mdallara@kcii.com
PGP public key
Last Updated: May 16, 1999
Legal Disclaimer
The PSTA Bus Flap
| HOME | INTRO | NEWS | FEEDBACK | LINKS |
FORMER
SCIENTOLOGISTS SPEAKING
OUT February 18, 1999 Roger Sweeney Dear Mr. Sweeney, We are writing pursuant to Mr. Doglione's January 27, 1999, request during the board meeting that parties at interest in the PSTA bus advertising controversy put their positions and comments in writing and present them to the board prior to the next meeting on February 24. First, we would like to thank the board for taking the time and effort to consider this matter seriously and to allow FSSO (Former Scientologists Speaking Out), through both myself and Mr. Dandar as it's attorney, to speak to the board directly. The legal issues have already been appropriately illuminated by Mr. Dandar in his letter of February 18, 1999 to this board. We are not writing to reiterate the issues he has outlined. Instead, we are writing to explain the mission of FSSO and how the bus advertisement campaign relates to that mission. In so doing, we wish to emphasize that it is FSSO's desire to forward it's relationship with PSTA, the city of Clearwater and Gateway Outdoor Advertising in a spirit of cooperation, not confrontation. FSSO was founded in the fall of 1998 by myself. My intention was to create a charitable organization which would publicize, advertise and otherwise disseminate the opinions of ex-members of Scientology about the practices and perceived abuses of the Scientology organization. FSSO also supports like-minded organizations and causes and will periodically post advertisements demonstrating that support. Part of FSSO's purpose in advertising is to inform any and all ex-members and their supporters that such an organization exists and to invite them to contribute their support in whatever way they see fit. It is a serious issue when an organization like Scientology seeks to influence a government body to assist in silencing it's critics. Scientology is a very large and far reaching worldwide organization with a corporate presence in scores of countries. In addition, the Scientology organization has over $1 billion in corporate assets and has the financial and administrative wherewithal to deploy many millions of those dollars against any perceived threat. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Scientology's first attempt to dispose of this issue was to approach Gateway Outdoor Advertising with a proposal to purchase all available ad space on all 149 buses for the months of November and December 1999, to prevent any advertisements from FSSO during the same time period. A preemptive strike of this nature would cost in excess of $45,000 (by contrast, FSSO's original December 1998 contract amounted to $401.00.) This was done with full knowledge that Gateway has, so far, not made a profit on the bus contract; while paying the minimum contract costs required of it by PSTA. It is clear Scientology felt that a strong "financial incentive" would likely be enough to cause Gateway to refuse FSSO's advertisements altogether. As of today, we have no idea of the standing of that proposed contract. Meanwhile, Scientology has spoken out,
at times in a vitriolic manner, in advertisements which
put forth their corporate and philosophical opinions of
their critics. Three such examples are it's New York
Times, Washington Post, and USA Today ad campaigns where
Scientology complained about it's treatment at the hands
of the IRS and the German It is important at this point for all involved in this controversy to be honest about the true reason for the buses being pulled from service on December 5, 1998: it was because of their content and Scientology's objections to same. This is evidenced by:
and from numerous remarks made by Mr. Zimmet, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Clarke during the January 27, 1999 board meeting. We would propose that the Scientology organization did in fact put extreme pressure on the board members to remove the buses from service on December 5, 1998, contrary to Mr. Zimmet's position at the January 27, 1999 board meeting. In fact, we would put forth that the best evidence of that pressure is that Scientology representative Mary Story went personally to Mr. Zimmet's home on that Saturday morning, was found peeking in his windows by Mrs. Zimmet and refused to leave the property until she was assured she would see Mr. Zimmet. His description of that incident at the January 27, 1999, board meeting was that the decision to remove the buses from service was already made by him and Mr. Sweeney by the time he met Ms. Story at his house. We believe this is disingenuous and far from revealing. Additionally, we understand that a minimum of five of the PSTA board members were brought to the bus yard, on the weekend, to view the signs in person. Are we the only ones who would characterize this as "pressure"? We would propose that Scientology's interest, and that of those who would support their position, is to insulate the organization from the publication of any material that calls into question any of their practices or operations. FSSO is well aware that there are, at a minimum, a few thousand members and ex-members of Scientology in the greater Clearwater/Tampa/St. Pete area. Contrary to Mr. Johnson's assertions at the January 27, 1999 meeting, FSSO does not wish to upset the public, the PSTA or current or former Scientologists. We simply wish to exercise our constitutional rights, in the same manner as any citizen, to inform the public of our opinions and the existence of our organization. As stated previously, FSSO is both willing and anxious to have a congenial and mutually supportive relationship with the PSTA. Our only requirement is that PSTA treat FSSO's right to express it's opinions publicly with the same respect that it treats Scientology's. To wit, by allowing FSSO to exercise it's constitutionally guaranteed right to express an opinion which is in opposition to that of Scientology. I would also caution the board members
not to be swayed by the type of inflammatory invective
that Scientology and it's representatives are famous for
and which they trotted out at the last board meeting. Mr.
