Reviewing the Chairman of the Board and the Board of Directors

[guanoloco]

The Board of Directors is suspiciously absent. There's no knowing anywhere who these members are or where they're at.

If one goes to the website of RTC one can read all about David Miscavige and that's it. Here's the site map url: https://www.rtc.org/sitemap.html

If you go there nowhere will you be able to locate the Board of Directors or see who they are - although you can select "contact" and then see all the MEST offices of RTC sans any people or "terminals" as we like to call them.

And then, of course, you can read all about Miscavige and this here quote: "In 1987, Mr. David Miscavige became the Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center." That's roughly 30 years as the Board Chair and that's weird...as in waaaaaaaaaaaaay too long by any standards anywhere.

Here's 20 Questions About Boards in which this comment is made:

18. Do boards have term or age limits?

Some boards have term limits and age limits and others do not. The National Association of Corporate Directors recommends term limits of 10 to 15 years to promote turnover and obtain fresh ideas. Age limits range from 70 to 80 years old, and many companies have no limit at all. Without term or age limits it is often difficult for companies to suggest to board members that they retire or leave.​

And here's an argument from 5 Reasons Board Leaders Should Have Term Limits.

1. See above. Term limits provide a painless way for people who aren't doing a good job to retire gracefully and automatically. Admittedly, this is a pragmatic argument—and the downside is that a chair who is doing a fantastic job may get forced out early. But I've never heard a real-life complaint about term limits. And I've heard many complaints about their absence.

2. Term limits help with recruitment. Serving as a board chair requires an intensive commitment of time and energy. Prospective chairs are more likely to agree to serve if they know the office has an expiration date.

3. Term limits force organizations to develop new leaders. Boards that know they'll need a new chair every few years are more likely to recruit new members with an eye toward future leadership roles. And board candidates who want to build their own leadership skills will be more likely to say yes if they know there are opportunities to lead.

4. Term limits help with fund raising. A board chair is potentially one of an organization's most powerful volunteer fund raisers. But chairs who serve for many years may exhaust their Rolodexes and grow tired of making the ask. Leadership transitions provide an opportunity to engage new prospects who have relationships with the new leader.

5. Term limits lead to healthier boards. Admittedly, this is a catch-all intended to cover three or four other good arguments—because five is a nice round number. Board chair term limits reduce the likelihood that a few individuals will dominate board discussions and decisions. They provide periodic injections of new energy and ideas. And they help prevent board-chair burnout.​

But then, we are talking about a non-profit board so let's look at this for commentary: A Nonprofit's Board of Directors - What is a Board?

The board of directors is the governing body of a nonprofit. Individuals who sit on the board are responsible for overseeing the organization’s activities. Board members meet periodically to discuss and vote on the affairs of the organization. At a minimum, an annual meeting must occur with all board members present. Additional meetings are likely to take place throughout the year so board members can discuss and make other necessary decisions. Board memberships are not set up to be permanent positions; most organizations have terms set up for board members, which typically fall between two and five years.​

So then I looked up the Top 100 Non Profits just to look at their websites and see if I could find their Board of Directors - of which there would be a member who was the Chairman of the Board holding the Chair.

I just went to the website of the first 5 on this list and in every case with a few clicks I was introduced to the Board and there was no "shows" of MEST offices or anything spiritual like that.

http://www.unicef.org/about/execboard/

https://www.hrw.org/about/people/board-directors

http://www.moma.org/about/trustees

http://www.hrc.org/hrc-story/boards

https://www.dosomething.org/us/about/board

Every one of these non-profits, so far, broadly disseminate when the next Board meeting is scheduled. Scientology doesn't do that.

Why does Scientology not have a Board? Where are the Directors? Who cares about the MEST offices? Why would there be a focus on those?

RTC Int

RTC CC

RTC ASHO

RTC AOLA

RTC FLB

RTC Sand Castle

RTC SH

RTC Denmark

RTC AOSH ANZO

RTC Flagship

On every single website of these various Scientology joints you can read all about Miscavige. YAWN!

What organization would parade a bunch of posh and empty offices? How spiritual is that? LOOK AT OUR MEST!!! WE HAVE MEST!!!

Board of Directors?

We don't need no stinkin' Board of Directors!​

 

[ILove2Lurk]

. . .
Yes, not surprisingly, many organizations play fast and loose when it comes to their Board of Directors.

Board meetings usually only held on an ad hoc basis when pressing issues come up . . .

​

Like when a board member blows or leaves suddenly.

​

 

[Dulloldfart]

The boards of Scn corporations generally have named officers, who are real people, like the local ED, OSA representative, etc. It's part of their "legal rudiments" to do that sort of thing. The "board meetings", which are not visible to the outside world, may not exist at all outside of minimal fake "board minutes", that the board members probably genuinely sign even though no meeting took place. Why bother to meet, when they don't really have any actual authority to do anything?

