I believe we can not establish a "democracy" but rather apply policy. The only problem now adays is that what is happening is too incredible to believe and many blindedly follow whatever is uttered, but after overcoming this debacle, all of us will learn a great lesson: NO ONE is above policy and every scientologist based on KSW has a saying on what is done within the church. We all have different HATs but no one is really above the rest, as we have no authority other than to enforce LRH´s materials. And we will be able to disagree whenever policy is violate and not ever pretend that the violations are ok because are coming from whoever. That is my humble opinion. I vote for ED Int as a great leader by the way.

It is my view that if nothing is done then another crazy dictator will eventually take over.
The problem of succession is ever present with a dictatorship as we have evidenced. LRH put forward in HCOB 17 March 1969 a scale of government with a republic at the top. The most succesful organizations in Scientology have been those which had the least external management - the pre DM missions. If the Sea Org is to run the CofS then I believe that it needs to be accountable to its members. I believe that it is time for the whole of the writings of L.Ron Hubbard to be placed in the public domain. Everything! That would include all the research notes, OT levels etc. The danger of people being exposed to OT level data has actually proven to be minimal. Such an action would ensure that no-one can ever control another with the threat of withheld freedom. I do not really see any sane choice but to have an elected assembly run Scientology.

One thing I heard about at one time was a system by which any junior could call for a vote of confidence on his or her senior. That senior's juniors would be able to vote yea or nay and if the nays won, the senior would have to be replaced. I can see how this could be a very valuable system. The senior would genuinely have to be concerned about the overall health of his sector of the organization, which includes the juniors. The KR PL tried to cover the circumstances of bad seniors but this obviously hasn't worked. Any reconstitution of Scientology organizationally should give juniors a hammer they can use when needed.

It's been a long time since I studied the OEC. A lot of water has gone under that bridge. At this point, with experience and having gone over several key humps on the case end of things, I'm in need of a full restudy of the area.

Off hand, I'll offer this idea. There HAVE BEEN successful, 'working installations' in the past history of the group on every area; a Central Org, the field, and Missions and Management and any area that is important.

Granted, not every obstacle to encounter has been encountered and there may very well need to be policy, as described in the reference The Structure of Organization: What is Policy?, reviewed, reissued, issued newly, cancelled and the whole gamut of the various points of that What is Policy issue.

However, there ARE successful applications of what exists. The Sea Project and then Org, witnessed an incredible amount of study and issues resulting from that study (Data Series, Org Series, Esto Series, and so on) and at various points there have been very successful organizations. It's my view that, as it is with Standard Tech, a full understanding of the basics as covered in the materials, will result in the KRC, coupled with the past decades of experience, that will provide the knowledge of how to go on. In other words, rather than look for some new mousetrap, I'm going to study the one that we have. I'm positive, since I'm still very much a Scientologist and so are many more, that somewhere along the line, what has been set up with the policies so far, has to have been a working installation to some degree and I'm in need of study of just exactly how that was done before I throw it away or come up with some substitute.

I think I'll take advantage of my new awareness gained with Standard Tech to revisit the admin materials. I've not been let down at any point with Standard Tech, I figure that will carry through to admin, and considering as well the Third Dynamic Tech issue of 11 April 70: "In its present state of development, like early auditing material, Third Dynamic Tech is used to think with, and only the bright mind will achieve its full potential in action."

These are my thoughts and opinions regarding the various posts thus far.
First, if we should ever decide to overtly depose DM, we need to be very carefull not to turn him into a martyr. And, don't overlook the fact that he has access to extreemly deep pockets, should he want to drag this through the courts by placing blame on any of us.
We must be prepared to handle, literally, hundreds, if not thousands, of staff, public and independents who are PTS, suffering from multi dynamic personal and group engrams, out tech/policy/ethics victims. There isn't time or space here to list all the things that will need to be handled.
My main concern on this topic is that the Church of DM will come apart at the seams without any real warning and we will be caught by surprise. IMO we need to have some kind of plan and structer for the probable inevitablity of that happening. Some kind of plan that most can agree on and put in place preemptively. It's going to be a HUGE task. I think some kind of organization on our part is called for. The sooner the better.
This is not to say that it would be written in stone. I, for one, would need some kind of promise that would make it clear to all that this would be, originally, as sane a stopgap as we can manage up front.
It may be niave on my part to think that we could come together and get this done without a lot of natter, devisiveness, bitter feelings, enturb being spread around, and paranoia about "who, what and where". As evidenced by so much bickering that is going on in the various sites and blogs. It makes me sad...really. It hurts us all.
It wouldn't hurt to look into the legal aspects of how to proceed during that phase. IE: freezing Scn. bank accounts, audits, etc..

