HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 NOVEMBER 1974R1
REVISED 2 OCTOBER 1980
REFUNDS AND REPAYMENTS
(And very important for every Reg and ED, HES and HAS to know these as ignorance of them can cost enormous sums.)
HCO PL 23 May 69 DIANETIC CONTRACT
RCO PL 23 Oct. 63 REFUND POLICY
RCO PL 1 Aug. 66 REFUND ADDITION
HCO PL 23 May 65 II REBATES
A REFUND is a return of money after service.
A REPAYMENT is a return of money without the service being taken.
BOTH ARE NOW COVERED BY “REFUND POLICY” AND ARE GOVERNED BY THE POLICY LETTERS ABOVE.
All refund and repayment policy also applies to training.
It is very important to acquaint the person asking for refund or repayment with the conditions of receiving his money.
These are given in the policy letters above. Usually a C/S 53 (latest revision) or Green Form and handling done by a person who can make list items read (what it takes is given on the new Green Form) cures the customer impulse to run.
So if these are done before a refund or repayment is given usually there is no refund or repayment.
Where your tech is out (verbal tech, lousy TRs, overloaded or untrained C/S) you can expect refunds. Which is silly because it’s all in the HCOBs.
Where you don’t have a Director of Tech Services (or D of P) calling people in for service when paid or you don’t have auditors or good Supervisors or materials, you can expect repayments. Which is silly because the majority of staff want to be tech trained people!
But no matter which, when you do give refunds or repayments you do it on policy. And the policy is above and when understood and followed you will benefit greatly.
Misunderstood words, withholds, no service are the cause of all your refunds and repayments.
But until you get the org and its tech people to fly right you’ll have the problem of refunds and repayments eating up major quantities of GI so you better handle it very on-policy.
It happens that when a person has taken a refund or repayment he often sourly regrets it. The door has been closed in his face and his dream of coming right has been ended.
If an ARC Break Reg were to see such people and an auditor (who can make lists read and has smooth TRs) were to do a C/S 53 (latest revision) and possibly a Green Form, the person would sign up again.
Bur the following policy is laid down in all such cases. They must sign a waiver which will be provided by the HCO of the org.
HCO Area Secretaries should ensure that the waiver is run off as a form for org use and copies sent to local missions.
Once signed, a copy is kept in Val Docs AND A NOTATION OF IT IS MADE ON ANY INVOICE WITH DATE.
Any other legal waivers ordinarily required must also be signed again.
In this way you can open the door when it has been solidly closed.
L. RON HUBBARD
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Exec Sec Hats
HCO Area Sec Hat
Section 5 Hats
ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY(Continued)
(This PL augments HCO PL 15 Feb. 66, ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY.3)
When you hold up an image of freedom, all those who oppress freedom tend to attack. Therefore attacks, on whatever grounds, are inevitable. Holding up a freedom image is however the only successful forward action even though it gets attacked.
It remains then to take the handling of attacks off emergency, predict them and handle them by proper tactics and administrative machinery.
The first group of actions have not been effective in handling attacks: (The G stands for Group, the following are 3 different Groups of actions):
G.1.1 Hiring expensive outside professional firms;
G.1.2. Writing Scientologists to write their representatives in government;
G.1.3. Advertising the attack to the Scientology “field”;
G. 1.4. Being carefully legal in our utterances.
This second group of actions has been of some small use in deterring attacks:
G.2.1. Direct letters from the org to a Congress or Parliament (ruined the US Siberia Bill4 );
G.2.2. Circulating pamphlets about the attack (got rid of Wearne5 out of the Enquiry);
G.2.3. Suits against sources of libel and slander.
The third group of actions have been positive in stopping attacks:
G.3.1. 1. Investigating noisily the attackers;
G.3.2. Not being guilty of anything;
G.3.3. Having our corporate status in excellent condition;
G.3.4. Having our tax returns and books accurate and punctual;
G.3.5. Getting waivers from all people we sign up;
G.3.6. Refunding money to dissatisfied people;
G.3.7. Having our own professionals firmly on staff (but not halfway on staff);
G.3.8. Going on advertising total freedom;
G.3.9. Surviving and remaining solvent by stepping up our own usual activities;
G.3.10. My catching the dropped balls goofed by others and hired professionals;
G.3. 11. Being religious in nature and corporate status.
