What's new

Boards & Lists Breed Grudge Matches... It Just Happens


Patron Meritorious
I think it would be useful to clear up this KR bit.

Auditors are NOT required to write KR's on things their PC divulges in session UNLESS it is under "I am not auditing you.", i.e. an HCO sec-check R-factor.

In a normal session the PC's overts are considered non-actionable by HCO.

That IS "standard tech" on the matter.

I find it strange that Caroline would be fussing about this shit re Karen writing up KR's on her PCs when there is NO REQUIREMENT to do so per "standard tech" when giving a regular auditing session - I would think she should know better given her level of training.

Well I'd find such a characterization strange too. But please show me where I am "fussing about this shit re Karen writing up KR's on her PCs," any more than you're fussing about whatever you're interested in or writing about.

The earliest version of Miscellaneous Reports was published in 1972, according to the Board Technical Bulletin published in the 1976 edition of the Technical Volumes, which I'll post in relevant part. When I got into Scientology in 1975 this was the operative technical bulletin:

BTB said:

Issue V
Revised & Reissued 20 November 1974 as BTB​


Issue V
(Revisions in this type style)
Auditor Admin Series 20R


A Miscellaneous Report is a report such as an MO Report, a D of P Inteview, an Ethics Report, a Success Story, etc, which is put in the pc’s folder and gives a C/S more information about a case.

It is the responsibility of HGC Admin to see that Miscellaneous Reports get into the folder.

It is the Auditor’s responsibility to enter these details in the Folder Summary.



When an Auditor finds an Ethics Situation he should mark it and circle it in red after the session. The pc is not necessarily turned in because a pc cannot be tried on his auditing, it’s illegal, but the Auditor should make mention of it on his Auditor’s C/S. If it is a serious Ethics Situation that affects others, then it is the Auditor’s responsibility to report it.

The Auditor would make out the report with a carbon copy. He marks it “SESSION KNOWLEDGE REPORT NON-ACTIONABLE ON (pc’s name)” and makes out the report. Both copies are left in the folder. The C/S initials the one for Ethics and sends it on. The other stays in the folder.

Sometimes one finds another person’s offences than the pc’s in getting off withholds. These when serious should be reported to Ethics for investigation. Pcs can be sent to Ethics (i.e. for PTS handling, Court of Ethics for refusing to answer an Auditing Question, etc, etc) but the following rule applies:


When the C/S decides to send the pc to Ethics, he marks a small goldenrod card “ETH”, clips it to the folder and sends the folder to the Examiner.

The Examiner checks over the folder, and calls pc in via Qual I&I for an Examination. If folder not okay, it is returned to the C/S with appropriate Cramming Orders.

If all is correct the Examiner sends the pc direct to Ethics.

If not, pc is routed back to the HGC and the Examiner or Cramming Officer writes up the required Cramming Orders.

When pc has finished his Ethics Cycle he is routed back to the Examiner and is returned to the HGC via Qual I & I.

It is D of P’s responsibility to keep a tension line in with Ethics to make sure the Ethics cycle is completed and the pc is returned to Tech lines.

If the pc is returned to HGC lines for a PTS situation to be handled by auditing, a small yellow card is clipped to the outside of the folder by the C/S until the pc finishes the PTS R/D.

All data about such actions are filed in the folder, including a copy of the Ethics Officer Interview notes.

It is the responsibility of HGC Admin to see that Conditions Orders and Ethics Orders that affect the preclear’s auditing progress get put in the pc’s folder for the C/S to see.

Cases undergoing Ethics actions, Comm Evs, amends projects or low conditions should not be audited until the Ethics matter is cleared up and complete. It only louses up their cases to audit them when under such stress.

Pcs in lowered conditions should be encouraged to work out of the condition and when they reach Emergency the auditing may be resumed.

Details of these Ethics cycles should be entered by the Auditor in the Folder Summary.

