1.) This is a talk on ESTOs. As you know, there is nothing covering this in policy at this time. This will be handled and policy letters will be written.

Now, normally you don't offload somebody unless the terms of his contracture or his staff application form or his contract has been falsified. And you'll find out the bad off ones have normally falsified it anyhow. They have certified that they are free from debts and they owe ten thousand, they have certified this and they that, and they certified that and the this, there will be something wrong in regard to that. Well, you're not looking for loopholes, but there is a time when you can hold up a guy just so long, a time comes. So where you have people who are parked in this particular sector, get them handled. And if there are disappearances off post and there're this and there're that or the other thing and the nonsense that goes on, if they also are generating tremendous amounts of dev-t, you're much, much better off to put them into a category where they can function and get better, and where they can be supervised directly on simple jobs.

2.) You should note, that the Product Org Officer System, which is the immediate predecessor, was not put into policy either, but was on tapes: It was run and was very successful, but it hat a fatal weakness. And that was the ESTABLISHMENT COULD NOT OCCUR.

The treatment of bad off people, not just the insane, anybody that was bad off in any way, shape or form was called insane in another year. Back in l846 they were all insane. By the way, there's another category, there's another category entirely and the person, the person is just a bad, he just lives a weird, oddball life. You can do something about that. He never goes to sleep and he doesn't eat and he burns his candle at both ends, you know, that sort of thing and so on. You can cool him off, too. You can tell him, "Look, now listen you. You go to bed tonight and get some sleep. I want to see you bright, shining and bushy-tailed tomorrow." And you will just be amazed how often you have to do that. In other words, he's something you can do somebody about.

3.) There were two reasons for this:

He's, he looks like a bad administrative risk, you see, on the administrative scale he just looks like a bad risk, that he ought to be processed within an inch of his life, and this/that ought to be happening. You do a little breakdown you see, you're doing this, you're doing that, you remember to put things on it like, "Do you get sleep?" and "What do you do at night?" and all that sort of thing. And all of a sudden you just find out a guy, he's not eating the things he should eat, he's not sleeping when he should sleep, and he also has some habit or another of he just loves cream cheese and it kills him. You know, you find out some weird thing. Why, you just put him under orders and say, "Do so-and-so." Well, usually that's your first action. When a guy's goofing off and you can't get him to produce and you can't get him this and that, you're trying to handle this bird, your first action is just to handle it, just directly, you know, boom. That's always your first action. You tell the guy, you look into it, you find a little why, you tell the guy; now we're off onto something else, I'm talking about evaluation of personnel, I'm not talking about handling him. You're first action is tell him.

1.) The flurry and urgency of Production make it very difficult for Establishment to Occur.

Now here comes R, and an Establishment Officer has got to learn this horrible little fact, that when you tell a person the truth, and not in any nasty way or otherwise, you get GIs. It's an interesting thing that a Commodore's Messenger is trained to run a message back and forth until he's got GIs. Why? He'll get GIs if he's hit the truth. She'll get GIs if she gets the truth, if we've got the why. A student that passes and deserves the pass, told that he has passed, has GIs. A student that passes and deserves the pass and told he hasn't passed, gets BIs, bad indicators right away. Why? It's not the truth. You'd say, "Well gee, that'd make the guy feel great, you know." Oh, no it doesn't. Now, a person who hasn't passed honestly and is told he hasn't past honestly, will have GIs. This is strange, and people really don't believe this, but the way you get GIs is with the truth.

Let's say you've done a little meter rundown on this guy, you've talked to him, a most casual thing, and you find out that he's, that he's got three girlfriends simultaneously, he's promised to marry two of them. You say, "Boy, you have got yourself in a tangle the like of which I have never heard of. Now the thing for you to do is get it straightened out right away." Tell him. Sigh, "Alright, OK," GIs, see? He knows he ought to. See all this, whatever it is, see? You hit the right why, you get the GIs. And the thing, the first thing to do is just tell him, tell him to do it, tell him to straighten it out, that's it. Don't monkey around with it, don't go shilly-shally on the thing, just tell him. Once you've got some kind of an idea, you know what you're talking about and so forth, you tell him.

4.) Therefore the org was relatively unhatted while production was being demanded of it, and the demands for production produced fantastic quantities of Dev-T.

Now, if you don't have GIs on this, it isn't right. It isn't that he's a bum, recalcitrant, doesn't agree with you, that he's just a dog anyhow. You see, you go off immediately and you find the right, wrong why, you go off into, you'll tend to go off into accusing the guy. You just didn't have the right why. You think it's because this guy is drinking and you say, "Now look, lay off the booze, no more of it see, that's it, no more booze," and so forth, and BIs. You say, "Well, of course he would have," you get the reasonability of the humanoid starts coming in. The cultural reasonability will get in your way. "Well, of course if he's told to lay off the booze, why he'll have..." That isn't what's wrong with him. You know you've missed. So you better find out, you better find out just like that.

5.) This Dev-T then drowned the org which had not been established.

Now, you say an Establishment Officer has no business inquiring this deeply into people's lives. That'll only happen to an Establishment Officer who doesn't find the right whys. People love to have their lives inquired into, actually, it's a great relief. But the psychoanalyst is not liked in this degree because he finds the wrong why, he's indicating the wrong why. Psychoanalyst, idea of the psychoanalyst using Dianetics, gets him down the track, finds out that he was mad as a baby at his father when he failed to change his diapers. So while the guy is down the track he says to him, "Now, the reason this, what's wrong with you is, you hate your father because he didn't change your diapers." The guy goes out and spins. You think I'm just pulling a long bow, no, that is actual, that is an actual case, a little history.

6.) This Dev-T policy pack you have covers this fully. Now, you ask, "what is new about this?". "We have known about Dev-T for years!" Yes, we have, and there was a FAINT reference to unhattedness in the Dev-T policies. But it did not step up the IMPORTANCE of that fact.

And they started trying to tell me, "Well, it really works you know, it, he did hate his father because of the diaper change and, but I've never gotten him to remember his childhood before. So Dianetics is OK." And he never did it, he didn't null the thing and he didn't go for earlier similar and he didn't find anything else. In the first place, he also, he already knew what was wrong with the fellow because he hated his father, but yet the guy didn't hate his father at all. You see what I mean.

7.) The CAUSE of Dev-T IS UNHATTEDNESS.

So, know before you go, find it, indicate it, say, "Look. Do it." Give him the order, that's it. It doesn't matter how you find the information, the first action is the straightforward one of telling him, if you get GIs you've got it, if you didn't get GIs you haven't got it. You got it? If you didn't get GIs then immediately find the right why. Actually there is a Class VIII who is drifting around the ship right now, she has probably not had the right why found, and she feels very gloomy. We came close to it but it was too much to work with. Too many chances, too much dev-t, too many snarls on the lines, too upsetting, and it was interrupting production to a degree that you just couldn't keep straightening this body out, because it was wrong every day. Get it all straightened out and next day it's all wrong, next day straighten it all out and it's all wrong, and the next day you straighten it out and it's all wrong, and the next day you straighten it out it's all wrong. Dowww.