As you read over the above you should be able to see where our funds should be placed.
In the first group you can see large possible outlays to professional firms, attorneys, accountants. This is money utterly wasted. They flop and we have to do it all ourselves anyway. The fantastic cash cost of mailings to Scientologists was evident in DC where it ate up all their “freedom funds”. And by advertising the attack to Scientologists we only frighten them away from the org and lose our income as well. So we must never do these three things.
The second group above are not very costly and constitute a proper line of defense and should be undertaken. But they must not be counted on to do more than impede an attack. They will never stop it cold. This second group is like an infantry defensive action. It is necessary to oppose the enemy but just opposing will not finally win the fight. That is done only by taking enemy territory.
The third group contains the real area for the outlay of funds and stress of planning. This group has an excellent history and has ended off a great many attacks beginning in 1950. Therefore one should take care not to leave any of these out whenever an attack is mounted on us.
It is a curious phenomenon that the action of investigation alone is head and shoulders above all other actions.
This is most like Scientology processing, oddly enough, where the practitioner seeks the hidden points in a case.
As soon as they are found the case tends to recover, regardless of anything else done.
Groups that attack us are to say the least not sane. According to our technology this means they have hidden areas and disreputable facts about them.
As soon as we begin to look for these, some of the insanity dissipates.
It is greatly in our favor that we are only attacked by mad groups as people in that condition (1) invariably choose the wrong target and (2) have no follow-through. Thus they are not hard to defeat providing one (A) looks for their hidden crimes and (B) is irreproachable in his conduct himself.
We discovered this more or less by accident. The basic discovery was that the interrogation of a policeman produces a confusion and an introversion; it is his job to interrogate—so you reverse the flow, mix up his “hat” so he doesn’t know who is which, and you reach for his own doubts.
These people who attack have secrets. And hidden crimes. They are afraid. There is no doubt in their minds as to our validity or they wouldn’t attack so hard at such cost. Society tolerates far worse than we are. So they really believe in us. This hampers their execution of orders—their henchmen really don’t share the enthusiasm for the attack for after a bit of investigation it becomes obvious to these henchmen that the attack smells. This impedes follow-through.
And when we investigate, all this recoils on the attacker. He withdraws too hurriedly to be orderly.
An attacker is like a housewife who tells City Hall how terribly her neighbors keep house. But when you open her door, the dishpans and dirty diapers fall out on the porch.
All you have to do in lots of cases is just say you are going to rattle their door knob and they collapse.
I can count several heavy attacks which folded up by our noisily beginning an investigation of the attacker.
Our past liability in this was that we depended on outside firms, enquiry agencies, etc. And these have too many clients and we have too little control of their direction. The answer is to organize and maintain our own proper corps for this action.
The other items in the third group are self explanatory and if any of these are missing then we will be less successful.
For years and years I have had this “hat” of attack handling. In January 1963 I took a calculated risk and devoted my time to research. I knew we had better get all our answers and complete our technology. But in doing so I could give only a small amount of time to the US and Australian attacks. DC followed orders and we got out of the US morass. Australia didn’t and sank. But it became plain to me that we had to set up a part of our orgs to handle this “hat” as obviously I can’t be there forever. So even #10 in the third group— my catching dropped balls goofed by others and hired professionals—will have to have help.6
To hold up to man an image of spiritual freedom is adventurous. Man is suppressed. And those who oppress him have a peculiar frame of reference. This is:
1. If anyone became free or powerful, a suppressive believes he would promptly be slaughtered. He never realizes that it is the suppression that gets him knocked out, not the character of man.
2. If any advance were made that would improve man, then all old commercial interests with their answers, would become worthless. It never occurs to such to advance with the times.
3. They have dirty houses.
Thus, in meeting any attack we must:
A. Recognize an attack in time to act;
B. Get Group 3 above in full action with an emphasis on investigation;
C. Get Group 2 in action as needful for defense.
Thus we have LOOK, INVESTIGATE, DEFEND as the short formula. And all the while hold up an image of total freedom and have ourselves clean hands.