Bob Hearn, an attorney for Scientology, stated that were
the PSTA to continue to allow advertisements such as
FSSO's, swastikas and other reprehensible symbols would
almost immediately start to appear in advertisements on
the Mr. Hearn's premise requires a leap of
faith that is not only highly unlikely, but one which has
not been borne out by reality. In markets where political
and non-commercial advertisements are accepted by transit
companies, we have no knowledge of anyone ever seeing a
swastika on the side of a bus. If Mr. Hearn has any hard
evidence to the contrary, FSSO is an organization in its infancy. A core precept is that the United States guarantees each of it's citizens and their respective affiliate organizations the right to voice their opinions and to comment on the opinions of others. In theory, Scientology should have no objection to FSSO doing so, since the creed of a Scientologist clearly states, in part, "[T]hat all men have inalienable rights to think freely, talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others." Since a creed is "a body of teachings of a religious group that are published for general acceptance," how could any devout Scientologist argue that this portion of their own creed is inapplicable when it pertains to critics of Scientology? And if this is acceptable to Scientology as an organization, what does that say about the veracity of their publicly stated beliefs? We would be remiss in our analysis if we didn't mention the arbitrary way in which Mr. Zimmet presented this issue to the board in his memo of January 15, 1999 (known as opinion 98-06). We are not familiar with the specifications governing the functions that the board's attorney is suppose to perform, but we would assume that on issues of controversy his function would be to investigate the matter, lay out the facts, investigate precedent (both inside and outside the jurisdiction) and then present a summary and his opinion to the board. If our summation is correct, then it is puzzling to us why Mr. Zimmet presented the board with only a fraction of the publicly available precedent cases. In addition, the fact that he presented only cases which parallel Scientology's interests and nothing about the large body of precedents which are supportive of FSSO's basic position is inexplicable to us, absent some unstated personal agenda. FSSO relies on contributions from supporters and ex-members and has a modest budget. Gateway Outdoor Advertising's bus ad program provides a low cost, high visibility venue for FSSO's advertisements. If these sites are rendered unavailable, FSSO will be denied the ability to publicly display it's advertisements; absent a dramatic increase in funding which would allow for alternative venues such as billboards, etc, which are much more costly. We do not believe it is the intent of the board to unduly burden or restrict FSSO in it's ability to advertise. We would therefore recommend that you leave the regulations regarding advertising on the advertising content and presentation. FSSO is prepared to accept a reasonable resolution to the injury it received when the buses were taken out of service on December 5, 1998. Reimbursement for the ad production and an agreement to run similar advertising on December 3 through 6, 1999 would be acceptable, as long as no additional restrictions on future bus advertising were imposed. This amicable and very reasonable basis for settlement is conditioned on it being accepted prior to FSSO having to commence any litigation to enforce it's rights. In closing, we simply ask that PSTA not unilaterally remove the canvas upon which the FSSO chooses to exercise it's Constitutional rights. We believe that the citizens and the city of Clearwater will both benefit from your correct decision in this matter. Sincerely, Frank Oliver cc: Bob Clarke |
Go back to The PSTA Bus Flap
| Mark Dallara mdallara@kcii.com PGP public key Last Updated: May 16, 1999 Legal Disclaimer |
|
|