8.) And Dev-T drowns the org.

This becomes an auditing problem, there's some deep-seated something wrong. Now, what do you do with a person like that? Do you leave them on the lines and beat your brains out and begin to hate the human race? No. We got the first case, you found out what it was, got GIs, you told him, he did it. See? That's that, they're straightened out. This is a perfectly lousy horrible staff member, that has never worked before. Now he all of a sudden, he's working fine. See? That's great. Next one, you find, you tell him, you search, do what works and so forth, and you keep at and you patch it up and so forth, and what you're really trying to do is get Central Files filed. You know? And next day it's wrong and he's still got them out and he put them down, and he's taken the orders from a dock worker and he, sigh, and the next day... He's generating dev-t, he's generating dev-t.

9.) Ex: It's like "yellow jaundice". The skin turns yellow. That is a symptom. But the cause is a LIVER infection. To just try to apply cosmetics to the yellow skin will not handle the disease. The CAUSE is in the liver, and it needs antibiotics, etc.

There's something you should know about this type of individual and this is one for you to write down on the inside of your forehead in letters of fire. If they generate dev-t for you, they are raising hell with everybody else around them, because you are the expert, and the other people around them aren't and they can't defend themselves against it. And they're trying to work in the middle of all this howling noise. If he generates dev-t for you, if he's hard to handle, he is hell on other people's lines. You are only getting a small portion of what he is handing out elsewhere. And when you're training executives, it is the most remarkable thing that that simple remark to an upper level executive will bring in the most stunned look and then, "Say, you know that's true." You will get a considerable reaction. They had just, it never occurred to them that the guy who is generating dev-t for them on their post, back down the lines and out of sight has got his staff tied in knots.

10.) Dev-T is only the SYMPTOM. Unhattedness is the CAUSE.

Alright, this guy you can't handle. Well, you could give him a comm-ev or something and offload him and so on. But there is another way to handle this, there is another way to handle this, and you can salvage personnel and it is well worthwhile to salvage personnel. You don't carry it to extreme, extreme lengths, you give them a chance and you always give them a chance.

11.) Therefore you can DETECT unhattedness by spotting Dev-T.

Now, if in an organization, if you were working let us say in AOLA or someplace like that, you should have an organization called a Project Force. It would be the Estate Project Force. Now that isn't just somebody assigned there, well, let me show you what will happen with one of these. If this isn't handled correctly, the most remarkable things will happen. You assign this guy to Estate Project Force until he can be processed and remedied in some way. The most remarkable thing will now happen. People will use that as a personnel pool and they put him right back in the org. You get him over there and they put him right back in the org. Because they're short of personnel, they look on this thing as a personnel pool.

12.) A survey of Dev-T throughout the org will bring into your hands those who are UNHATTED. And they are consuming the time of a least 2 other staff member while their jobs and post products are NOT being done. So 1 Person doing Dev-T is like having at LEAST 3 less staff in the org!

Well, people who are just coming into the org could also come in through an Estate Project Force, so there's an Estate Project Force category A, which are people who are just coming in and getting in their basics before you let them onto a post. And then there's category B, those who have had a chance and are put back there until they're handled. Well, the category Bs, you better not let those back in on your lines before they are handled. Now, in l846 the psychiatrist; or the alienist they called him then, they didn't have psychiatrists yet; he simply kept the person employed and exercised. And employment and exercise, and a bit of a change of environment and something to do, will do remarkable things with people. It'll extrovert them, it'll handle them most remarkably. If in the meantime he's over there going up through, on his part time study, his basic courses and that sort of thing, and getting his hat on, getting his fundamentals on and so forth, why, he can have another chance. You'll find out that you will bring a lot of them out that way. So there should be some such unit. But if it's handled wrong...

13.) So, Dev-T showing up will tell you immediately that you have an added unproductive staff load and a "camoflaged HOLE" in the org.

Now, let us say we treat the guy who is just coming into the organization, we put him on an Estate Project Force and there he is, and he does his part time study and his basics, and then we just leave him there and we forget him. See, the idea can get around that you don't take anybody out of Estate Project Forces. The guy will get parked. If you bring him in as an HCO expeditor, you will find out he's immediately sneaked onto a post untrained. Nearly all of our major post failures here have occurred when a recruit came to Flag who had no training and was immediately put on an organizational post. He had no basics. It was the most uneconomical thing you ever heard of. Four of them put on such a post as a mimeo files, eight months later had accomplished nothing. They had wasted that whole eight months, they just didn't have any basics in.

14.) A "camoflaged hole" is where it looks like something is there, but it's actually a hole.

Now, if you just let that Steward's Project Force, or Deck Project Force or Engineer Project Force or something like that, wander around and be put on posts and given hats, the whole thing is defeated at once. Immediately you get a defeat. So it is a one job, one place, one time. And when that one job, one place, one time is violated, then you will not get any result from your action of ordering somebody to the Estate Project Force until case and study are handled. It takes an MA of that division or section in charge of that force. They usually work on projects, somebody scribbles up a project for them; do this, do that, do the other thing. You know, paint the this and polish the that and refloor the this and move the that.

15.) And that hole ITSELF will generate Dev-T. But the area is so noisy, you don't see it as a hole. Ex: You think you have a Qual Sec, but he is always on every one else's lines with Dev-T. There is a being there with a title, but in reality there are not Qual Sec functions being done. And that "missingness" generates its own Dev-T.

Now, these guys are actually then doing productive work so they are not a drag on the organization. You got it? So this is the one job, one place, one time thing, but a person who is part of that division, that is to say like you take a deck division. The deck has got to furnish a person who then is designated as an MA. He works with them and he musters them and he keeps them working. If he's in Steward's, then a steward who is a regular member of the Steward's Force is with them and telling them where to work and what to do and furnishing their supplies. You got it? Now, that is what is known as a Project Force, and a Project Force is not something where you just throw some people and so on. It is a run thing because it is valuable. You will eventually get some people out of it.

16.) The people all around the area have to wear the hat of Qual Sec - So they don't get their own posts done! AND they have to cope with the nonsense that is coming from that particular post.