From what I recall while on staff, there always seemed to be a built in check and balance system in the org board as well as in upper management.

No one was in absolute control. If things went off the rails there was always some avenue of intervention. Even the ED had to answer to HCO or the SSO for not attending study. Qual had the responsibility to ensure correct application of the tech as well as the LC, etc.

Ensuring that intervention is built in will prevent another dm taking over. That plus making sure the in charge got his enhancement like LRH said in "Talk on a Basic Qual" where you care about your senior to get them help, if they go off the rails. This can be much harder to do in reality. Some seniors can get pretty nasty that you don't want to even try.

Okay. First of all, thank you for bringing this up in this manner.

First: In the confusion following DM's departure, a stable datum needs to be in place. That can only be LRH, as that is the basic agreement point. I haven't thought about what specific stable data formulated around LRH would work, but I know it could be worked out.

Second: DM will probably blow quite destructively, possibly with legal rights to the trademarks assigned to him, and a few hundred million. But if he gets arrested and criminally charged, these can be pried away from him, but oh woe is the church--ALL staff will be diverted to anything deemed necessary to assist Dear Leader.

Third: The election of a leader is essential. I would try to model some sort of system after the US constitution, where there are 3 branches of government, each with policy checks and balances enumerated in the Constitution.

For those that say, "we just need to follow policy" I say that is no longer enough. If we don't learn from this massive FAIL, we likely will go right back into situation of a despot controlling everything.

LRH never wrote specific policies about how to go about selecting a new leader; the fact that he was the leader and so accomplished at it made such a policy unnecessary at the time. Possibly he had ideas about it, but didn't want to put them out as he could then be overthrown by SP, etc., as actually happened in the early days.

I believe that the first step is alway to go back to what did work. I am with Jim Here. I will only add...

We Don't Need Another Hero. We have one.

We only have one unquestioned leader and that is Ron. No one over rules him,takes his place or wears all his hat. Though everyone will wear some piece of his hat. Ron will lead us through his policy and tech.

He had a very workable setup for years. Let's get back to that. To figure out which one was the best research will need to be done.

For each scientologist to have a say each will need to educate themselve in the basics of LRH policy. (not DM's) Even if it is just Volume 0 and be a book one auditor with about 100 hours. Otherwise we are back to bank agreement.

I respect anyone who talks from a hatted viewpoint with experience. They also have to be able to truly love their fellow man or all the good policy in the world is useless.

As for those left at Int... They should not rule again. They should be allowed to properly destim.

I think we have to let the Church of Scientology die a natural death, without frantic efforts to revive it and with no attempt at putting it down like the crazed organism it has become.

The basic flaw, rigid top down management, is built into the very DNA of the church. Any organization where you cannot write a knowledge report on a senior or indicate a senior terminal as a PTS item is easy prey to an SP who works his/her way up in the ranks.

In studying LRH policy I was always amused by his presumption that management always knew better than people working in the field. Whenever he mentions getting a corrective input from lower on the chain of command, it was always as an afterthought, the remotest possibility.

As a result, there will be no effective correction from within the church as "management infallibility" is drummed into the heads of all staff and SO members. Like "Papal infallibility" this only works if you are a true believer and ignore real world inputs.

There are definite advantages in having a large enough organization to exercise political clout as in securing advantageous licensing arrangements for practitioners and defending against efforts to have practitioners shut down because they are not "licensed" therapists or counselors of some type. This can be achieved by creating a large coalition of smaller groups and individual practitioners for the purpose of protecting the practitioners and exchanging information on best practices.