References: HCO P/L 19 Apr 65 “Ethics”
HCO P/L 29 Apr 65 “Ethics—Review”
HCO P/L 4 July 65 “Pc Routing Review Code”
HCO P/L 1 May 65 “Staff Member Reports”
HCO P/L 17 Jun 65 “Staff Auditor Advices”
HCO P/L 30 July 65 “Pc Routing to Ethics”
HCO P/L 16 Nov 71 “Conditions, Awards and Penances”
Tape 7 April 72 Exp Dn Tape 3 “Auditor Administration”
HCO B 29 Mar 70 “Auditing and Ethics”​

Compiled by:
Training & Services Bureau
Corrected by CS—5
Ens. Judy Ziff
Reissued as BTB
by Flag Mission 1234
I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd: Molly Harlow
Commodore’s Staff Aides

Approved by the Board of Issues
for the
of the

Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard

There are all kinds of ways that Scientologists, including auditors, C/Ses, Ds of P, FESers, Examiners, Ethics Officers, OSA, RTC, etc. betray their patients' or clients' trust, violate confidences, and desecrate the priest-penitent concept and privilege.

According to the dates of these technical issues, the minimum time frame for this particular abuse is 1974 to 2013. The abuse clearly began earlier. See, for example GO 121669 MSH December 16, 1969 PROGRAMME: INTELLIGENCE: INTERNAL SECURITY. Whether or not any of us knew it at the time, we all violated people and principle when we followed the rules.

I've said repeatedly that the problem is systemic. Karen's video actually supports that premise, where she says that at any time 20-30-40 people have, or had, access to "confidential" PC information. I held multiple Sea Org posts, between 1978 and 1987, where by doing my job, I personally violated persons and the principles our PRs and marketers said we were helping or defending. What Scientology staff member or Sea Org member did not contribute to this abuse? Wikipedia: Priest-Penitent privilege.

There is no doubt that Hubbard, and not DM is the source of most of the abuses in Scientology, and definitely the desecration of the Priest-Penitent privilege. DM might be responsible for musical chairs one night, and what music accompanied the process, but Hubbard was responsible for the system in which "Bohemian Rhapsody" was played and in which every Scientologist present went along with its playing. Everyone's recovery from this behavior has to begin with seeing the situation and the system as it is, not as the abusers want us to see it. There is a set of abusers that want everyone to see a false who, David Miscavige. I am not arguing that he is not a psychopath. If he is, he is a psychopath running a psychopath's psychopathic system. The "Indies," so they say, just don't want psychopath DM running their psychopathic system.

I realize that Scientology practitioners who benefit from promoting and delivering Scientology have a heavier vested interest in Scientology, and will probably not be the first to break free of Hubbard's brainwashing. The practitioners will undoubtedly be among the most strident of deniers of this truth, and for understandable, but not moral or humane, reasons. The following hypothesis for messianic movements like Scientology has relevance I believe, in this situation:

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief.

Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. How and why does such a response to contradictory evidence come about? This is the question on which this book focuses. We hope that, by the end of the volume, we will have provided an adequate answer to the question, an answer documented by data. Let us begin by stating the conditions under which we would expect to observe increased fervor following the disconfirmation of a belief.

There are five such conditions.

1. A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he behaves.

2. The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual’s commitment to the belief.

3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.

4. Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief. The first two of these conditions specify the circumstances that will make the belief resistant to change. The third and fourth conditions together, on the other hand, point to factors that would exert powerful pressure on a believer to discard his belief. It is, of course, possible that an individual, even though deeply convinced of a belief, may discard it in the face of unequivocal disconfirmation. We must, therefore, state a fifth condition specifying the circumstances under which the belief will be discarded and those under which it will be maintained with new fervor.

5. The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of dis-confirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct. These five conditions specify the circumstances under which increased proselyting would be expected to follow disconfirmation.

Leon Festinger, Stanley W. Riecken Schachter (2013-04-01). When Prophecy Fails (Kindle Locations 46-76). . Kindle Edition.

We do not have to wait until the Scientologists wake up in order to stop the abuse, and it would be foolish to do so, or to forward this concept as sensible.

Either the IFA-certified auditors, including Karen deliver standard tech auditing or they don't. If they don't, they should cop to the false advertising and take down their fraudulent promo pages. If they do deliver standard tech auditing, they should stop. The abuse is inherent, and it is systemic.


Gold Meritorious Patron
Caroline, I think I get your point.

Scientology is a poison in it's any form.
And I tend to agree.

Freezone site, however, was my first lurking experience,
not OCMB or ESMB. These were found later. Think about it, please.