Now the person A who comes into the Project Force, when he comes into that Project Force, when he's got some of his basics in, he's got his basic SO member hat or his SS I, his SS II, this sort of thing, he's got those basics studied in his part time study, he could move up into an org and be hatted or he could move up straight into the force where he is part of the project force of. Now he is a posted post. You move him out of the Project Force into the division of which he is a project force. Do you get the idea? Now he can be posted as a post. You'll find the people in that division will normally attempt to scramble all this up in their anxiety to get personnel. Their anxiety to get personnel is a method of spreading dev-t throughout the entire organization. The next thing you know, every plate in the steward's department is broken, and if you look back on it as to why and you'll find out that you, there had been fifteen people at one time or another sent to the Steward's Project Force in order to recover. And you'll find out they didn't study, they didn't get any auditing, they didn't do any work either, but they simply got posted as stewards. You got it? Fah! The whole steward's department will disintegrate. The chief steward is doing her nut and starting to scream at people and wants to shoot people out of hand, you got the idea. It's a wild and horrible scene.

17.) So "Dev-T" is a primary diagnostic tool for the "illness" of an org.

So there is a way to salvage people. You don't just comm-ev him and fitness board him, offload, necessarily. If they're too foggy, if it is just too difficult, if there just isn't any possibility of ever, and this guy was falsely contracted to come in and he was obviously a pc... We just had a guy who had dev-t scattered through this whole ship, he's seven months overdue from a leave he was granted, suddenly write in and he wants to come back now and join the ship and so on, and there wasn't an auditor in the joint would audit him except one. He wants to come back because he's ready for more processing. You get where we have now the pc, the difference between the pc and the staff member?

18.) Now it isn't a "who". You shouldn't think of it in terms of a "who", as in "Who is the SP?" or "Who should we shoot?". That is an Ethics Officer attitude, not an ESTO attitude. The ESTO thinks of it as "who needs HATTING?"

If your staff is involved in the business it's involved in, it is handling the world. And believe me, it's got no time to have pcs within it it also is handling, because it won't make it. The amount of dev-t would engulf it, interiorize it and it will not be able to function. So there is your category one. The first thing, that is the guy, is he alright, isn't he alright. Alright, he isn't alright, I have given you the methods of establishing that he isn't alright, and I've given you the methods of handling him when he isn't alright. And if you look these things over, you'll find out that it's a sort of a standard tech like running ARC Straightwire on a pc. It is standard administrative tech. This is what you do.

19.) So you are working with a DIAGNOSIBLE ILLNESS OF A 3RD DYNAMIC, the symptom of which is Dev-T.

Now, category two the guy's perfectly all right and so forth and you're going to train him and up along the line, you're going to hat him and you're away. And the next thing you know, when you've got a division that's functioning and everything's fine and the guy can be hatted and he goes to study and see, ratta-tat-tatta-tat-tatta-tat-tat. What you're going to bog on is that category one.

20.) So it's somebody NOT doing his job PLUS involving a lot of others around him in the time, effort, and material use, for "no-production". (So you CAN have 8655 staff members getting out the production of only 1 small boy!)

Now, you could actually as an Establishment Officer, get totally fixated on this. We had an Establishment Officer on the trainee level do this. He got fixated on one staff member who couldn't do his job and he spent all of his time in that division trying desperately to get this fellow hatted and to get him to do his job. It was the reward of a downstat and when he wound up, he didn't have a division. You see this?

21.) And the small boy would probably be kicked in the head if they caught him at it! (Joke)

Now, do you know that a C/S can get fixated similarly. He doesn't do the normal steps to give himself trained auditors. He sticks. He just keeps writing them, let us say, he just keeps writing them, writing them, writing them notes, writing them notes, writing them notes, writing them notes. The notes are getting crosser and crosser, there's more and more adrenalin, the stuff that makes people angry, getting in to glandular fluid getting into those notes. He's stuck. It's like he's, he's got a three part process and he keeps running part one, part one, part one, part one, and he never runs part two or part three, and so of course the pc never recovers. The situation isn't handled because there's three parts to the process. Now, I'll show you how wicked this can get. So the C/S who is a training officer and one you will have to train, sooner or later you will have, you'll find, and you'll say, "Well, my god, the man is a Class XII or something. We know all these, oh yeah."

22.) It is very easy to think of this in terms of maliciousness, or evil intention, because the destructiveness is so great.

An auditor very seldom knows anything about administration or administrative procedures and that is one of their weaknesses. Just because the guy is a Class VIII they make him an HCO Exec Sec, but he's never cracked a book on the subject of the standard tech of HCO. In other words, they didn't get an HCO Area Secretary and they lost an auditor. So you're going to have to hat such guys because that thing will occur. Now, it's a very terrific thing when you've got a guy who is a high classed auditor who is also a trained administrator. Oh wow this is, this is bombs, this is great, terrific. But it can get lopsided, you can also have a staff member who doesn't even know their ARC triangle, and yet he knows something about administrative tech but he's falling on his head all the time, all the time, all the time. And you finally find out he doesn't know the ARC triangle.

23.) And you as an ESTO will continually receive demands from the Production-Programs side of the org to "shoot".

In other words, he didn't know some tech, he didn't know some HCOBs, and you'll find people on administrative posts say, "The HCOBs don't have anything to do with us." And you'll find the people on the tech posts say, "The HCOPLs don't have anything to do with us." And you'll find both conditions. So here's this C/S and he isn't making auditors, for some known or other, he can't make auditors. And he keeps telling them, and he will tell you if you're trying to hat him and establish this thing, he will tell you, "But, but, I just keep, I, I tell them everything I know, I insist on it, I send them to ethics and sometimes and or, but I, I do, I, I follow the rules, I keep sending them to cramming and sending them to cramming and sending them to cramming. As a matter of fact, right this minute I only have three auditors auditing because all the rest of them are in cramming." Now, this C/S is stuck on step two. He's done one and two but he hasn't done three. And he will keep doing one and two and one and two and one and two, and one and two, and two and two, and he's just going down the spout. He isn't doing the whole procedure. The third one is retread.

24.) They don't have a "why". It just seems desperate! So you get a "Shoot him - now - now - now!"

So you instruct him, sure he'll be perfectly willing to write an auditor instructions a few times. The next one, you're perfectly willing to get this guy, you're perfectly willing to get this fellow crammed. "Yeah we're cramming, we've got a good cramming officer who finds the why, why the guy goofed up and he crammed him and he did everything you said and the guy came back on post and when he got back he crammed him again, he's a good cramming officer, brilliant cramming officer." The whole HGC is just caving in, because he's forgotten the third step, retread. You cram and you cram and you cram, then you say, "This one ain't going to make it." This is a retread.

25.) Ex: During WW II the Germans could not believe the ineffeciency and uselessness of the Italian intelligence agency. They concluded it was full of spies and came down on them HARD and took over the whole thing themselves. The Italian intelligence wasn't that bad, they just weren't HATTED.