The coalition should concentrate on empowering the individuals and groups through exchange of information and through facilitation of training in the various disciplines used in the coalition. If the coalition is to become truly successful, it will embrace multiple disciplines, those in the Freezone and in the independent field.

The focus should not be on the technology employed, but on practices that ensure that PC, clients, etc. are able to get what they expect from the practice. Setting expectations and meeting them is far more important than how the result is achieved.

Here's a novel concept!

Why don't we apply Standard Scientology as given in the OEC Volumes!

I don't know how many times I have written this but I feel I must write it again!

The HCOPLs you should read are:

Advisory Council, 8 May 57, 1 Nov 66 and 21 Dec 66

Ad Council Appointments 27 May 57, 2 Nov 66 etc plus several others dealing with Ad Council, Advisory Committees on and on.

All these policies are in OEC Vol 7.

The thing that's missing here folks is actual application!

I mean you can have the tech sitting in the Tech Vols but if no one bothers to read it or worse does something else, then guess what?

Rhetorical question! You get something other than Scientology while calling it such which is exactly what is occurring now under the rubric of the Golden Age of Tech!

There is no such thing as a Scientology Leader or top clown as Clown on Board or COB !!!

The post does not exist, never did!

Like as in Scientology tech. If you want some organizational system other than what is contained in policy and elect some dim wit to run the show while every one else does do nothing motions and takes no responsibility which is what wog government is, then at least be honest about it and call it squirreling.

There is squirrel tech and there is also squirrel admin!

I agree with most everyone's posts but have a particular liking for Exilo's. Maybe because they were listed item by item but also because they were well thought out.
I would just like to add that anyone in management should need to be a thoroughly trained auditor. Thus, input from all the remaining Class12 and Class8 auditors is imperative as they know what works to get people up the bridge and they know what it is like to train and make it. They also know what it takes to treat people with respect.
By the way, all auditors who were declared SP's (especially the 12's and 8's) need to be undeclared ASAP (as should everyone else). You don't make it to Class12 and Class8 and then all of a sudden go evil! Who the hell thought up that garbage! Real auditors are dedicated people who are valuable and want to make things go right. God bless them!

I think a total review of the Tech needs to be done from top to bottom. There is workable Tech, and there is unworkable Tech. There is also grossly exaggerated promotion of gains for all levels. This needs to be fixed, and put into proper perspective. There is also data on upper levels which seems to obviate the lower levels. LRH never went back and refined his Bridge. This needs to be done.

PC's are not allowed to talk about there experiences with auditing, so no-one actually knows the full extent of the un-workability/workability of each level. It is just assumed that the Tech is perfect, and that any unworkability is the fault of the auditor or pc. I personnel feel that LRH made a hell of a lot of mistakes in the Tech. These need to be fixed up. The only way to approach this is to do what he claims he did - put some proper Scientific testing on everything. Lets get some proper scientific validation of the Tech. LRH said that 20% of people will get better on a placibo. The Scientific community says the percentage is between 40 and 60%. How do we know that Scientology's gains are based on the placibo effect?

The same needs to happen on the Admin Tech. There are things that LRH claims that I have noticed from my years on staff that are just totally un-true, like the fact that income goes up 6 weeks after a big BMO stat. Just not true.

And we can start by throwing out KSW 1. If you have done any research on the net you will know that LRH did not develop most of the Tech. Proper credit needs to be given for those that contributed, even though most of them are now dead.

So I believe that a thorough review needs to be done of all aspects of Scientology. Lets make it workable.

"Simon Bolivar" ladies and gents. "What would Ron Do? (perhaps):
Those who have not left the S.O. and those who have left, but want to go back, need to have a real Board meeting, appoint a sane leader, get Tech, Ethics, Admin IN, with purpose once again being senior to policy, and get FAITH restored in the CofS delivering LRH tech by example, not just PR, word of mouth is a very powerful tool. Re-hab the theta- revitalizing mission, with Qual actually running the org HCO established.

