Non-Standard Method of Raising Money for Buildings

(Section 9 of Part 3 – Why I Left the Church)

The worst violation, in my opinion, put forth by COB’s Ideal Org Program is the demand for millions of dollars for each org, raised by straight donations from org public.  COB has created a fundraising machine getting parishioners to donate tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and even millions of dollars to pay for a new building and to finance its renovations.  These are straight donations, not donations in exchange for a Dianetics or Scientology book or service.

Once again, we should have all checked our policy to see if this is Standard Admin or not.  Had we done so, we would have seen that COB’s solution was the direct opposite of what LRH said in policy:

SOLVE IT WITH SCIENTOLOGY” [Title of section being quoted from this HCO PL ]

If the org slumps during this period, don’t engage in ‘fund raising’ or ‘selling postcards’ or borrowing money.

Just make more income with Scientology.

It’s a sign of very poor management to seek extraordinary solutions for finance outside Scientology. It has always failed.”

For orgs, as well as pcs ‘Solve It With Scientology’.

Every time I myself have sought to solve finance or personnel in other ways than Scientology I have lost out.  So I can tell you from experience that org solvency lies in more Scientology, not patented combs or fund-raising barbecues.” (HCO PL 24 Feb 64 II Org Programming; OEC Vol 7, p. 930)

We’ve all seen it over and over again: fund-raisers, barbecues, special dinners, “special briefings”. I’ve even seen that one org was having people bring in their old gold jewelry so as to sell it to raise funds. Another org was even deliveringhair styling as a means of raising funds for their building! What does that have to do with Scientology?

What else can I say?  There’s what LRH says.  COB says to do fundraising.  We have been violating policy as THE main program being run in the church.

You can justify it all you want to.  But you can’t have it both ways.  You can’t say you are a proponent of LRH policy while at the same time saying that you believe the Ideal Org program is, as implemented by COB, the solution to the expansion of Scientology and a cleared planet.  You can’t honestly say that COB is forwarding only LRH policy and you can’t honestly say that he is not a squirrel.

So, you say, if you can’t fund raise to get the money for an org to get a new building, how do you finance it?

There are probably many many references that instruct on how to do this, but in my view, it goes back to what I went over earlier about the utter lack of auditors being made in the church:

High income in orgs has always occurred when the Academy was good.  And when the Academy really did its job the income was continued….

It will now be seen that an organization potentially will make a larger staff unit from training than processing due to the lesser number of technical staff members required.

This is purposely designed. A boom depends on training, not processing.

The high auditing fee is maintained to deter pcs while shunting them into the Academy. A high processing fee in the HGC then permits higher training fees and keeps the org solvent.

When our Academies did less business and orgs concentrated on HGCs, gross income declined.

Income? Think Academy.” – LRH (HCO PL 3Dec 64R, Rev 7 July 1983, Booming an Org Through Training, OEC Vol 4, page 336)

Again, by the words “Academy” and “Training” we are referring to auditor training.  The lack of auditors being made, with no correct why having been found and implementing pure-theory courses that do not teach people how to audit, all contribute to what becomes a non-standard Academy.  I believe that the lack of auditors being made is something that is occurring in most, if not all orgs.  So per the above policy, it is no wonder that the orgs do not have enough money, even after at least 25 years under COB’s reign, to buy their own new buildings per policy.

When COB got the idea that to solve all of Scientology’s lack of expansion required getting expensive and posh buildings (in itself an idea contradicting LRH policy), how did he solve the problem of getting funds for it? Did he solve it with Scientology?  Does he push increasing the delivery capacity of all orgs by making more auditors and grooving in all the lines in order to deliver in enough volume?

No, he comes up with another unusual solution to pay for the buildings, by ordering the staff to get the public to pay for the buildings without exchange for actual services (off-policy).  In addition, staff are asked to donate as well — many giving everything they possibly can, including inheritances.

Going on for years now, we have countless fundraising events, taking staff off of their standard actions.  He gets us all to think that we have to have before we can do, by having a beautiful new, expensive building before we can really deliver (a violation of HCO PL 27 Jan 69 Dev-T Summary List, point #30, “Having to Have Before They Can Do”, OEC Vol 0, page 216).

Public are constantly hounded for money at every possible opportunity and the org is not a safe environment and many are driven away.  Some people have less chance to actually train or go up the Bridge because they have to work so much, giving large portions of their income to the church in order to support COB’s wrong whys and unusual solutions.

There are correct ways to do things in ADMIN. For each correct procedure there can be an infinity of incorrect actions.

To be a good executive or staff member one has to know the right way something is done and to be able to apply and get done what he knows and be able to correct outnesses so they go back to the correct procedures.

The test of any body of procedures is whether or not they will, when done, result in a smooth-running organization which produces final valuable products in volume that have acceptable quality and maintain the organization’s survival.

Our admin passes this test. When used exactly by the book and applied and corrected back to the book they will produce high volume, quality and viability.

“This has been tested over and over. By the book = prosperity. Offbeat use or ignorance or nonapplication = collapse.

By just getting ‘on-policy’ (knowing and using the procedures with no departures) an org has leaped from long-enduring poverty to high success. Then run by those ignorant of policy, it has in turn collapsed to the degree it went ‘off-policy.’

“A continent has boomed when ‘on-policy,’ has decayed when it went ‘off-policy.’

This fact has been seen over and over and over again. ‘On-policy’ (knowing and applying our procedures) has been the common denominator of each boom. ‘Off-policy’ (not knowing, not applying our procedures) has been the common denominator of every org or continental area collapse.” – LRH (HCO PL 4 Jun 71, Standard Admin, OEC Vol 0, page 64-65)

I would say (from review of these policies) that if COB and the rest of church management would have been following policy in the first place, namely, if he would have gotten orgs to push training as their priority program, and if the training were standard, and if Qual divisions all used the Cramming Series to handle each auditor’s individual tech situations, by now (and for the last many years) we would have had enough auditors and other vital personnel, in every org, to sell and deliver enough services — making enough income to finance the org and pay the staff well.   Possibly, every org by now could have not only enough money to buy a new building (just through book and service sales and correct handling of finances) but, every org could have so much delivery going on that a new, bigger building was ACTUALLY needed, because the old building wasn’t big enough to hold all the public wanting service along with all the needed staff to deliver that service.

Next…But Aren’t the Ideal Orgs Actually Booming?

One thought on “Non-Standard Method of Raising Money for Buildings

  1. Your humble servant says:

    Sadly, one Rick Robinson, a long time staff member at SFO, reportedly did contribute around $300,000 to SFO’s new building campaign. This I understood to be an inheritance, and–I imagine–pretty much the entirety of that inheritance. Whether Rick received anything at all in exchange for this terrific generosity beyond some temporary kudos and back slapping I don’t know, but I rather doubt that he did. He seemed to keep working in the org as a staff member just as before. SFO wound up with a rather pretty, but smaller building, well away from the hustle and bustle of Market Street in San Francisco, with no really convenient public transportation and virtually no parking within blocks. It was said that the org “had to get out” of its old building because the org could not afford to do the needed earthquake retrofits. It seemed not to have occurred to anyone that they could have used the millions they spent on the new building to do the retrofits. Also, it was said the “Landlord Office” insisted on the chosen new building. Although I observed the activity going on in the org both before and after the move, I was not able to observe that the new building increased the vitality or viability of the org one whit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s