Now, a retread is a specific thing. It is just a method four which is just on the meter finding any misunderstood word with regard to a specific piece of material, word clearing. Very, very high, the other tech, and very easy to do and one that you yourself should know how to do like that. "What in your hat don't you understand?" Too broad a question. "Is there anything in this PL, is there a misunderstood word in this policy letter?" And you've tried to get it in, you can't get it in. "Is there a misunderstood word?" and you get a read. You say, "What is that?" It cleared up, it cleared up. That's it, bong, that's right. It's not a method two, it doesn't interrupt auditing, it doesn't ruin his case, and it doesn't upset C/Ses.

26.) So in the desperation of operations, with everything going down the spout, the HE&R that can be generated is very great. Its 1st expression therefore is: "Them guys is doing us in! Where are some lions to throw them to?"

So, the guy fails to send him to retread, and retread simply consists of find the method four of this particular body of materials. They're usually given the examination. And this specific body of materials and so forth, he doesn't know anything about, so they take that whole body of materials and makes him redo it. And they do, they method four it. "Misunderstood word, any misunderstood word?" and they clear it up and the guy restudies that, and he polishes up this other thing that he doesn't know much about and so forth, and he comes back and he starts auditing again. Alright.

27.) So if you wind up automatically throwing everybody overboard, firing, racking, doing-in, Comm Eving, shooting or getting rid of everyone indicated to you as "bad", you would soon have NO-organization at all - and you would lose the war like Italy did.

So we're willing to instruct him this time, instruct him, and we'll write him C/Ses which are OK and then we'll send him to cramming and we'll send him to cramming and we'll send him to cramming, and it's getting too thick again. What happens this time? Do we shoot him? No, we send him to retrain. Now, what's retrain? Retrain is the entire course as any green student would take it, from beginning to end. An auditor's allowed one retread, one retrain and that's it. That's all anybody is willing to spend. Remember it's expensive, you're spending coins, you're spending auditor coins, you're spending supervisor coins and so forth in doing such a thing. You are spending something when you handle a personnel, or when you order him to be handled, you're spending coins of supervision, coins of auditing and so on, you're spending the coins of the org. So, don't always spend them on the same guy.

28.) And the people still left would be so terrified, they would become ineffective and robotically UNdependable and WANT to lose and end the game too.

Now, you will sometime or another, I hope this doesn't happen to you but it possibly will, you as an Establishment Officer you'll get into a position where all of a sudden you'll find out the third step is missing. They've never done it. "Yes well, we couldn't ask them to retread because it would ARC break them." We found that the other day, "We never send a guy to cramming because it might ARC break him." How about all the pcs he's ARC breaking, you see? "Uh, don't think of those."...body on anything. Not auditors, they just never have retreaded anybody on anything. And you find out they've all been to cramming and they've been to cramming and they've been to cramming and they've been to cramming and they've been word cleared and they've been to cramming, and they've been chitted and they've been given courts, and they've been yelled at and given courts and sent to cramming.

29.) You can generate a level of INSECURITY in an org this way which is unbelievable. Posts aren't safe, nothing is safe, and eventually you hear a rumour coming up the line "I don't think it's SAFE to be an Exec, the last 6 Execs on that post got shot!"

It's the third one's missing, they never got retreaded. And what's normally missing? It is a missing gradient in study and it has to be found. They can't learn for some reason or other, or they can't do for some reason or other. And nobody did send this guy to get him to do, nobody sent him to the Steward's Project Force, nobody sent him to the Deck Project Force to get him to do something, to be able to confront MEST, to be able to be there in the universe instead of just sitting there figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. See? Nobody got him exteriorized, nobody extroverted him, made him look outward, reach outward, nobody made him do this and your whole thing is backlogged. And you're in a horrible position of having to send three quarters of the division for retread of their hats or retread of, or Steward's Project Force, and you haven't got any division at all. That's it. Gone. What do you do? You send them. Heroic, isn't it?

30.) I have seen this come up in Session folders as W/H's, because the person was from an org where the "yellow jaundice" of Dev-T was rampant and made the "skin" of that org very, very, yellow.

Well, if you emptied out stewards to that degree, you wouldn't have any food on the ship, so there's got to be some sense employed there one way or the other, of the Product Officer would start screaming like mad. But you could work out something there which one went at a time, or two went at a time, while the crew was fed food that was burned or... You get the difficulties that you'd run into? Well, actually what you do is you, you just get the people there to cope like mad, you just shoot them if any dev-t occurs anywhere. You, you say, "These are your lines, this is your job, let's see some production on the job," and you start peeling the guys off one after the other for retread. In other words you hold it by Fort Maine, which means just main force. "That's it, yup, that's it. You gotta, you gotta do it, that's it. I'm sorry, I know it is tough that you are not permitted to go up to, go up to the sun deck every day and study, but your job right here is peeling potatoes. So, I'm sure you can do that."

31.) The depths to which humans can sink because of non-comprehension are very, very low. That is no reason to lose your faith in the human race, because they can be "pulled up" from the depths too!

Now, you can find a right why and you can spring it out. Now your expertise is really put to the absolute limit of test. Now you've really got to be expert because you're handling people who long since should have been retreaded, who should have been. You'll find people scattered around who have never done any basics, they don't know why they're there, they haven't got any orientation. The first thing to conclude about them, wrongly, is that they are malicious, that they are insane, and the wrong thing to do is instantly shoot them. I'm giving you ways and means by which this is handled. The right thing to do about it is figure it out, figure out why, get them on post somehow, and they've never done their basics, well, if you can spare one who has never done his basics and there's only one, you're very lucky. And immediately send him back to do his basics. Get him over into the Deck Project Force, Steward's Project Force, something like that, Estate Project Force, you know, and get him to do his basics and so forth and come back on, that's fine.

32.) Ex: Three stewards had been hurt in last 3 days, slipping and falling. I sent messengers to investigate. Water was found on the galley floor, slippery soapy water. Traced it to a dishwasher who had long gloves on and when she raised her hands, the dishwater ran on the floor from the gloves. The dishwasher thought the "Jackon Boiler" (For coffee) was leaking and was about to involve the Engine Room repair crew in the cycle, until I just told her to roll up the cuffs of her gloves.

But what if you had nine people in the division and you had eight of them like that? Now you're really in a, you really, you really got to be on the ball. You'll need every piece of trickery that I've been able to teach you to get the guy to say something to you so that you can now find out. This is not, you know, tricking him into anything, it's beyond, you've got to be on the ball.

33.) A PERFECT example of Dev-T. ONE unhatted dishwasher who had not done TR 0 on her area. Dev-T caused:

So don't think that you won't evaluate anything. I would say the number of evaluations that you will do in a single day would be a very, very light day of evaluations if it fell down to four. Twenty, yes. But this isn't the type of evaluating that you do by writing it all up and writing up a big program. You do your evaluation, you've got the why, you say a little plan and you boom, that's the order. "Roll up the sleeves of those gloves." You got it?