1) International Amnesty, undeclare everyone ever declared SP, unconditionally. References: the two LRH lectures of summer 1966, one is the lecture "About Rhodesia" and the other is the lecture to the GO a day after the "About Rhodesia" lecture. The Board of Review policy authorizes overturning ALL justice misapplications which amongst other things, "violate basic policy." Well the policy violated across the boards is by SP declaring people who are NOT SP. People may have committed a number of SP acts, who hasn't, but they are NOT SPs per the 1966 two summer lectures by LRH.

This would allow anyone of the independents to return to the official movement, and most would NOT desire this, but hear me out.

I think the independents should just be accepted back into Scientology. The independents are NOT SPs.

Official Scientology has the full LRH cannon of writings and lectures. They have the advantage, particularly the full body of private despatches from LRH to "top management". One particular LRH despatch that I think long range, when someone someday rises up to appreciate it, is the despatch to ED Int, where LRH half jokes to ED Int that he probably didn't really the authority he (ED Int) has to handle "arbitraries" set up by policy, in the case of this despatch, it was arbitraries regarding hiring requirements for staff, a particular instance of an arbitrary. LRH was half chiding ED Int.

LRH wished to give to Exec Strata the "think tank" hat. Reference 339R Int.

The Eval Corps, now defunct, was under Exec Strata.

WDC ensures qualified exec positions of top management, including Exec Strata, are filled, including ILO (Int Liaison Org, and LRH had some minor influence on the name of ILO, someone ask Ron Norton, or others who saw the traffic, LRH said something about how the old FB was really an Int Liaison Org, like a superior to the CLOs, which is why ILO has its name today).

b) To reform actual existing Scientology, I think the LRH policy, his urging a number of places, when LRH says "It's YOUR Scientology too!!!" I translate this, or I would just make LRH's broad private "top management" traffic public, and THAT WAY the whole Scientology public can see just HOW MUCH of what is going on, IS based on some nooks and crannies LRH despatch private "advice" traffic from some time in the past. All LRH's advice is everyone's advice who considers themselves a Scientologist, is my point.

For instance, the subject of "events." That traffic is absolutely the type of LRH writings that SHOULD be shared.

To me, square zero so people who want to help the Scientology full package operation going per ALL that LRH has written and suggested and ordered over the decades, is to GET the LRH traffic into the public domain, so people can see what LRH said to do!

Because the Sea Org bureaucracies are stratefied, not even the lower echelons know about the Int level LRH advices traffic. It's constant "need to know" and causes hidden data lines.

The whole shebang of LRH's writings need to be put out in the public.

THEN the public Scientologists can look over what LRH said, and decide if they are up to the task of jumping on board the Sea Org.

So my second suggestion, is MAKE ALL OF LRH'S PRIVATE DESPATCH TRAFFIC AND LECTURES, TO TOP MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC, SO THAT ALL SCIENTOLOGISTS CAN READ IT, AND IN THAT WAY LET PEOPLE SEE WHAT THEY HECK THEY HAVE AS THEIR PARAMETERS FOR WHAT LRH WANTED TO BE DONE.

There are decades and decades of non complied with LRH orders, sitting in the filing cabinets of private LRH traffic.

Square zero, to reform/fix Scientology, to me, my second suggestion, is make LRH's traffic available to the Scientologists and the world.

c) Third suggestion, for the Sea Org, is for Exec Strata to do some long range research projects, on the Sea Org itself. i) Look into other groups how they discharge their members more honorably, than does the Sea Org, and implement something like "honorable discharges." ii) Look into re-signup blocks for set numbers of years, like re-sign for 5, 10 year blocks, as a Sea Org member, and allow "honorable" discharges when Sea Org members want to quit. iii) Get "rewards" back in, liberties, leaves of absence routinely for Sea Org

d) Fourth suggestion, the world already knows about the confidential OT 3 stuff, only people with their heads in the ground are not aware of the confidential materials. I say FACE IT, the cat is out of the bag, and the OT materials, all levels, are on the internet or easily available, and the movement is the EFFECT of being communicated to, about the confidential materials, that is effect, that's just crazy. I suggest NOT implement ANY penalties, no lower conditions, for anyone speaking or learning about the confidential materials, and just silently STOP punishing members for discovering and talking about the spiritual details of the no longer "confidential" materials of Scientology. It's MORE harmful to the members who are muzzled and self silenced, and worried they will do themselves mental damage, when that is just NOT the case. People survive the "premature" discovery of the no longer confidential materials way way way more than people who have a bad case reaction. Also, the world knows, and it is forcing Scientology to treat all the pre OT 3 people like ostriches who are obligated to stick their heads in the ground, it's just so counter any other sharing of human knowledge. Scientology's Achilles Heal is the no longer confidential spiritual theory/story.