If Scientology Clear/OT works we all are sad SP's with lost eternities, unless we do A to E steps, or something.
And if it doesn't, which it is clearly don't so far, who gives a fuck about RTC or IFA. It's a fucking joke. They both are goners.

Anyone who does something to expose the bullshit of the cult (like Karen) - I thank them. Honestly.
Even if they still crave a Kool Aid. Who are we to blame and judge? Class 12, Class 9 and Class 5 Auditors - all on ESMB - SP Board. Get it?!

Anyway, chill pill time for me. Love and respect to all.
Last edited:


Patron Meritorious
Caroline, I think I get your point.

Scientology is a poison in it's any form.
And I tend to agree.

Freezone site, etc., however, was my first lurking,
not OCMB or ESMB. These were found later. Think about it, please.

If Scientology Clear/OT works we all are sad SP's with lost eternities, unless we do A to E steps, or something.
And if it doesn't, which it is clearly don't so far, who gives a fuck about RTC or IFA. It's a fucking joke. They are goners.

Anyone who does something to expose the bullshit of the cult (like Karen) - I thank them. Honestly.
Even if they still crave a Kool Aid. Who are we to blame and judge? Class 12, Class 9 and Class 5 Auditors - all on ESMB.

Anyway, chill pill time for me. Love and respect to all.


I realize that Scientologists are victims too, although paradoxically, KSW Scientologists define themselves as the ones who are not victims. Scientologists put up with all kinds of victimization, just to avoid being called victims. It's clearly part of the Scientology programming.


Please see my 2009 letter to Amy Scobee.

However, the professional practitioners, the ones with vested interest in Hubbard and KSW, are vested in their victimization by reason of promoting, selling and delivering Scientology to others in their environment.

I am trying to stand up for the vulnerable exiting Scientologists who would be drawn to the IFA site with its false promotion and alleged standard tech delivery by Scientologists. I'm also standing up for the wogs that Scientologists -- dependent or independent -- lie to, defraud, black PR. You should stand up for them too.

If a liar tattles on a liar, or even lies about a liar, does that mean that the liar gets a pass on her lies? Sure, thank them for tattling on a liar if they're really tattle tales and not lies, but demand the truth. They are free to lie until they're laid to rest, but everyone is also free to demand the truth of them, and not automatically take their lies as an answer.

If the Scientologists and their supporters can't be here on the same terms as the rest of us, then acknowledge it and tell the truth about it. Don't keep on lying that we're the bad people here. That would be exactly the wrong way to resolve this conflict.


Gold Meritorious Patron
There NO Scientologists here, Caroline. Combined ESMB experience killed KSW.
Only lurkers, recoverers, Anons and OG. And very brief osa/trolls, imo. Thanks for your reply.
Last edited:


True Ex-Scientologist
There NO Scientologists here, Caroline. Combined ESMB experience killed KSW.
Only lurkers, recoverers, Anons and OG. And very brief osa/trolls, imo. Thanks for your reply.
Mark Baker doesn't count. He's a Kha-Khan.

And freezoner/Indies who still believe in "the tech".
And so-called squirrels who have invented their own off-shoots of "the tech".

I'd like to add these 2 groups to your list.


Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks. So?
Scientology failed to deliver in every way.
Demo kits and rudiments don't count.


True Ex-Scientologist
Thanks. So?
Scientology failed to deliver in every way.
Demo kits and rudiments don't count.

You said, "There NO Scientologists here, Caroline."

There are freezone/indies here (some of them offer Standard SCN auditing outside official CofS).
I regard them as Scientologists.

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Dear Clamicide, I DO believe you have made your point! :thumbsup:
( Or, rather, posters to this thread have made the point for you! :biggrin: )


Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Just my take... worksheets did usually only did include basic things for grades... such as asking a question, and we'd just mark a tick or whatever for answers on repetitive processes. HOWEVER, since it was a "High Crime" to miss a withhold on a pc (per LRfuckingH--think I'll start using that from now on), when a pc did give O/Ws off, I was a motherfucker on getting all details. I ALWAYS noted it in session notes for the C/S. And often, the C/S would C/S something to 'handle' it if it was bad enough. We even had C/Ses C/S a D of P to talk about the out-ethics, so that it would be "not auditing you" so that it could be actionable. It was definitely CYA on all fronts. it's a 'high crime' to miss withholds, so as an auditor I was afraid something else was there, and the C/S under similar pressure would order more withhold checking or a sec-check if it was really 'bad'. Evil purps were always noted.


