Ideal Orgs


L. Ron Hubbard:

“We own a tremendous amount of property. We own a tremendous amount of material, and so forth. And it keeps growing. But that’s not important.

When buildings get important to us, for God’s sake, some of you born revolutionists, will you please blow up central headquarters. If someone had put some H.E. [high explosives] under the Vatican long ago, Catholicism might still be going.

Don’t get interested in real estate. Don’t get interested in the masses of buildings, because that’s not important.”

Tape: The Genus of Scientology
Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress
31 December 1960

“In twenty years an enormous amount of experience has been gained regarding the quarters and housing of orgs.

From this experience there are only a few clear-cut lessons. These follow:

A. VIABILITY of the org… is the first and foremost consideration… not how posh or what repute or what image.

…Example: Stockholm took very posh, fancy quarters. Up to that time it has been viable. The overload of expense rapidly upset the salary sum, the staff began to moonlight (work on other jobs), and the org all but collapsed until cheaper quarters were found.

Example: Phoenix 1955. A beautiful, big building at small expense was found. It was very prominent… the full reserves of the org went into furnishing these quarters. The area had to be abandoned, losing all reserves.

Elizabeth, New Jersey, 1950. The shabby quarters there made lots of money. Beautiful country quarters were under survey for purchase. The psychiatric block… began action [in the area] to invoke a law against medical schools. If the better quarters had been purchased, they would have been lost.

…CONCLUSION: Viability of economics must not exceed the income of the org. The SAFE figure for rent and mortgage payments must not exceed 15 percent to 17 percent of the gross income of the org.

…C. Image is a secondary consideration.
Example: Hotel Reycar Alicante Spain was relatively cheap. It was quite posh. Students complained as it cost a bit more than they were willing to pay. Image in this case worked against the org.

Example: Johannesburg’s three old buildings foolishly sold and the money squandered has yet to attain the income it made in its “old, horrible quarters” despite its newer image.

… An org which adventures more than 15 percent of its current gross income for rent or purchase payments can get into far more serious trouble than an org with a poor building image.”

HCO P/L 23 September 1970
Quarters, Policy Regarding—Historical
(OEC Vol. 7, p. 1394)

“If the org slumps… 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 for pcs ‘Solve It With Scientology’.

Every time I myself have sought to solve financial 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 barbeques.”

HCO P/L 24 February 1964, Issue II
Org Programming
(OEC Vol. 7, p. 930)

For years, the term “donation” referred to payments made by the public for org services—training and processing.

This is covered by the very title of a well-known LRH article:

“So little by little, using donations you give us for your service, your training and your processing, we create little by little areas of sanity.”

The Auditor #51, 1970
What Your Donations Buy
(OEC Vol. 2, p. 106)

David Miscavige:

Size and beauty of new buildings has become a major focus in almost all Scientology events and publications. COB regularly offers up dimensions of new Ideal Org courserooms and HGCs, their color schemes, and the architectural style of the exterior.

Production stats for these orgs were found to be consistently below viability. Their gross income, for example, is nowhere near the range LRH demands of an org before it can even consider upgrading to more lavish quarters.

Within the last decade or so, the term “donation” has come to refer more and more to straight contributions independent of any services rendered by the org.

Examples: IAS donations, Ideal Org donations, Library Project donations, Building Project donations, and Super Power Expansion Project donations.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Ideal Orgs

    • Sent to me from a staff member once I questioned his Regging.I have passed your email down to Saint Hill, however, please look in OEC Volume 6, page 848, section on CONTRIBUTIONS.

      This is HCO PL2 Dec. 1968, GUNG-HO GROUPS.

      LRH says:

      “The most heavily worked-over income point of most civic-minded groups is the obtaining of contributions.

      These can be quite sizable.

      They do not however come easily unless the group has a nonprofit status and the patron can thereby deduct it from his income tax.

      A group, however, that registers as a charity and is a member of existing nonprofit organizations can obtain contributions.

      Governments have been known to contribute large sums to groups.

      Contributions should be worked at but should be regarded as an irregular source of income and not counted on for the general running expenses of a group. Rather, they are like an affluence, and major projects are the best use for contributions and the best reason to get them — such as a new building for the group or a new hall, things like that.” – LRH

      I also refer you to HCO PL, EXPANSION: THEORY OF POLICY in OEC volume 0, and the definition of optimum solution in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics Book.

      These are all LRH references.

      And last, but not least, it is documented and recorded that LRH himself raised donations for the purchase of Fitzroy Street in London which was used as a very early org. There are photographs of the plaque that peoples names went on to when they contributed.

      Please let me know if you require further clarification.

      All the Best,

      Like

  1. Dear “All the Best”,

    The policy you quoted applies to Gung Ho groups not Orgs!

    Another example of the willful misapplication of policy.

    Also you say “it is documented and recorded that LRH himself raised donations for the purchase of Fitzroy Street in London” .

    So then where are these documents and records?

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s