- 3 injuries

Now, you're handling, you're handling human beings and they have feelings and H E and R is definitely a commodity, human emotion and reaction is definitely a commodity, and when it is wrongly handled, god help us. It is correctly handled by finding right whys, by indicating the correct action, and by being very forthright and never being reasonable about it. Once you've found it, that's it. Now, you'll get some people that this doesn't work on, obviously doesn't work on because they don't better at all. But you see, you're right back there to the guy who is a sort of a pc. Now you have to decide what do you do with him, and what's he going to do as a Steward's Project Force or where's he going to go, how's he going to do his basics and so on, because this is an auditing situation.

- Broken dishes.

Now, this is going to be requiring handling in depth of the being who is way off the rails. He's so far off the rails, you won't be able to make it, because he's basically out of communication, he's other-purposed, he has problems he couldn't even, he doesn't even know he has. After auditing him for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours, the auditor finally comes up with, the guy finally comes up and realizes that he has a problem all the time with his mother, but his mother's been dead for twenty years. In other words, you're looking at aberration, aberration. You're not looking at insanity. Aberration is just the basis of out-points.

- Commodore and 2 messengers involved for 1 hour.

I probably didn't make that too clear to you, by the way. There's the insane, the PTS and the aberrated. There're three, there are three categories of being which produce non-optimum behavior. They are three entirely different things. The insane, you detect them by graphs and behavior and so on. The PTS, they by the way cry a lot and get weird and go up and down and look hollow-eyed, or sometimes on a different emotional band they suddenly go antagonistic and then they're nice and then they're propitiative, and it's weird, it's non-optimum behavior. PTS. And then aberrated, the guy thinks it's perfectly all right to pour the baking powder down the funnel. He's just aberrated, he's got out-points. That is handled with an HC list. It's called an HC list because there was one time going to be something called a Hubbard Counselor and it's still got the list and it's an out-point list and it's simply assessed. Where's this guy got data series out-points crossed in his skull? And it'll make him look very stupid. So there is this other category. I should outline those three to you very precisely. The insane, he'll pull out the rug. PTS, he's just is on everybody's lines. The aberrated, he'll make stupid errors that you won't believe. The insane will make errors that weren't errors. He knows all the time the right way to do it, but if he does it this other way, oh boy. Now he, he fortunately is fairly rare. Now, these are your three categories of that lowest grade of personnel. You move up the line, you haven't got anything to worry about. You haven't got anything to worry about at all.

- Engine Room repair crew nearly called off post to handle a no-sit, on the Boiler for Coffee.

Now, stupidity and the essence of stupidity cannot only be produced by outpoints, it can be just missing data, but that is another thing, and that is the guy who isn't trained or hatted and has missed his gradients. He does not know what a potato peeler is, he's never checked out on the thing. Do you see? You run into that all the time, that's, that's normal; but what it is is omitted technology. Now, you right now are dealing with this whole field of omitted technology; where a staff is generally unhatted, their technology has been omitted. It isn't that it didn't exist, it's just they didn't study it, they didn't read it. So anybody whose behavior is peculiar falls under this third category. There's, it's an out-point situation, he's just an out-point situation, it's omitted data is the out-point that you're looking at with out study. So they fall into those three categories, the insane, the PTS and the out-point.

34.) This is the kind of thing an ESTO has to handle 16 hours a day.

Out-point can also be other things, you see, the guy can actually be aberratedly out-point. He actually believes that a proper number sequence is two, one, three and he will really insist to you that it's two, one, three. And you say, "No, it's one, two, three," and he'll say, "No, it's two, one, three." But you might not detect this, that in his communications and so forth he's giving you a two, one, three every time he turns around. His skull has got an altered sequence of events. He was educated and then he was born, do you see, and then he started school and then he quit his job and then he was hired. He's just got his time track all kind of wzzz-boom-boom-boom, he thinks in terms of out-points and that's, simply that, that's simply that.

35.) Continous, continous discovery of WHY and handling by HATTING. It's the "why" you can't hat, the "why" it's going wrong, and it has to do with an individual person. And there ALWAYS is a WHY.

The simplest of these of course is just that the omitted technology, the omitted study, and then you hat him. And your, that one is the one which bridges into the second type of administrative personnel. In other words, he can be trained, he can be hatted, he can do his job, he can be brought on up the line, and you're in category two. So those three actually bridge from the most serious, the insane, to the PTS who is simply connected with somebody insane, to the person who has actually got something out-point with his skull to the omitted data which is just hasn't been trained, and you're into number two so you start hatting him.

36.) Now, when these discoveries are done from Command Level, the WHY is found and there are ORDERS or TARGETS to fully handle.

Now, if you're very, very lucky, the majority of people you will be dealing with will be these second types. They just need to be hatted, need to be told, "Go to study, sit right here and read your hat, confront your environment," and so on, your normal technology, like a breeze just fits. Where it doesn't, you yourself have missed a gradient on the pc. Now you start going back into it, now you can start looking up tests, now you can do this, you can do that, you can do the other thing. When you're hiring people you will just oh, save yourself the most enormous amounts of trouble if at that point you don't take on a pc. "Yes, I'd love to work for the organization. Yes. Do you suppose I could get my grades right away?" You say, "Well, these applications are just sent out and we're sorting them out and you will be informed in due course." You just don't consider it any further than that.

37.) It's not usually the case that people WON'T get out the bulk mailing. There is a "bug", a "why". This would require an INVESTIGATION, EVALUATION, AND PROGRAM (by C/O, E/D, or Product Officer).

You'll, you are dealing actually with personnel, you are dealing with the personnel acquisition and you're dealing with personnel correction, you're dealing with personnel sort out, you are dealing with people and you're dealing with them at a different level than an auditor deals with them. You're dealing with them more at the level the Jesuit priest dealt with them. He was trained to take the world as it is. "God meant the world to be used as it is." I'm probably committing a terrible travesty and simplification of the Jesuit, but I was told this once. But this, you've got the guys, there they are, there they are, yup. They're not hopefully tomorrow, they are there now. These are the people you have.

38.) It would have then, targets on it for the ESTO to do to handle any unhattedness.

Now, you can say, "Well, let's give it all up and get an entirely new division." But it's up to you to get the people who are there now as they are now, functional, doing what they're doing. Now, you only have to drop back to the degree that they can't do a straight forward job of hatting, that they don't do a straight forward of this and that; now you're dropping back to this other category. Now you're dealing with people as you hope they will be. Well, how long can you hope? Can you hope a day, a week, a month? How long can you hope?