OK... now trying to tread delicately (but, I'm still taking a muscle relaxer after I killed my hip, so I'm kinda wheeeeeeeeeeeee!). I probably don't have a problem with Karen personally. But, as an ex-cultie, someone who continues to use the PR tech and use stats, my hackles get raised. She might be the sweetest person in the world. I have heard wonderful things about her, but some of what she does triggers a lot of the shite that fucked us up within the cult. I'll admit, I don't read all her posts, because I don't want to bother with reducing her font to be readable, but a lot of it sounds like what I heard in the cult. It just sounds off of the old script.

This is not to denigrate any work she's done, or any attacks she's made against the cult.... there's just something about the approach that twips me. And, I'm not 'totally out with my name' because I don't have the $ right now to feel safe in that regard. At times, it feels like an attack because I'm not "upstat" enough to fully disclose my identity, and she did 'make it go right'.

I don't know.... something just doesn't feel quite right.... I'd welcome having tea with her and perhaps we'd find common ground, but the posts just flummox me... I get a lot of folks who pm me saying how much I've helped them, but it would never occur to me to track that stuff. I'm SO out of the stat and PR mindset, that someone who does this, sorta bothers me.... at least in a forum like this.

There is something that just bothers me about this whole thing, but I admit, I have no fucking idea exactly what it is.

???? Got anything specific?

No offense but this comes across to me like part of a conversation between 2 people who are gossiping about another. Perhaps it wasn't a good idea to post while on muscle relaxers...
Last edited:


Silver Meritorious Patron


specifically mentions

"(8) Getting an enemy to attack another enemy." LINK

Here's my curiosity:

Well-Known-Enemy #1 attacks Poster Q for (something or other.) Fill in the blank. Pattern's the same.

Well-Known-Enemy #2 writes a suggestion to WKE#1 that perhaps a more civil approach may be more appropriate for whatever reason because Q didn't deserve the attack.

(Some just can't get rid of the idea that being civil to one another is...well...uh...more civilized.)

WKE #1 then attacks WKE#2 for daring to question (fill in the blank as the pattern is the same.)

WKE#2 then takes umbrage at the new personal attack, especially since the suggestion was benevolent, intended to help.

Now, my curiosity is: does this have anything (anything at all) to do with the work of OSA?

Or is it simply human nature?

Perhaps, OSA gloats over such shenanigans, but isn't the attacking poster furthering OSA intent? Especially when the attacks are persistent and consistent?

If one is furthering the enemy's goals by one's behavior, what really distinguishes one from the enemy? Look at Pot Pol, or so many revolutionaries who claimed to want to overthrow a tyranny, but created a worse tyranny.

Which makes me wonder about the basic nature of all of us. If I were a sociopath, would my desire to destroy Scientology make me less of a sociopath? Does the pursuit of a worthwhile goal justify anti-social behavior? Does our ill-will toward others in general become irrelevant because we are contributing to a worthy cause?

Misery loves company.

So does hate.

So does happiness, and joy and a lot of other feelings.

It seems that the information a poster presents is only part of the equation.


Gold Meritorious Patron
Behind every long term disagreement there is someone fanning the flames as well as efforts to squelch discussion with shrieks of indignation, ie how dare you?

The truth is far simpler, and the truth cuts like a knife.

When any discussion has no upside, other than, for instance..making some one or someone's cabal appear right, there is nothing to be gained pursuing it.

And I'll take what might be the basic of our online upsets between certain wanna be "old guard" and step into it...and take from our history one example of a now dead man... take - Robert Minton.. the subject of unspeakable torment by OSA and certain others who felt justified for what they believed to be good reasons, many of whom appear on Gerry Armstrong's FOLLIES LIST. The same band whose efforts, I interpreted as a concerted effort to induce Mr Robert Minton to suicide, kicking him repeatedly psychologically while he was down. These people were led to believe this as a supposed solution to legal, though I more suspect perhaps ego, financial and other problems...in a case that ended up exactly the way $cientology wanted it to end up - SILENCE - all case docs sealed and some millions paid out.. just the cost of doing business for a scam and fraud that profits from the induced misery of others. So all those wails and vitriol accomplished NOTHING, besides becoming the sorest point between those who were litigating, being deposed, testifying under oath, and those who had been convinced they knew better..

