afford more public comment and a wider spectrum of views. Isn't that the intent?

On the national level, other state committees are being stacked with members who vocally oppose affirmative action. It's expected to see the political bent of government agencies change to mesh politically with the sitting administration. What's disturbing about the revolution at Civil Rights is that the state committees are meant to be formed closer to the grass-roots level. Increasingly, these state panels have been directed from Washington, said a former official.

John Dulles, a former regional director and a civil rights analyst who recently retired from the agency, said many of the nominees to the committees have originated with the commission's administration, rather than from the grass roots as had been the case in previous administrations.

"I do not think the beltway in D.C. should be driving the agenda in civil rights," Dulles said. "This was driven by a very narrow specific objective and that was to abort the Akaka bill."

Nationally, the handling of the state panels has been cited in a critical report by the Government Accountability Office. And U.S. Rep. John Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, has written a letter criticizing a failure to achieve "fairly balanced membership" on the committees. Surely, this demands some oversight by leaders on Capitol Hill.

Back at home, Hawai'i residents should be encouraged to speak out at the hearing, but to be aware of the context. Regardless of one's position on the Akaka bill, while witnessing political theater it's essential to know who is running the show.