I was once on staff at a Mission. I started off as a volunteer staff member. The ED always approvingly commented that you could set your watch by me, I was that reliable.

Sometime later, a poison pen letter came in that had gone up the lines and came down from Int Mgmt to that mission with demands for explanation. It was from a disgruntled ex Mission student ( a long time one) who wrote a negative paragraph about every single person there. It was almost like she was trying to think of things she could comment on in a negative way. So there was a paragraph that said "Well, I don't know much about Claire, but she IS living with a druggie." Which was true. I was living with a guy (not John) who took a lot of drugs and thought beer was a type of religion. The mission had never tried to intervene in this relationship, although he was a non Scn'ist.

The Mission holder said she was trying to "cover your ass" (because of the letter) and that I should therefore sign a contract. I said I liked being volunteer because I could get time off to do things and whatnot. She said that I could still have that. So I signed. I was, in a way, sort of tricked or coerced into doing so.

Oh well. Life is for learning.

So after a year and a half I found that it pretty much sucked there and that no promise made to me would be honored. When I tried to get some time off to do some things I was told that since I didn't get this promise in writing, then it wasn't valid. The mission holder did NOT deny making such promises, either. So I said, Well, I just have about a year or so to go. I'm glad. She then said my contract hadn't even started running yet because I hadn't done all the staff statuses yet. (I've looked and looked through policy and found this NOWHERE).

So there was some back and forthing, and I ended up feeling stuck with the situation and that I was, in effect, a slave.

Every time any money came in to the mission, the missionholder took it and said "oops, they owe me back rent.". I received $5.00 the whole time I was working there.

John and I would show up Saturday or Sunday a.m. (it was all foundation hours there) and the Missionholder, her husband, her daughter, her daugher's boyfriend,- all management staff- would be sound asleep. And the doors would be locked because they were all asleep. They assured us that they put in plenty of time when we weren't there. And that although they told us schedules must be rigorously adhered to, they themselves were exempted from this.

Again, young, feeling trapped, went with it.

Then, later, the Missionholder indicated she might want to give up the charter. She was getting older and wanted to move away to CW, or do something else.

Meanwhile she was dramatizing and yelling constantly. Nothing we did was ever right.

So John and I and another person came in and asked her for the mission charter. Asked,not demanded. She blew up. Said we didn't do any research. So we told her we did, told her which entity we called, then she blew up about that. She brought in her daughter's boyfriend and he accused us of mutiny.

Of course this was false as we'd demanded nothing.

We were put in lower conditions and a call to the parent Org was made. They sent down a woman who I later saw on a list of people expelled and declared a couple years later. Her style was mainly to look steely eyed, shriek, and point fingers of blame. No one ever asked us what happened. She took a shine to John and got him sent away for some auditing. She had an entirely different response to yours truly and to our friend.

So I was there while John was gone, and I was working as in lowered conditions. Most people there wouldn't look me in the eye except for a couple people who would sneak me a snack or a pat on the back. I was In Disgrace, as it were.

So John came back and so did the Missionholder's husband, who'd been away at an AO for training and auditing of some sort. He interviewed all of us and asked what happened. I told him and he said "No, here's what happened. There was a squirrel group, you got sucked in, and then mutinied." I said no.

So this went on and on.

The 3 of us got busted for trying to take our pc folders with us one night, too. Stopped at the door by several men who implied that they'd use force if they'd have to. We left our folders there.

Finally I said, look, just let me out of here, I'll take the Freeloader debt, no problem. I was told I had to do ethics handlings. So I did. I showed up and I was placed in the lowest condition there is. Confusion. Not Doubt or Liability. Nope. Confusion. So I went with it although it didn't "indicate", since I felt trapped. Then I said I'd worked through it and I was told that I couldn't be let out of that condition until I signed back on staff. Never have I seen this as an indication that someone's out of Confusion in any policy, but then again, their own "scriptures", so to speak, can be bent every which way if it suits any exec.