Scio staff don't give a rat's ass about "wog" laws beyond the possibility of PR flaps if they get caught.

Paul

 

[guanoloco]

I think I read somewhere that Meade Emory, the IRS attorney during the years the IRS was investigating Ron and Ron sent MSH up the creek without the paddle, was a board member.

This guy is an attorney and not a Scieno.

It works like when you start a corporation and one is the Treasurer and one is the President and stocks are issued. It's all legalese to meet a requirement. These board members are in name only, Paul.

 

[Leon-2]

Hey, tell me something. There used to be an insistence always on each Org having a posh "Ron's Office", supposedly for when he walked in the door and needed a place to sit. It was like a holy shrine.

Have these all been replaced with "RTC Offices"?

My Gawd.

 

[Leon-2]

I think I read somewhere that Meade Emory, the IRS attorney during the years the IRS was investigating Ron and Ron sent MSH up the creek without the paddle, was a board member.

This guy is an attorney and not a Scieno.

It works like when you start a corporation and one is the Treasurer and one is the President and stocks are issued. It's all legalese to meet a requirement. These board members are in name only, Paul.

Emory and his brother and some others were directors of "Church Of Spiritual Technology" (COST), and this may even be a shell with another company lurking behind it. COST was set up as a profit making company, it's job was to be the exclusive boss of RTC etc.


There's data on all of this on the web. Go dig for it.

No one knew who owned COST - probably the US Government via the IRS via a few more shells.

The US govt is forbidden to interfere in religion and this is why they do it this way. It creates this nice little loophole. In exchange for surrendering this to them (by Miscavige) they declared all of Scio to be a Church and Tax Free. So they don'e collect any taxes.

They probably do collect fat dividend payments instead. But this is unprovable since everything is a tight secret. Apparently they are the only body that has the legal authority to fire the dwarf.

 

[guanoloco]

Emory and his brother and some others were directors of "Church Of Spiritual Technology" (COST), and this may even be a shell with another company lurking behind it. COST was set up as a profit making company, it's job was to be the exclusive boss of RTC etc.


There's data on all of this on the web. Go dig for it.

No one knew who owned COST - probably the US Government via the IRS via a few more shells.

The US govt is forbidden to interfere in religion and this is why they do it this way. It creates this nice little loophole. In exchange for surrendering this to them (by Miscavige) they declared all of Scio to be a Church and Tax Free. So they don'e collect any taxes.

They probably do collect fat dividend payments instead. But this is unprovable since everything is a tight secret. Apparently they are the only body that has the legal authority to fire the dwarf.

The only trouble with this theory is "why".

 

[Leon-2]

Control and money.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

The Board of Directors is suspiciously absent. There's no knowing anywhere who these members are or where they're at.

If one goes to the website of RTC one can read all about David Miscavige and that's it. Here's the site map url: https://www.rtc.org/sitemap.html

If you go there nowhere will you be able to locate the Board of Directors or see who they are - although you can select "contact" and then see all the MEST offices of RTC sans any people or "terminals" as we like to call them.

And then, of course, you can read all about Miscavige and this here quote: "In 1987, Mr. David Miscavige became the Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center." That's roughly 30 years as the Board Chair and that's weird...as in waaaaaaaaaaaaay too long by any standards anywhere.

Here's 20 Questions About Boards in which this comment is made:

18. Do boards have term or age limits?

Some boards have term limits and age limits and others do not. The National Association of Corporate Directors recommends term limits of 10 to 15 years to promote turnover and obtain fresh ideas. Age limits range from 70 to 80 years old, and many companies have no limit at all. Without term or age limits it is often difficult for companies to suggest to board members that they retire or leave.​

And here's an argument from 5 Reasons Board Leaders Should Have Term Limits.

1. See above. Term limits provide a painless way for people who aren't doing a good job to retire gracefully and automatically. Admittedly, this is a pragmatic argument—and the downside is that a chair who is doing a fantastic job may get forced out early. But I've never heard a real-life complaint about term limits. And I've heard many complaints about their absence.

2. Term limits help with recruitment. Serving as a board chair requires an intensive commitment of time and energy. Prospective chairs are more likely to agree to serve if they know the office has an expiration date.

3. Term limits force organizations to develop new leaders. Boards that know they'll need a new chair every few years are more likely to recruit new members with an eye toward future leadership roles. And board candidates who want to build their own leadership skills will be more likely to say yes if they know there are opportunities to lead.

4. Term limits help with fund raising. A board chair is potentially one of an organization's most powerful volunteer fund raisers. But chairs who serve for many years may exhaust their Rolodexes and grow tired of making the ask. Leadership transitions provide an opportunity to engage new prospects who have relationships with the new leader.