39.) Ex:

Now, with auditors you're going to have to hope several months. So therefore the recruitment of auditors is something that is started early, way ahead of any time anybody thought it should be started, and you will still always be too late. So when you look at this guy, you're looking at a hope. But you walk into a division, you take what is there now. What can we do with what is here right now? That is your first thought. Now your next thought is hope. How do we hope they will be and what are we going to do to make that hope come true? And that is your upgrade toward the ideal scene. But it's done on hope and many of the loses which one is, has to be willing to experience in this particular line of country.

- Bulk mail stat down.

And I would call to your attention the Russian advice and the way they teach school children. Two steps backwards and three steps forward still makes progress, which is pretty good. You're only having a bad time if the frog crawls up the well two inches at night and falls back three in the daytime. He will eventually get out of the well even if he crawls up only three and falls back but two, he will still get out of the well. So if you go in under the basis that you're going to win on every single human being that comes along the line, you are being an optimist the like of which has never been seen before, for the excellent reason that there are many other stresses at work in the culture, many other stresses. And there are other stresses at work in the organization. You may be trying to hold the fort to make something out of this guy and you're, you've got somewhere up the line you've got a deputy CO or something like this who is absolutely certain that this person is complete poison, and he has lots of experience with this guy and he wants him shot and he wants him shot now. How do you do it, what do you do?

- Investigated.

Well you just so forth and so on, no, instead of just bucking up and trying to protect somebody obsessively or something like that, you ought to review the situation and then see what can you hope for. What hopeful look can be put on this thing. Alright well, I would act accordingly. But I would make a sound recommendation, I wouldn't just bluntly defend. Say, "Well, we're going to do this, that and the other thing with this guy and so forth," and so on. You will get into collision this way, but you'll only get into collision when the people you are handling are not effective, and the less effective they are the more collision you will get into with the rest of the organization, not with just seniors.

- Found no postage money asked for in FP.

If you have a very, very, very ineffective treasury or a department seven, and it is terribly ineffective and you're not going at a dead run to, "Listen guys, you know, and let's get that and you take that and get this stuff in and let's get the payroll out this week so the crew isn't waiting for two hours in line to not get paid. Come on, come on, you know, let's really do those actions, let's get the information on the thing, let's, let's figure out how this is done, let's really learn to do the right actions here, and then let's do those right actions and let's get the bugs out of this line so that you actually can make files, so that you can work with them. Let's have some files made here, you know, this is how you do it," so forth. Well, the next thing you know why, they're just being collided with like mad. The crew is colliding with them, the crew is yelling and screaming and yapping at them because they haven't been paid and etcetera, etcetera, and wow-ow, and they're nasty to them at dinner and; oh yeah, poo. "I'm going to put a dev-t chit on you, you didn't pay me last time."

- Further investigation finds it's not correct on FP # 1, so is never approved.

So you're already dealing with kind of a losing game if you yourself don't put a hope factor in it to the division themselves, so you've got to get them to put a hope factor in, not just you. You've got to get them to envision a little bit more of the ideal scene that they can envision. Now, if they finally get it smoothed out and they finally are producing and they finally are doing what they're supposed to be doing on post, their morale will go right on up. They will win, and if you guide them well and do the standard things to handle them, why these guys will win.

- The FP # 1 was not done for THIS org, a faulty one was "borrowed" from another org of the same size to "save time" and get a "fast compliance".

Now, I'm talking to you right down at the grass roots of, of personnel. Somebody is new at this business, he says, "Well, all I do is I go through action one, two, three in order to hat this fellow, get his hat compiled, and I get it in his hands, I get him to read his hat a little bit, I get him producing on post and that sort of thing, and... It isn't working out. Every time I turn around, he's gone from his desk. Why?" That's your first evaluation. Now be prepared to find out anything. And when you do find it out, handle it. It'd be very lovely if that was all there was to it, you see, you just compile a hat, you get a hat, you get some personnel, he's at the bottom of the board, you put him on the post and you tell him what he is, that sort of thing, and you give him his hat and you tell him to study it and he's all set. "Now do a little bit of your hat," and so on, and it's all going forward and you're winning, but when you hit that hard bump in the road, you can't find him at the desk and he seems to be holding the pack upside down and wuf-wuf and voo, and the productions on the post are all backwards and the payroll is all written wrong, and you're hearing flack from somewhere, don't get discouraged because that is the way life is.

40.) The ESTO would be given the HATTING targets: FP Commitee, Dissem Sec, Treasury, HCO, and anyone who approved the FP # 1, and the originator of it for use in the org.

Just train yourself to expect that without getting terribly cynical, but know at the same time what you can do about it. You can find out why it's going that way and you can remedy it. And if you find the right answer to it, it'll straighten out, pongo. And if turns out, and this is the beautiful fact, this is the gorgeous fact, it turns out that the amount of malice at the bottom of all of this is so slight that it can almost be disregarded. That's fantastic. Do you know that you have to have handled, you'll find this some day in your experience if you haven't hit such a thing already, you will have been handling this group. They were antagonistic, they were apathetic, they were sullen, they resented you somewhat, they knew you were trying to help them and they think that's nice of you. And it's just, you can cut the place with a, you can cut the air around the place with a knife, don't you see, and it'd fall apart, it's that heavy.

41.) Ex: A Treasury Division who ALSO invoices the Management Org %'s. When asked what THIS ORG'S income was, they kept giving the Management Org's income (from the %%s). They neglected collecting any of their OWN income because they thought the %'s WERE their income! Really unhatted! I checked further and found not one person in that Treasury Division knew any basic finance policy!

And all of a sudden through your brightness and your investigation of this and the data which you've accumulated, and through your own increasing command of policy or something, you all of a sudden like dawn came up, you say, "These cats are, you know, the why. Wow." See? That's it, that's it, and you investigate it out just a little bit further, "Yeah, oh yeah!" and do you know it'll break your heart really sometimes. It is such an innocent thing, there is no malice involved in it, and yet these cats were acting like a lot of hoods. They were just so hard-driven in this out-point situation that nobody, much less themselves, had ever been able to unravel. They just sunk into looking very malicious. Their human emotion and reaction was expressing at every hand unwillingness to such a degree that we totally believed that they must be unwilling. They weren't unwilling, nobody had ever found the right why.

42.) They didn't know: INCOME MUST BE GREATER THAN OUTGO.

You find it and you just, either with a single staff member or with the group of them, you all of a sudden got it, that's it, it brings in their GIs, you straighten the thing out, the program you're doing to handle it is highly acceptable and zing, zing, zing, zing, zing, zing, zing! But the main thing that you will find out about all this is there was no malice there. And I just wish some of these birds who used to run slave plantations, and guys like Napoleon that used to run armies, and the heads of some of these totalitarian states, might do a little study on the data series and get a little bit able at finding out what was which, and where it went in and where it went out, and how to unravel these things, because they would have found out that man was not an evil beast.