Some members of this same band had previously attacked FACTNet, Tom Pagett, Lawrence Wollersheim, Myself, and especially Gerry Armstrong before attacking Robert Minton. (Sorry if I left anyone out)

All of their targets were people who were in LITIGATION with $cientology.

NONE of the critics of these key players in the alt.scientology.war except perhaps one or two had ever been deposed under oath...

That speaks for itself.

So if defenders of the old old guard seem touchy, herewith is a little bit of perspective, as I believe context is everything.

Arnie Lerma

Links embedded in the screed above are important, please take the time to read them if you feel that additional perspective is necessary, they will NOT be a waste your time though some cannot even look at them.

"And my philosophy is why not kick a dog when it's down?" L Ron Hubbard 20 April 1955
Last edited:


Patron with Honors
It is sad to see anyone fighting.

Support and kindness for all the critics is what I think works.

I don't need to be right, don't like being interrogated by anyone and only Osa wins when people
attack one another.

I want to protect and honor all you guys who have been in the trenches for all these years. We have all had some kind of damage (for many it has been horrible, fukkin' Osa!) so it is my hope that we can cease damaging each other. I am concerned about seeing older critics being swept to the side, newer books that don't mention all the work done decades ago, unsung heroes, and the Indies getting a lot of support from media. It worries me.

My philosophy: Be good to one another, have some fun in life, do the work that makes you happy. Whatever that is.

Thanks for the links Arnie.


Add Paulette Cooper to list of their targets (1995/7)

You can put Jana Moreillon down from 1984- 1989.

I left LA after the CADA fiasco, and haven't noticed them surveilling me since.

( The litigation I was involved in was the FAIR Class Action suit, and the David Mayo spin-off in the Wollersheim case) .

I am small fish compared to the other guys you mention. Still, it was what it was. And it was what it was on these Boards as far as critics being attacked
( and as you point out) Mostly by the same ppl.


Patron Meritorious
Staff member reports

This piece of data may or may not be pertinent to this "discussion", but I will tell you that in a conversation with Marianne Hagen,( one of the very first adherents to Ron's Org, and high up on their Org Board),
I was told that LaMont Johnson , whom we were discussing, should report to "Ethics Central". That tells me that at least in Ron's Org, which as far as I know, is part of IFA, there is an " Ethics Central", so what would they do there if no reports were submitted?

I think that Karen is more in the Marty Mode, and they may or may not file KRs with the IFA. But if they are claiming standard tech, then they are filing ethics reports. They might use 'wiggle words' and say that they don't file KRs, but a rose by any other name blah blah blah.

In the 33 years that I was a member in good standing, I never once wrote a Knowledge Report.

But, baby, I wrote plenty of ethics reports as an auditor at AOLA's HGC. We who audited OT Preps, or Confessionals of any sort, wrote 4 copies of any "out ethics", and clipped them to the front cover of the PC folder ( see Front Cover Items). One copy stayed in the folder. One copy went to the C/S. A copy went to Ethics, and I dunno where the 4th copy went.
The auditor admin ( what the auditor writes up after a session) became so burdensome, that the HGC auditors hated doing the Preps. For every auditing hour, there was a comparable amount of time spent on the admin.

Hoe this helps someone. Anyone.

I think the key policy is stated in HCOPL "Staff Member Reports." A Knowledge Report is a type of report Scientologists make. It is a report of data of value to Ethics relating to some investigation in progress.

The term has been broadened in the understanding of Scientologists to mean almost any report written on anything. Certain people serving the Scientologists' purposes attach some evil to the concept of KRs and then villify the Scientologists' victims who report their victimization, or report some other knowledge that should be reported, of writing KRs.

The evil is in the entity to whom the reports of knowledge are written, or in the purpose the entity has for reports of knowledge. People have equated the open reporting of relevant knowledge about Scientology and Scientologists on ESMB with the evil of Scientologists writing secret KRs, or other report types, to their Scientology ethics officers or other terminals. That is a false equation that serves the Scientologists' malevolent purposes toward their wog victims.