5. Term limits lead to healthier boards. Admittedly, this is a catch-all intended to cover three or four other good arguments—because five is a nice round number. Board chair term limits reduce the likelihood that a few individuals will dominate board discussions and decisions. They provide periodic injections of new energy and ideas. And they help prevent board-chair burnout.​

But then, we are talking about a non-profit board so let's look at this for commentary: A Nonprofit's Board of Directors - What is a Board?

The board of directors is the governing body of a nonprofit. Individuals who sit on the board are responsible for overseeing the organization’s activities. Board members meet periodically to discuss and vote on the affairs of the organization. At a minimum, an annual meeting must occur with all board members present. Additional meetings are likely to take place throughout the year so board members can discuss and make other necessary decisions. Board memberships are not set up to be permanent positions; most organizations have terms set up for board members, which typically fall between two and five years.​

So then I looked up the Top 100 Non Profits just to look at their websites and see if I could find their Board of Directors - of which there would be a member who was the Chairman of the Board holding the Chair.

I just went to the website of the first 5 on this list and in every case with a few clicks I was introduced to the Board and there was no "shows" of MEST offices or anything spiritual like that.

http://www.unicef.org/about/execboard/

https://www.hrw.org/about/people/board-directors

http://www.moma.org/about/trustees

http://www.hrc.org/hrc-story/boards

https://www.dosomething.org/us/about/board

Every one of these non-profits, so far, broadly disseminate when the next Board meeting is scheduled. Scientology doesn't do that.

Why does Scientology not have a Board? Where are the Directors? Who cares about the MEST offices? Why would there be a focus on those?

RTC Int

RTC CC

RTC ASHO

RTC AOLA

RTC FLB

RTC Sand Castle

RTC SH

RTC Denmark

RTC AOSH ANZO

RTC Flagship

On every single website of these various Scientology joints you can read all about Miscavige. YAWN!

What organization would parade a bunch of posh and empty offices? How spiritual is that? LOOK AT OUR MEST!!! WE HAVE MEST!!!

Board of Directors?

We don't need no stinkin' Board of Directors!​

You can clearly see the people who share power with Miscavige in all of those photos.

Look at who's sitting in the chairs.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

The only trouble with this theory is "why".

That's the only trouble?

 

[guanoloco]

Deleted double post

 

[guanoloco]

Control and money.

The government already controls vast swaths of people and money to be meddling around with a trivial cult.

 

[guanoloco]

That's the only trouble?

Yes, the single sole source abberration of all of man's ills.

 

[Enthetan]

The government already controls vast swaths of people and money to be meddling around with a trivial cult.

Governments are made up of individual people, who hold positions of power. Each of them is a person who has his own goals, distinct from the job function they are supposed to hold. In any bureaucracy, governmental or private, you have lots of people who use the power of their jobs for personal gain.

It would not surprise me if certain individuals, either currently or formerly government officials, have effectively taken over Scn, and are running it for their own profit and benefit, leaving DM as a figurehead.

 

[guanoloco]

Governments are made up of individual people, who hold positions of power. Each of them is a person who has his own goals, distinct from the job function they are supposed to hold. In any bureaucracy, governmental or private, you have lots of people who use the power of their jobs for personal gain.

It would not surprise me if certain individuals, either currently or formerly government officials, have effectively taken over Scn, and are running it for their own profit and benefit, leaving DM as a figurehead.

I think DM is the benefactor. If I owned a money making cult and my CEO/COB did half of the PR flaps that this guy does he'd be replaced. Look how successful the volcano Book 1 ads were and compare that to book sales today.

I find it much more acceptable that DM consolidated power and restructured Scientology under his control from either outright greed or some misguided view of his capability. Plus he knew how he pulled it off and covered his tracks so no one else could do what he did.

The fact that he promotes Scientology to Raw Meat goes against everything Hubbard designed. He completely pays zero attention to Dianetics and holds no distinction between the two. Often times they are in the same premises and he even pronounces it as Dianeticsscientology at events.

This is a huge mistake. Hubbard recognized Dianetics as a frontgroup and stressed this facade over and over in the green vols. When I got hooked I had no idea they were related. That distinction is long time gone in today's world...so much so that this successful part of the scam is nonrecoverable and people will forever equate the two.

I think this is because he grew up in Scientology and never understood the distinction or that people don't want a "religion". No one joins a religion and all of Miscavige's ads promote a religion.

Someone taking over a money racket would've understood this perfectly and, if anything, would've downplayed the creepy faux-religion aspect further and promoted the much more accessible Dianetics angle of improving one's IQ, etc.

Ron even writes that the religion angle was a matter for attorneys and accountants and to not worry about it.

Besides, Miscavige is the pope and, as such, pushes his mug everywhere as if it's something people want.

This fits Occam's Razor for me.

The alternative is to plot some "government" scheme to sabotage mankind's only chance at freedom or even just to wrest control for monetary gain. Both seem a bit far-fetched to me.