From: alerma@nospam.bellatlantic.net (arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com)
Subject: Letter from an new-ex-scientology "OT" re: http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/hubbard2percentrule.htm
Organization: CitizensAgainstCorruption
Message-ID: <3f35008c.180030230@news.verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:43:29 GMT

The following email has been edited only to provide little information that OSA can use to find their next target of retribution.....the gist of this missive has not been changed in any way. This is from a high level "OT"....in response to:

http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/hubbard2percentrule.htm

Dear Arnie

Great article.

About a week ago I happened to tell BLANK, my wonderful BLANK, how when I was on staff, I used to hate stats which held me accountable for that which I could not control - against all management logic.

I am not against stats when it is done in a sane way and it shows the direction of your business - or of whatever you are doing - and what if any corrective action needs to be taken. But on staff it felt like the stats were done for the sake of stats and for doing the ethics conditions on those stats.

For instance, I was sent to the CLO in BLANK for ethics when I was D of P and Purif I/C, because at the time there was a shortage of PCs, purifees and auditors. I was utterly confused, because I wasn't good at getting people on org lines, particularly as when even the highly trained regges whose job it was to sell and pull people in, couldn't do so. Of course, I did call-ins. went through the folders, demanded PCs from the regges, etc. etc. - all to no avail. But as D of P, I was supposed to "shoot the reg" - whose reporting lines were of course entirely elsewhere - and it was nevertheless "my head" on the chopping block when the sales side didn't deliver the goods.

This to me was completely nuts, and indeed, a truly suppressive non-sequitur. In the style of "have an argument with your wife, and kick the dog".

In fact, this way you put a staff member in very suppressive situation where he is made responsible for the failures of others over whom he has no control. In a situation like this where he is not in control of the situation [even though he is supposed to be...] - yet blamed for it, there can only be losses and demoralisation for that person.

I went to the CLO, did all the ethics, which even when I finished I knew it was all just so much hogwash, because it did not address the root cause of the situation - in the sense that it is thoroughly senseless to demand somebody to take responsibility for a situation over which he has no control.

Already before I went to the CLO, we knew we were going to have ------ new people starting on Purif, which would also produce auditing hours stats. I told my handler at the CLO about this, and that of course it was going to look like the ethics handling worked, when in fact other factors were at play. ------ just repeated like a robot that it did not matter: ethics always works.

I thought at the time that the whole exercise was completely stupid, but didn't say a thing, because I needed to get back home as quickly as possible.

Arnie, if you ever want to post anything I write, you are most welcome as long as you make it anonymous.

All the best

(Deleted) http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/hubbard2percentrule.htm Ferengi + Borg = Scientology I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.

The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers The internet is the liberty tree of the new millennium Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"

Go Back