It's the inability of the Catholic church, and the inability of the Methodist and Angelican and other faiths, to unravel the why that lay behind human emotion and reaction that convinced them utterly that man was a sinful being and that was born in sin, and he was conceived in sin and born in sin and would die in sin, and that he was evil. You can see them now on the rostrum, on the platform shaking their fingers at their congregations and how they were evil sinners, and they were all sinners. That's just all they didn't have the right why.

43.) The 2nd one is because IF a Management Org is so lousy that they can't make the service org attached to them make money, then they have no right to collect from remote orgs.

So, your own future morale pursuing a line as an Establishment Officer actually is greatly dependent on your ability to penetrate a situation and discover a correct why. And the definition of a why is something that'll move something higher toward an ideal scene. And your reward will be the total certainty that you are not handling malicious beings. Thank you very much.

44.) So this Treasury division was ignorant of ANY policy. How did happen? The FALSE datum came into that: "This is a S.O. org, so Scientology policy doesn't apply". - So of course no one bothered to study it! And also, "We are not a management org, so their policy doesn't apply either". Result? NO INCOME COLLECTED AT ALL. The whole division was a camoflaged hole.

45.) Now there is a thing called a "Disagreement Check" done by Qual in Dept 13. And they should know how to do these fast without backlogging them. This is a good way to find the area of personal, individual, UNHATTEDNESS.

46.) As an ESTO, you will find one of these wild "twists" where-ever it is going wrong. Some are hard to believe. So in the realm of THE INCREDIBLE, it is easy to just substitute "shoot him".

47.) You will find people who say: "He's crazy, he's treasonable, shoot him, nobody in his right mind would think like that".

49.) There is a management scale of actions that begin with sounding out a person's CASE in the matter.

50.) And that's when you are checking out personell for employment or recruitment.

51.) If you start filling up an org with people whose cases are below the center-line of an OCA, you are going to be in trouble.

52.) Now it's easy to analyze these graphs. If you turn it over, you will find the the Testing Officer has done a beautiful analysis of this case that reads like a horoscope. And that's fine, and the pubic love them. BUT THAT ISN'T HOW I USE THEM.

53.) You use an OCA simply and totally this way:

DOWN ON THE LEFT: (below the center-line) = WILDLY SCREAMINGLY, OUT OF VALENCE.

DOWN ON THE RIGHT: (below the center-line) = EVIL PURPOSE, WILDLY NUTS OR PSYCHOTIC.

54.) And that is all you need to know except this one fact - A PERSON WHO IS VERY THEETIE-WEETIE, HAS A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANCES, AND HAS A VERY HIGH OCA (they are kind of "fey", it's all "significant" - every look, glance, idea, statement is very "significant" to them), WILL, UNDER PROCESSING, FALL VERY LOW ON THE LEFT SIDE, THEN FALL VERY LOW ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THEN WILL COME BACK UP INTO NORMAL RANGE AND BE SANE.

55.) I've now told you, in these few sentences, all you need to know about an OCA. That's all you ever use.

56.) Now an OCA can be "messed up" by evaluation for the person before he does it, telling him what to write on it, falsifying and OCA, or an OCA being done by somebody who was a TEST I/C and knows all the right answers.

57.) But that can be confirmed by an APTITUDE TEST. IF THE SCORE ON AN APTITUDE TEST IS BELOW 65, THE PERSON IS SOMEONE WHO WILL BREAK THINGS AND HAVE ACCIDENTS, SO YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH THEM AS A STAFF MEMBER.

58.) So the OCA can be cross-checked with the aptitude test. That's all you need to know about the OCA (or APA as it's called in America).

• OCA = OXFORD CAPACITY ANALYSIS

59.) The OCA is easier to read as it has the center-line. The APA has the shaded areas. They are both the same test.

60.) Now you want nothing to do with any kind of test that requires OPINION to evaluate. (Like the ROHRSHACH or MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC.)

62.) If anybody ever tries to give you a ROHRSHACH, or "ink blot" test, just say "I don't see anything in it." or "It's just ink on a piece of paper." That absolutely RUINS their test.

63.) Most of these psychology tests were born out of "phrenology", which is reading the bumps on a person's head to tell their character!

64.) Then they went a little "deeper", and thought it was the "brain", that caused wierd behavious. You think I'm kidding? No, these are facts!

65.) I.Q. TESTS, precisely timed, are another factor. You don't want anything to do with a person whose I.Q. (Intelligence Quotient) is below 70 (for staff). You want to regard with some suspicion a person whose I.Q. is only 90.

66.) PROCESSING will raise an I.Q. at about one point per hour of processing.

67.) So, there are the 3 tests most used in Scientology (OCA, Aptitude, I.Q.). (Others were tried and discarded, because MSH could do them in 1 min 30 sec and they were supposed to take 20 minutes, so she figured they were worthless - Laugh.)

68.) You can evaluate personell against other things, like PAST RECORD or EXPERIENCE, but that is subject to FALSE REPORTS.

69.) So PAST EXPERIENCE is valid, but has to be taken only conditionally. STATISTICS are valuable as an indicator of past performance - if accurate and not false or meaningless.

70.) The higher in the org the STAT represented, the more validity it has. It indicates ability to control several areas. But an individual stat like "Stamped envelopes" is subject to falsification.

71.) Ex: A C/O whose INCOME and PAID COMPLETITIONS was very high. The validity of that is very great.

72.) But "not statistic at all" and "never kept a statistic" are very significant also - a person like that may be totally Dev-T or lazy.

73.) So, EVALUATION of PERSONELL can be done with a fair rapidity.

It includes:

- THE TEST BATTERY

- HIS ETHICS RECORD

- HIS PERSONELL RECORD

- HIS STATISTIC RECORD

74.) Now that is the way to Evaluate personell. you will ERR in "failing to believe it" more than anything else.

75.) There is also the "hope" factor people use in orgs - they put somebody on a post just to have a "body" there, and "hope" that somehow he will get audited to handle his outnesses.

76.) It is true that auditing WILL improve a person, but you have to know the "Degraded Being" technology. (There are HCOBs on this).

77.) Yes, 100 hours of auditing and all Lower Grades WILL improve this person's ability on post. BUT YOU HAVE HIRED A PC! And staff members are supposed to HANDLE PCs. PCs do NOT easily handle the public. And you've just mixed your personell pools. You have tried to take your STAFF from the PC pool!

78.) Now, the minute you put a PC on a POST, he will start to absorb ALL the auditing meant for staff.

79.) And the F/N VGIs % of Staff will fall if you have too many of these PCs on post.

80.) This is because you will be processing THEM and not the rest of the staff.

