Little interest shown in workings of Civil Rights Commission

By Timothy Pratt (contact)

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 | 7:31 a.m.

Twenty-one empty chairs.

That was what you would have seen Thursday had you attended the first public hearing of the Nevada arm of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in more than 15 years.

But no members of the public attended, and neither did six of 15 invited panelists, or four of 11 members of the commission itself. Also, there was nobody on the panel to inform the agency about the Hispanic community, the Las Vegas Valley's largest minority group, an estimated 25 percent of the population.

All of which brings to the fore an obvious question: Since it will be based on the daylong hearing, just what will anyone learn from the agency's report on "the state of civil rights in Nevada?"

The issue is important since the state may soon have a "minority majority" population, meaning more than half its residents are Hispanic, black, Asian or Pacific Islanders or American Indian. (An estimated four of 10 Nevadans are minorities, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.)

Still, David Sanchez, chairman of the state arm of the commission - the technical name of which is the Nevada advisory committee - said Monday the most important thing was having held the hearing at all, since he first said in 2003 that the committee would do so, but had yet to pull it off.

Several times since then, Sanchez has said that holding a hearing is impossible without funding from its federal parent agency. For years, the state committee, with its volunteer membership, has met via conference calls occasionally, prompting one member to comment Thursday, "Finally we meet face to face."

Sanchez did not know how much Thursday's hearing cost. Tom Pilla, senior civil rights analyst for the Western regional office of the agency, did not return calls seeking comment.

Sanchez noted the federal agency has seen a lot of turnover in recent years, making the state committee's work "frustrating."

He called the absence of members of the public at the hearing "a void."

"The implications are we're missing input from the community - and don't find out their concerns. That's disappointing."

He said the Western Regional office in Los Angeles, overseeing nine states, had the job of making the Las Vegas community aware of the meeting, and wasn't sure how the office completed that task.

The invited panelists included the local NAACP, Latin Chamber of Commerce, Asian Chamber of Commerce, Metro Police, FBI, Henderson Police, two Asian community organizations, state and federal agencies, the ACLU, and a UNLV professor.

A Latin Chamber official couldn't attend due to personal reasons, but no one else from the Hispanic community was sought out.

Sanchez called the absence of any information about the Hispanic community - both in the hearing, and presumably, in the agency's final report - "a huge void."

"We would've loved to have had individuals from the Hispanic community - especially with regard to immigration issues and employment discrimination," he said.

The Asian Chamber, the FBI, Henderson Police and the ACLU also did not attend the hearing.

Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, said he and counsel Allen Lichtenstein couldn't attend the hearing because of last-minute scheduling conflicts.

At the same time, he said, he didn't think the track record was very good for federal agencies dealing with the issue of discrimination - including the Civil Rights Commission.

"They talk a good game but don't do very much," Peck said.

Most of the panelists who did show up to inform the state committee offered anecdotal information, some without any time reference, making it impossible for committee members to determine if the alleged violations of civil rights being described - difficulties in obtaining information from a public agency, mistreatment by an official - happened yesterday or 20 years ago.

In most cases, the state advisory committee members didn't ask for details.

One panelist did reference his own findings about civil rights contained in a local report - from the year 2001.

In a rather ironic, hello-is-anybody-listening moment, panelist Wayne Tanaka, vice president of the Japanese American Citizens League, highlighted the importance of "document(ing) instances (of civil rights violations) accurately."

State committee member Tony Sanchez said he thought the meeting was well organized and productive and addressed "a lot of topical issues."

Although the FBI didn't make it, several members of the committee met with FBI officials in the last six months, he said.

Tony Sanchez also said there is a letter circulating in the community from the federal commission asking for additional input on civil rights in Nevada, but David Sanchez, who is no relation, said he wasn't aware of that letter.

The agency will take a few months to obtain transcripts from the meeting. Then state committee members will "analyze" the transcripts, David Sanchez said, and, together with the regional office, produce a report. That report will be available at the agency's Washington, D.C., office, he said.

In 1957 the Civil Rights Commission was established to take on such tasks and is charged with gathering and disseminating information on discrimination - including through subpoenas - as well as to make recommendations to the president and Congress. It has no enforcement powers.

Regardless of the impact produced by the Nevada committee's report, Sanchez said it will most likely be the last hurrah for most of the group's members.

His term and those of eight other members of the committee are up and they are will be replaced this fall.