Hubbard said:

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Issue I​


Staff members must personally make certain reports in writing.

Failure to make these reports involves the executive or staff member not making a report in any offense committed by a junior under him, or, in case of job endangerment, by a senior over him.

These reports are made to the Ethics Section of the Department of Inspections and Reports.

The report form is simple. One uses a clipboard with a packet of his division's color-flash paper on it. This includes a piece of pencil carbon paper. This is the same clipboard and carbon one uses for his routine orders.

It is a despatch form addressed simply to the Ethics Section. It is dated. It has under the address and in the center of the page the person or portion of the org's name. It then states what kind of a report it is (see below).

The original goes to Ethics by drawing an arrow pointing to "Ethics" and the carbon goes to the person or portion of the org being reported on by channels (B routing).

The following are the reports required:

1. Damage Report. Any damage to anything noted with the name of the person in charge of it or in charge of cleaning it.

2. Misuse Report. The misuse or abuse of any equipment, materiel or quarters, meaning using it wrongly or for a purpose not intended.

3. Waste Report. The waste of org materiel.

4. Idle Report. The idleness of equipment or personnel which should be in action.

5. Alter-is Report. The alteration of design, policy, technology or errors being made in construction.

6. Loss or Theft Report. The disappearance of anything that should be there giving anything known about its disappearance such as when it was seen last.

7. A Found Report. Anything found, sending the article with the despatch or saying where it is.

8. Noncompliance Report. Noncompliance with legal orders.

9. Dev-t Report. Stating whether off-line, off-policy or off-origin and from whom to whom and subject.

10. Error Report. Any error made.

11. Misdemeanor Report. Any misdemeanor noted.

12. A Crime Report. Any crime noted or suspected but if suspicion only, it must be so stated.

13. A High Crime Report. Any high crime noted or suspected but if only suspected must be so stated.

14. A No-Report Report. Any failure to receive a report or an illegible report or folder.

15. A False Report Report. Any report received that turned out to be false.

16. A False Attestation Report. Any false attestation noted, but in this case the document is attached to the report.

17. An Annoyance Report. Anything about which one is annoyed, giving the person or portion of an org or org one is annoyed with, but the Department of Inspections and Reports and a senior org are exempt and may not be reported on.

18. A Job Endangerment Report. Reporting any order received from a superior that endangered one's job by demanding one alter or depart from known policy, the orders of a person senior to one's immediate superior altered or countermanded by one's immediate superior, or advice from one's immediate superior not to comply with orders or policy.

19. Technical Alter-is Report. Any ordered alteration of technology not given in an HCOB, book or LRH tape.

20. Technical Noncompliance Report. Any failure to apply the correct technical procedure.

21. Knowledge Report. On noting some investigation is in progress and having data on it of value to Ethics.

These reports are simply written and sent. One does not expect an executive to front up to personnel who err. One does expect an executive to make a report routinely on the matter, no matter what the executive also does.

Only in this way can bad spots in the organization be recognized and corrected. For reports other than one's own collect and point out bad conditions before those can harm the org.

These reports are filed by Ethics in the Ethics Files in the staff member's folder or in the folder of the portion of the org. A folder is only made if Ethics receives an ethics report.


Hubbard, L. (1965, 1 May) Staff Member Reports Organization Executive Course Basic Staff Hat Volume 0 1991 ed., pp. 543-6) Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

The above policy letter is included as a reference in Auditor Admin Series 20R Miscellaneous Reports, quoted earlier.

When I did Eligibility for OT Levels security checks at Flag, I would write, as ordered as standard, actionable KRs based on pre-OT sec check data. IIRC, the KRs, including copies, all went into the pre-OTs' folders along with sec check worksheets, etc. The pre-OTs' folder would then go to the C/S for review, and for "appropriate" routing of KRs.

I didn't always call the ethics reports I wrote "KRs." If the type of ethics matter was Technical Noncompliance, for example, I'd write it as a Technical Noncompliance report. What mattered, and what matters in the current discussion is what was reported, to whom, and who had access, particularly in the case of reports containing matters supposedly covered under the priest-penitent privilege.