My rebuttal to the DMV

The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles recently wrote a response to my two columns criticizing the agency for its handling of the new legal presence law in Virginia (Aug. 4 and July 29). You can see the DMV response on my column’s message board.

The DMV made a number of misrepresentations in its response that I feel are necessary to correct.

As a refresher, this new law requires individuals applying for driver’s licenses or photo ID cards (or renewing expired, suspended, or revoked ones), to prove that they are either U.S. citizens or are legally authorized to be in the United States.

The law affects many people, but one group particularly hit hard is the elderly. DMV policy is not allowing many elderly citizens to get driver’s licenses or ID cards, because many were born before birth certificates (the main form of proof of legal presence) were issued.

As a result, many of these people are being prevented from cashing checks, boarding airplanes, or opening bank accounts, because they don’t have  state-issued photo IDs.

It is my contention that DMV has taken a very general law passed by our elected officials and created too restrictive of a policy that indiscriminately harms our citizens, such as the elderly.

The DMV’s response to my columns included statements such as, “In his July 28 and August 4 columns [Brian Gottstein] seemed convinced that the following scenarios would be okay: ‘She doesn’t have documents to prove legal presence, but she seems to be a nice and honest person. Let’s grant her a driver’s license’ or ‘He has lived in Virginia for 60 years, he must be legally in the country and entitled to an ID card.’”

Funny, but when I read over my columns again, I didn’t see either of those scenarios presented like that. I never suggested that DMV grant a license to someone just because "she is a nice and honest person." In fact, I couldn’t find that reference anywhere in what I wrote.

I did suggest the DMV use some common sense in making judgment calls for 80 and 90 year-old senior citizens who have had Virginia driver’s licenses all their lives, had been considered “legally present” by the state when it came time to pay taxes, and obviously didn't pose a terrorist threat.

The DMV response included the statement, “However, there was no mention of the thousands of customers that DMV successfully served this year.”

Who cares? Does the agency want praise for doing what the taxpayers pay them to do? The DMV website is full of feel-good press releases about how they have decreased line wait times and computerized many services to help the public. Those are great accomplishments, and I honestly appreciate them, and my last visit to the DMV was a better experience because of them. But these columns dealt with a real public issue where real lives are being affected, people are being hurt by the DMV’s policies, and the problem needed to be brought to light.

The DMV response stated, "As for integrity, that doesn’t seem to be an issue for Mr. Gottstein who called DMV staff to collect information for his story. The DMV employee who talked with Mr. Gottstein says he initially identified himself as someone gathering information for a state legislator."

Well, they are correct in stating the method with which I identified myself: I was gathering information to help Del. William Fralin help my friend – his constituent – work through her problem with her expired license. All three of us called DMV to try to resolve the issue, and I handed off the information I collected to Del. Fralin.

The response continued, "After he got what he needed, he disclosed his pending opinion column on the subject."

That is absolutely correct, too, but the implication that I somehow lied about who I was is false and deceptive. After hearing the stories from DMV staff about how they were denying ID cards to 91 year-old World War II veterans, yes, I did tell the staffer that it might be worth a story, and that I might do a column. Up until that point, I didn't see that much of an issue for a column (there isn't much sympathy for a story of a 20-something woman who was careless and let her license expire and now has to face the consequences). When the staffer’s information ultimately piqued my interest about writing a column, I let her know it. As a courtesy, I even asked her if I could use her name in the column, or if she would prefer to remain anonymous to avoid any repercussions with her management.

The big question is this: Whether I called DMV as a columnist, as a delegate's aide, or as an average citizen, are they telling you and me that the answers I was given would have been different? Does a government official get the real answer, while the public gets something less? If so, then I question the integrity of the DMV.

I don’t mind that DMV wants to debate the issues – hopefully the public debate will help them resolve the issue; but to personally attack me and try to imply that I lied to obtain public information is a low blow. I researched both columns extensively, told the DMV who I was before either column was written, and included the facts that the DMV staffers themselves gave me.

Out of a 725-word DMV public response to my columns, only 26 vague and unspecific words at the end indicated the agency was working on any type of permanent solution to the resolve the problem of citizens being denied licenses and ID cards: “The agency is continually revising the process and looking for ways to help citizens -- particularly the elderly. We are working with our legislators to find solutions.”

If I was the DMV Communications Deputy, and I had a chance to write in a public forum about this issue, I would use more space to tell the public what my agency was doing to solve the problem and less space trying to discredit the person who pointed out the problem.

You’ve heard the old adage about “killing the messenger.” Well, you’re seeing it at work right here.