The idea was to have me back on staff but in lower conditions so that I could be made to do all kinds of scut work, extra hours, etc.

So I refused to do that and wasn't let out of the condition. They never pushed John to come in to Ethics, just mentioned it a bit, he never came but he never refused.

Later on they said he refused ethics handling which was untrue.

So I went home and stopped coming in as did John. The mission holder's husband visited us at our apartment and told me that I was leaving because I wanted to go to the movies. I assured him this wasn't the case but he'd already made up his mind.

We were given a choice by the parent Org and by the Mission. Go back to the Mission or go work at THAT Org or be expelled. We said we weren't going back and that the mission holder had sanctioned many departures and blows in the past, so let her sanction one more.

We were rather upset because we still believed in the system in those days and thought that the church was actually just fine, it was just this one Mission. So we were puzzled that the Org would not listen to us. We requested a comm ev and did not get one. We sent many write ups to that Org with no response.

We got a sort of draft of an expell/declare decree and it had mutiny in it.

I sent back a letter outlining all the reasons it wasn't mutiny and so the expulsion went through without that charge and with very little else.

We were expelled for crossing the Mission holder and pissing her off. Per the "Leaving and Leaves" PL if someone wants to leave staff then let them leave. But this is not honored very often. It wasn't in this case.

The Expulsion order claimed that John refused Ethics (not true) and that I'd broken the Leaving and Leaves PL by telling John I was leaving staff. John not being just my husband but also a staff member and per that PL you can't announce any impending departures. They reasoned that I *must* have told him that since he was my husband and that therefore I *must* have committed a high crime.

I believe this is known as a Catch 22. Heh.

A few weeks later the Mission called John up to demand all our books and meters. He laughed in their face (well, actually, this was on the phone. But he did laugh.) and the Missionholder's daughter who'd made the call freaked out and put her Mom on the phone who started ranting and screaming about squirrel groups. Now, many of these books were given to us by my Dad, and the rest we'd paid for ourselves. Hell, no, they couldn't have them.

I went away to some event where they said they could help Scn'ists who ran afoul of the Scn justice system but nothing happened there. I hooked up with a former friend of mine from the mission and we reestablished our friendship. I was really glad.

Then, later, I got a letter from her saying she couldn't see me any more because she was about to get auditing and couldn't "go PTS" and I had to do A to E steps. I told her I was working with an EO at an Org, (by then I was.

We'd moved from the area and one of the first things I did was to hook up with an EO at an Org- not Seattle- to work on getting the expulsion overturned.) and she said it wasn't good enough. Overturning isn't doing an A to E set of steps. I know this was the mission holder's hand in things because they had personally told me I'd be better off doing A to E steps rather than trying to get the expulsion overturned since the missionholder herself had once gotten an expulsion overturned (of hers) and it took her 6 years. My response was, Ok, cool. Let it take 6 years. My "friend" said reestablishing friendship was contingent on my doing A to E. I told her nothing like that had ever been mentioned and that if it had, I'd have told her where to go.

Later we got a copy of our free loader debt which was padded. It had items like plane fare to Flag even though this had been paid for by us, not by the Mission, and room and board at this one town when I went away to an Org for training, even though I'd stayed with my Aunt and Uncle who were, I believe, Lutherans.

The mission ceased to exist. The Missionholder used this as an excuse of sorts to disband it, which was something she'd wanted to do for quite some time in any event, and move down to CW.

We asked for a comm ev in Seattle and got one.

During this time a good friend of mine back in my old neck of the woods bumped into the Missionholder's husband downtown and said happily "Well, Claire and John are doing well. Looks like they're going to get this overturned." He said "They'll have to do A to E."

(a note to those unfamiliar with this term and process. A to E steps are designed for those who are expelled and want to get back in . The person ends up admitting his fault and guilt and has to do amends. My position was that it wasn't a valid expulsion so why would I do such steps?)