L. Ron Hubbard
Hubbard, L. R. (1966, 18 February). Attacks on Scientology (Continued). (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter). The Organization Executive Course Executive Division (1991 ed., Vol. 7, pp. 1026-1029). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
- Document studied on Confidential GO Intelligence Course. PDF format. ↩
- Document studied on DSA Investigations Officer Full Hat. PDF format ↩
- See HCOPL: Attacks on Scientology ↩
- 1991 ed., editor’s note: “Siberia Bill: a bill proposed in the US Congress in the mid 60s which would have made it possible for government officials in the US to simply pick up anyone on the street and send him to Alaska to be given “mental treatment”; its purpose was to use “mental health” practices to remove political dissenters. Called the “Siberia” bill after the Russian practice of sending political dissenters to Siberia, a remote, desolate region of the USSR.” ↩
- 1991 ed., editor’s note: “Wearne: Phillip Wearne, instigator of the Melbourne Enquiry in the early 60s. He later confessed and fully documented his lies and guilt in connection with the Australian attacks on Scientology. Died in 1970.” ↩
- 1974 ed.: “So even #10 in the third group—my handling counterpropaganda—will have to have help.” ↩
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 OCTOBER 19631
(Cancels HCO PLs of 12 Oct. 61 and 27 Feb. 62)
In a careful review of refunds and in the light of my own experience with persons demanding refunds, and due to two recent upsets in organizations (Australia and London) regarding refunds, the following data may be of assistance.
In thirteen years, involving hundreds of thousands of hours of processing and millions of dollars of income, in any organization where I was assuming direct command I have always promptly and immediately caused to be refunded every penny of the money paid by any person who was dissatisfied with his or her processing. This has been the consistent policy I myself have worked with. In all that time I have only refunded about $3,500.
This is due in part to ensuring a certainty of results in any HGC and working hard to make sure the pc gets results, regardless of the current style or mode of processing.
This low amount of refund is also due in part to my firm policy that persons who demand refunds may have them exactly according to the Code of a Scientologist, but that any person demanding or accepting refunds thereafter shall be refused as an HGC preclear and posted for the information of field auditors. I have only worked then with these three policies:
1. Refund at once in full any refund demanded;
2. Work hard with tech staff to ensure good results;
3. Forbid the sale of further processing to anyone receiving a refund and make the case known to Scientologists.
It is notable that all but one refund were made to persons with histories of insanity who had been accepted unwittingly for processing.
Recently, Australia was sufficiently remiss in following the Code of a Scientologist as to incur potential legal action. I did not understand why and investigated. The facts resulted in my sending a cable to the Continental Director requesting that he do the usual-refund the money and locate the bypassed charge. The case promptly resolved. What was shocking to me is that he had not immediately refunded, whatever else he did. Of course, he was absent when the incident occurred, but still his first thought on finding the matter out should have
been to refund the money, not because of threatened legal action, but because AN ORGANIZATION IS BOUND BY THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST.
A Central Organization is as successful as it gives good technical service.
A tough refund policy injects aberrated stable data against the confusion of bad or poor technical service. A mild refund policy keeps technical on its toes.
The world of Scientology is based on ARC and held together with ARC. Bad technical and tough attitudes concerning the remedy of poor service break down this world.
My own often-repeated policy to my personal staff is “Give them what they want and keep them happy.” That sounds like a very indefinite policy indeed. But it makes people face up to and handle individual confusions as they occur, each on its own merits; it presupposes people are basically good and it is successful.
The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff, as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s the whole story of the GPMs. So why not have live orgs?
Policy is only vital where agreement must exist between two or more thetans working together. Beyond that it fails. A needful policy is “We’ll start work on time” since without it the org goes ragged. A useless policy would be “The Registrar must always smile at an applicant” for that puts a datum where a person should be.
So there are two kinds of policies — those needed to obtain work-together ease and those which seek to put a datum instead of a being in a position. The less you have of the latter the better things will get. The more reasonable the former, the more work will be done.
A refund policy is an agreement-type policy. Needful. But it must be very mild indeed or it will stand in lieu of good service.
The new policy then is:
1. Refund any fees when and as demanded, whether for training or for processing;
2. Refuse further and all future training or processing to anyone demanding a refund as the condition of refund;
3. If (2) is not acceptable to the person demanding the refund, then do all possible to smooth out the case or training situation;
4. Count only on high technical results in the HGC and Academy to inhibit or reduce demands for refunds.
L. RON HUBBARD