My fourth suggestion is stop penalizing ANYONE for discovering or discussing the confidential materials.

e) Fifth suggestion: Get Exec Strata to research out a solution to prices of services and the donation scheme of the movement. Take 5-10 years, and pilot out various solutions. Proportional tithing, or proportional prices, NOT set prices, but prices to match the income of the Scientologist parishioner. Other religions have percentages, Scientology's prices (donations) should simply be proportionate or percentages, similarly.

f) Sixth suggestion. If the church wants to really make a mark, then do like other religions do, and make some huge construction object or art piece, that somehow translates the fundamentals of what is the CORE of Scientology. I'd order Int Landlord Office, to research an art sculpture at Flag and LA, one each location, something truly indicative of the CORE Scientology principles, like a HUGE ARC triangle, really beautifully done, in the LA Day parking lot, and something really impressive that transcends all religions/etc. And something that will be around for hundreds of years, and be self explanatory and have long term meaning built into it. THEN whenever news media cover the subject of Scientology, rather than clips of the glorious real estate, instead, some of the Hubbard core useful human principles, like ARC, or the 8 dynamics, or Be, Do, Have, etc, etc, is given video air time instead of just some renovated building. Like what is planned for the Superpower building, if they are going to have a huge outdoor art piece of the 8 dynamics, THAT I think is useful long range, for the reasons above.

I have more, but I'll close with this last suggestion:

g) Independent Scientologists just act decent and kind, and shrug off any false criticism,
do Scientology to one another that you trust, just do the right thing to one another, since I believe you have all the tech you could ever want out here free now, to do with whatever you will do with it.

I think unfortunately the only change will be by embarrassing official Scientology through the media stories that contrast the growing fissure of independent Scientologists as behaving more moderately than the banana republic totalitarian official Scientology style.

chuckbeatty77aol.com

What we have is an out-ethics, suppressive, Yuppie named David Miscavage and a few hundred people who are PTS to him pretending to be a church.
Scientology has always had a big problem with money... because it takes a lot of personal service and a lot of time to really deliver the goods. Unfortunately, that problem was never solved. Instead, we got David Miscavage and Yuppietology. The problem of affordability was "solved" and the "Solution" was David (Yuppie) Miscavage and his version of the tech.
I decided years ago that I would not pay $.50
for David's "Golden Age" of squirreling.

There will be considerable pain and suffering to be resolved once the Co$ collapses. I would suggest that a Truth and Reconciliation Tribunal be established where those who have suffered are given a public forum to express their pain and air their grievances and, alongside, those who have caused the pain by "following orders" have a chance to confess their sins and express whatever sorrow they have. Consider the example of Mandela's actions once he became President of South Africa as an example.

I agree with RJ on the point of the correct handling .It is apply standard Admin. As some posts seem to aim toward applying the danger formula which obviously should be done for a good number of individuals it might be a good idea to become fully familiar with third dnamic tech as contained in the OEC vulumes.(more ike expanded non existence) At least last time I read them in 1992 on the OEC course they were for the most part LRH issues.
as a tip if you can also find the early 70s oec volumes you can in some instances find which pls not written by LRH as they have the original authors at the signature. The point is that standard admin does work if known and applied just like red on white. I have about 18 years of staff experience during which policy correcty used brought improvement and policy impropery used brought about contraction and worsening conditions. Bob Earle PS there was in the mid sixties at least one LRH pl on what to with his various hats in the event of his departure unfortunately I do not have any OEC vol 7 of the early 70 editions or mimeo files of then to give you the date or title but it did at that time give an outline of how to set things up in his absence. As many things evolved after that such as the SO etc etc it may be superceded posibly by other issues in or to SO personel.