So the comm ev wrote to the Missionholders as interested parties. They did not respond. At all.

This made the comm ev go in our favor. Plus their comment was that if someone wants to leave staff, then let them leave. I'd gone to ethics, tried really hard to toe the line, so what was the problem. They also said if a spouse tells her husband what she wants to do that this would be a normal and natural thing.

So, it was overturned.

The reason I'd wanted it overturned instead of just saying good riddance was I did not know the things I know now. Had I known them, I'd not have been interested in getting back in the church. But I'd been told "We don't do that anymore" many times. I'd believed it. I had been told there'd be nowhere else to study Scn and things of that nature.

I've remarked on this forum that a lot of people may stay in CofS 'cuz they're worried about being "cut off from salvation". Well, it was certainly true in my case.

At this point, I no longer worry about it. I carry my own seeds of salvation and can do what I like.

Back then, I thought what happened was an anomaly in an otherwise good church. I do not have this perspective now, of course, but I surely did then.

I have heard there are many people who get expelled and then do A to E and sometimes again and again. I knew a couple, actually.

For me, this second expulsion is the last one, as witness my having walked out one year before this second one went through.

Wouldn't go back there for all the lattes in Seattle.

Claire M. Swazey
Kate The Wondercat's Human

"Fluffygirl" <cswazey@comcast.net> wrote in news:3e6a463e$1@news2.lightlink.com:

<snip - go read the original; it's a remarkable tale>

Just wanted to thank you for this very revealing story about life in (and, I guess, briefly "out", and then, once again, in) Scientology for an "ordinary" Scientologist. There are so many harrowing tales of life in the Sea Org or on the ship, or in various extreme postings and situations through the decades and around the world; sometimes it's good to read about a more down-to-earth, less dramatic tale of those petty injustices and personal experiences for an "ordinary" Scientologist at an "ordinary" mission or org.

Thanks much for posting, and if I haven't mentioned it lately, I'm glad you and John are out and happy.

K

From: hkhenson@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: My First Expulsion
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 22:08:10 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3e6e681c.251839492@news2.lightlink.com>

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:38:20 -0800, "Fluffygirl" <cswazey@comcast.net>

wrote:

>I was once on staff at a Mission.

snip

Great post Claire. I concur with Kady about being fascinated by how life goes for scientologists in the outer orgs.

>So, it was overturned.
>
>The reason I'd wanted it overturned instead of just saying good riddance was
>I did not know the things I know now. Had I known them, I'd not have been
>interested in getting back in the church. But I'd been told "We don't do
>that anymore" many times. I'd believed it.

But it's true Claire. "We don't do that any more." They just leave out the next sentence, "We don't do that any less." :-)

Thanks again, this one's a keeper.

Keith Henson

Subject: Re: My First Expulsion
From: Kristi Wachter <humanrights@racerrecords.com>
Message-ID: <3e6a7ca2@news2.lightlink.com>
Date: 8 Mar 2003 18:28:34 -0500

Claire, thank you so much for this. This is a fascinating story, and I am glad of the opportunity to know more about your personal, particular history with Scn.

I have a couple of questions:

<I have snipped much throughout:>

"Fluffygirl" <cswazey@comcast.net> writes:

>I was once on staff at a Mission. I started off as a volunteer staff
>member. The ED always approvingly commented that you could set your watch
>by me, I was that reliable.

Scientology does emphasize promptness, don't they? (/it?) It's interesting, that's something that struck me right away during my brief fling, but it's not something that I've seen mentioned on a.r.s. much.

But my question is: how does being a volunteer staff member differ from being a staff member? As I recall from seeing some contracts, ALL staffers are, technically, volunteers. (One way they get around minimum wage laws, and no doubt many other potential legal hassles.) Does a volunteer staff member serve without a written contract? (Sounds that way, from the rest of your article.) Does a volunteer get any free training or services?