81.) So, you end up "REWARDING A DOWNSTAT" and that is the thing which has driven civilizations right on out the bottom.

82.) So the "pc" ought to be out there with a job, shovelling coal or something, and BUYING his processing.

83.) An org can develop a real "soft spot" on this and end up being a "free clinic".

84.) You as an ESTO may find these people scattered through the divisions of an org. You estimate them by the factors I have given and by the thickness of his pc folders while on staff, plus a meter check.

85.) Now, an ESTO should know all about METER CHECKS. Meter checks are not sec-checks. You just put the guy on the meter. What does he read? That's it. What's his TA? Does he F/N? Does he have a Dirty Needle? That's all you want to know.

86.) Now an INTERVIEW on a meter is very interesting because you always find the charged areas.

87.) I always do my D of P interviews on a meter.

88.) And as an ESTO, I would do personell interviews on a meter. (This is for those already on staff you are trying to debug, not applicants for a job on the recruiting line.)

89.) I would make up a little list of possible areas that COULD be bugging the staff member and ask him each one and note the reads and reaction. You may be surprised at the result. Ex: Staff member not doing his job, causing Dev-T. His wife is divorcing him, he has debts, and lost his car so has no transport.

WITHOUT A METER, you may be so foolish as to ASSUME you know the reason he is doing poorly - such as "Of course he has problems, his wife is leaving him." Send him to the Chaplin or to Qual for a session and start causing Dev-T yourself!

WITH A METER, you do an interview on various areas - Home?, Wife?, Money?, Job?, Health?, Transport? - and you find he has trouble with his SENIOR on the Org Board and NONE of the other ares are bothering him! Handling can be as simple as a checkout on ONE policy letter!

90.) So don't try to HANDLE until you know the WHY. Otherwise as an ESTO, you will start causing Dev-T yourself!

91.) Before you take any broad, sweeping actions on a case, a staff member, or an org, you had BETTER KNOWN WHY.

92.) There are certain lists which help you in certain areas. For example, if you found a "why" on a staff of not being able to study - we have a STUDY CORRECTION LIST. We are rich in this kind of thing.

93.) But that LIST would have to be done by an auditor and it would have to be C/Sed so as to not interfere with any auditing program in progress. Because it IS AN AUDITING ACTION to handle the areas that come up on such a list.

94.) If a C/S orders, or an ESTO tries to get done, an action like this in the middle of some other major case action - you can WRECK THE CASE. SO DON'T DO IT.

95.) Remember, C/Ses don't like Execs ordering "other actions" to be done on a case in the middle of a program. So, as an ESTO - coordinate these things.

96.) Also, do NOT make your Interview Questions DOWNTONE or ACCUSATIVE.

(EX: Are you planning to blow? Are you disappointed in your job?, etc., etc.)

Because, if these read and not cleared up fully in auditing AT ONCE the person WILL dramatize or cave in or blow.

97.) You can ask anything you want and he will feel good about it afterward as long as you don't INVALIDATE him in the Questions.

(Ex: How are you doing on post? How is your job going?)

98.) So an interview by an ESTO is not a "sec-check" and not "auditing by list", it's just a 2WC to find the area of difficulty. About as far as I would go, is I might ask if he had "Overts on Post?" but I wouldn't "tell him" what they were - and I would get them off right away.

99.) So you are just trying to find the zone he has trouble with. One of the 1st things you say is, "I'm not auditing you."

100.) You just let him talk a bit about each one and you will probably get an F/N.

102.) Your viewpoint as an ESTO is:

A) This person is supposed to be occupying a post.

B) He is supposed to be producing something for an organization.

103.) The AUDITOR'S point of view is "trying to do something for the case".

104.) So, as an ESTO, when EVALUATING personell and going over these tests and so forth, you are ONLY interested in the EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY of this person and how his MORALE affects it.

105.) Someone may say "that's a very capitalistic, totalitarian, communistic, cruel way of looking a people". But it ISN'T. IF THIS GUY DOESN'T PRODUCE, HIS MORALE WILL REMAIN ON THE BOTTOM.

106.) Production is the basis of Morale, and an individual who ISN'T completing cycles of action and getting something done will NEVER have good morale. I don't care how many ice-cream sodas he has every day or how many liberties he goes on every week, I don't care what you do FOR him. If he ISN'T CONSTRIBUTING SOMETHING to his immediate enviornment - he's a "GONE DOG".

108.) And that is a PSYCHO, a real PSYCHO.

109.) Now there are people who are PTS and who act "fairly psycho", and there are people who are "Aberrated" - who merely have OUTPOINTS in their thinking.

110.) The psychairitrists never differentiated amongst these people. That's because he thought people had a "disease" called "mental illness". It's not true. There is no "bacteria" that produces "psychosis".

111.) So, it falls into 3 groups:

A.) The guy is a really evil-purpose boy. He's out to destroy the lot. His whole life is monitored by this. Criminals and that sort, are motivated this way. And they are hard to detect because they carefully "cover it all up". These guys are relatively rare, but not too rare (2 1/2%)

B.) People are likely to confuse them with a PTS, who roller-coasters. He has an SP (or Psycho) in his enviornment somewhere. He's way up today, way down tomorrow. He's fairly obvious. (The Psycho SP is NOT so obvious. You can't tell he is an SP by his "behaviour" in most cases. Only by his actions and results.) The "PTS case" in a FOLDER looks like: several good sessions, then a repair, more good ones, then a repair - over and over. On POST it is the same - did OK this last week, now not doing well at all, over and over. So you look at the Folder Summary. (Don't confuse it with a "slow-case" or one having lots of Rundowns who is nevertheless getting F/Ns.) The PTS will go: F/N, BER, F/N, etc. HITA, Repair to F/N, BER, F/N, etc. He IS connected to a Suppressive. There is somebody in his enviornment, or family, or on his case, that is a psycho SP. Sometimes a person can be connected to an SP and HE doesn't cave in.....

THE SUPPRESSIVE DOES! But where you have staff members who continually roller-coaster, you are dealing with a PTS. The PTS Policy all applies and is fully correct. We can solve it these days bay a PTS Rundown. It can be done by a Class IV and is not difficult to do.

C.) And there is the "aberrated" staff member who has outpoints in his thinking. He can be handled by normal processing and hatting actions.

112.) So in the category of "CASE" there are two situations the ESTO will come across:

I.) He discovers the person is a pc or "case" before he gets hired or during his application or testing.

HANDLING: DON'T. Just DON'T hire the person.

II.) He discovers the person is already on staff, hired by someone earlier.

HANDLING: Don't just kick him out or put him in front of a "fitness board". (It takes a Court of Ethics or Comm EV to recommend a fitness board.) And to just "fire him" would make staff feel insecure. So how do you handle it?