Motorist is owed an apology from Metro

To the editor:

Sheriff Doug Gillespie has finally admitted the truth about the accident that claimed the life of Las Vegas police officer James Manor (Thursday Review-Journal). He now states that Mr. Manor was not using his lights and siren when he -- traveling at 109 mph and not wearing a seat belt -- collided with motorist Calvin Darling.

Immediately following the accident, Sheriff Gillespie reported to the media that Mr. Manor had been using his lights and siren, despite the fact that witnesses said otherwise. Metro also immediately arrested Mr. Darling on suspicion of driving under the influence, stating that he had failed a field sobriety test. Considering that Mr. Darling had just been involved in a fatal accident, it's not surprising that he couldn't walk a straight line or that his eyes might have been jumpy.

Police now admit that Mr. Darling's blood-alcohol level was well within legal limits.

Perhaps the sheriff should refrain from making indignant statements to the media before he knows all the facts.

The sheriff plans to appoint a committee to re-evaluate its procedures for responding to emergency calls. Do Las Vegas police really need more bureaucracy to deal with this problem? How about just telling your officers this: Use your lights and siren, wear your seat belt, slow down at intersections and don't drive 109 mph on surface roads.

Sheriff Gillespie was quick to put all the blame for this accident on Mr. Darling. In my view, Mr. Darling is a blameless victim of the poor and negligent decisions made by officer Manor. All charges against him should be dropped, and Metro should pay his legal, medical and vehicle repair bills. Then, Sheriff Gillespie should make a very public, very heartfelt apology to the man they made their scapegoat.

Patricia Ducharme

HENDERSON

Business fees

To the editor:

I am writing to explain why the Nevada Registered Agent Association believes the proposed business license fee increase could cost Nevada $30 million per biennium in renewal fees alone.

While I have been the president of our association, we have always dealt with the Legislature with integrity. In past tax battles, our industry has never before taken a "no new tax" stance. It is imperative that the legislators hear our message at this time.

Thousands of small businesses that use Nevada business entities from across the country have taken time to individually write in opposition to the fee increase. Each one tells a unique story as to why they chose Nevada as their choice for incorporation, and each one tells a unique story as to their present business challenges in the most difficult economic times since the Great Depression.

We cannot avoid the fact that a very large percentage of individuals from out-of-state who have chosen to incorporate in Nevada did so because of cost savings.

In 2002, our association conducted a study that determined that Nevada's population only supported 20 percent of the corporate filings in the state, based on national filing statistics. This means that approximately 80 percent of Nevada corporations have been imported from other states. They are an extremely price-sensitive and mobile client base who will take their business entities to other jurisdictions if the cost in Nevada is too high.

The business license fee increase will result in a minimum annual renewal fee to the state of Nevada of $325 per entity. Compare this to $50 in Wyoming, and you see that we are not just talking about "only $100."

What is the bottom line? If half of our clients choose not to maintain their existing Nevada entities because we price ourselves out of the market, it will cost Nevada $15 million in lost renewal revenue -- or $30 million per biennium.

Nevada is simply pricing itself out of the market for our core small business client.

Derek Rowley

LAS VEGAS