I get the impression that a volunteer staff position is a little like the kinds of volunteer positions I've had, and my friends have had - you have a job, and specific times when you're supposed to be there, but you can always beg off if you need some time off, and it's generally more flexible and less formal than a "real" job. Yes?

>The Mission holder said she was trying to "cover your ass" (because of the
>letter) and that I should therefore sign a contract. I said I liked being
>volunteer because I could get time off to do things and whatnot. She said
>that I could still have that. So I signed. I was, in a way, sort of tricked
>or coerced into doing so.

No question about this at the moment, but see at the end -

>John and I would show up Saturday or Sunday a.m. (it was all foundation
>hours there) and the Missionholder, her husband, her daughter, her daugher's
>boyfriend,- all management staff- would be sound asleep. And the doors would
>be locked because they were all asleep. They assured us that they put in
>plenty of time when we weren't there. And that although they told us
>schedules must be rigorously adhered to, they themselves were exempted from
>this.

Was the mission run out of a home? or were they living in it?

Also, general question for all, Claire and everyone - does anyone have any idea how many missions are on Foundation hours only? I'm 99% certain the San Francisco mission is (the one that moved from spacious quarters at 406 Sutter to tiny quarters at 701 Sutter), which I found strange.

>So John and I and another person came in and asked her for the mission
>charter. Asked,not demanded. She blew up. Said we didn't do any research. So
>we told her we did, told her which entity we called, then she blew up about
>that. She brought in her daughter's boyfriend and he accused us of mutiny.
>Of course this was false as we'd demanded nothing.

Did anyone ever bring up the thing about how nobody's allowed to ask for something in conjunction with anyone else? I believe there's some reference to "petititions" in the thing I'm thinking of ...

Oh, yes, here we go:

No two persons or more may simultaneously petition on the same matter and if so the petition must at once be refused by the person petitioned.

(Intro to Scn Ethics)

I've always found that fascinating. (And sucky.)

Did that point come up in this particular brouhaha?

... Did you end up paying that padded freeloader debt? Or did the comm ev nullify it?

>I've remarked on this forum that a lot of people may stay in CofS 'cuz
>they're worried about being "cut off from salvation". Well, it was certainly
>true in my case.

>At this point, I no longer worry about it. I carry my own seeds of salvation
>and can do what I like.

I think this is so important, and I'm so glad you feel this way now.

One thing I've wished I could ask current CoS Scientologists who feel trapped, now, the way you once did, is, "Why let the CoS make you be at effect over your access to the Bridge?"

So my other thought, or question, is related to Dr. Kent's recent testimony in Ireland, regarding deception and free will.

Do you have any thoughts about how deception affected your free will, and how being given empty promises on the one hand and unrelenting expectations that you must uphold YOUR end of the broken bargain on the other hand, affected your free will - at the time, not in retrospect?

This question fascinates me, the extent to which so many people like yourself, people of good will, will try to do the right thing - uphold their promises - even in the face of the other party blatantly repudiating their own obligations. I think it's pretty likely I would have behaved the same way as you did, had I been in your shoes, and I think a LOT of people behave that way, in all kinds of situations not related to Scn, and I think it's a very interesting corrollary question to the problem of what society should do about people who take advantage of others. What makes people keep a promise when the other side has not, when is that a good thing and when is it bad, and how can we as a society discourage the bad instances?

Hee. That's a big ol' question, and I'll of course be grateful for whichever parts of this post it pleases you to answer.

Thanks again for the glimpse into your history.

Not that I ever get around to updating my sites these days, but if I do, might I post it to the Outpoints section in truthaboutscientology.com?

Appreciatively,

Kristi

-- Kristi Wachter the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me)

If I am not who you say I am, then you are not who you think you are.

- James Baldwin

I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop it. See http://www.scientology-lies.com for more.

KSW: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/alteringtech.htm

Go Back