In past years we have had many problems resulting in programmes as follows:

В шестой программе в списке на первой странице говорится:

The sequence of major programmes at Saint Hill:

«Найти источники для поддержания деятельности Сент-Хилла. Таким источником стал «Специальный обзорный курс Сент-Хилла», что также способствовало выполнению и предыдущего пункта».

To provide a home for LRH and family in Commonwealth area so Commonwealth area could be organised and made self-supporting.

«Предыдущий пункт» в данном случае, это не тот, который следует прямо перед ним, а тот, который идёт за два пункта до него:

To provide admin facilities for LRH in Commonwealth area.

«Обучать технический и административный персонал для организаций Содружества».

To make Commonwealth area self-supporting regardless of US funds or customers. (Not yet resolved.)

«Специальный обзорный курс Сент-Хилла»

To train technical and admin staffs for Commonwealth orgs.

а) был организован для того, чтобы обучать технический и административный персонал для организаций Содружества, и

To make Commonwealth outer orgs run on their income without their using all the bills sums owed SH or Ron as part of their operating funds.

б) выяснилось, что он влияет на платёжеспособность Сент-Хилла, что и было нужно.

To find financial support for SH activities resulting in the SHSBC which also accomplished the next above.

«Предыдущий пункт» – «Сделать так, чтобы внешние организации Содружества (не Сент-Хилл) осуществляли свою деятельность, используя средства, получаемые только из своего дохода, а не использовали в качестве своих оборотных фондов те суммы, которые они должны по счетам Сент-Хиллу или Рону» – был выполнен лишь частично.

To handle Commonwealth activities and organisations and also handle US activities. (Solved by Telex and OIC and later the Exec Div WW.)

«Специальный обзорный курс СентХилла» был создан не для того, чтобы разрешать эту проблему, хотя он и помогал в её решении. Данная проблема начала разрешаться при помощи оргсхемы из семи отделений (финансовая независимость внешних организаций), но лишь в тех организациях, где в первую очередь было создано хорошее отделение квалификации и была проведена работа со всеми потерпевшими неудачу кейсами и кейсами попавшими в оверран. Примечательный факт – организации Сиднея и Аделаиды, в которых даже после двух лет понуканий так и не появилось отделение квалификации (согласно докладу из Окленда), являются самыми худшими среди всех наших организаций. Состояние в других организациях, которые всё-таки создали у себя отделение квалификации и занялись потерпевшими неудачу кейсами и кейсами, попавшими в оверран, заметно улучшилось.

To establish SH general broad promotion. (Solved by The Auditor.)

Таким образом, решением проблемы того, как сделать внешние организации платёжеспособными, чтобы они могли работать, не используя доход Сент-Хилла или Рона, будет следующее:

To provide facilities for administering critical high level Tech such as Power Processes. (Solved by SH HGC.)

а) создать отделение квалификации, отвечающее самым высоким требованиям;

To organise SH so it could be administered (made needful by ’63-’64 collapse of multiple corporative set-up). (Solved by 7 Div System completed by end of 1965.)

б) найти все «потерпевшие неудачу кейсы» в районе деятельности организации и добиться, чтобы они получали успех, а также провести восстановление всем кейсам, попавшим в оверран;

To refine the Qual Div to prevent all “failed cases”, train staff and improve Tech.

в) обучать своих сотрудников технической и административной технологии в новом отделении квалификации и

To get Reports of Tax, etc. off continual crash programmes. (Solved by Treasurer but incomplete of any guarantee of chartered accountant compliance.)

г) создать техническое отделение, отвечающее самым высоким требованиям.

To get field auditors to cooperate and stop conflicts with orgs (FSM programme).

В тех организациях, которые действительно выполнили эти требования, дела идут очень хорошо. Организация Сиднея, в которой кейсы разносили в пух и прах, доводя R2-12 до оверрана, явно пренебрегла данной программой и так и остаётся неплатёжеспособной.

To refine the Tech Div. (Finished about August 1966.)

To get in smooth operation on Ethics system.

Чтобы получить представление о том, что такое программа, необходимо рассмотреть следующее:

To operate the Clearing Course and to assembly line Clears. (Still under refinement but more or less complete.)

1. У организации есть проблема, связанная с её деятельностью и выживанием.

To establish and operate OT Course. (Just now under development.)

To beat back continuous attacks by suppressives in the 3rd and 4th dynamics. (Solved by establishing Intelligence Branch.)

To train up staffs at SH and in outer orgs by Staff Status and Org Exec Course.

To improve the Cash-Bills ratios of orgs.

To safeguard income once earned by better financial planning.

To reform Ad Councils into representative bodies (now complete with the formation of an Executive Council).

To assemble all Sen materials. (Flopped by reason of non-compliance but lately re-instituted.)

Когда выполнение программы идёт плохо, подвергается изменениям до такой степени, что перестаёт работать, или когда программу выполняют спустя рукава или прекращают выполнять без какого-либо приказа, может иметь место следующее:

Dictionary Project to prevent misunderstood words. (In sporadic and jerky action to this day.)

1. Исполнительный секретарь (или ЛРХ, или коммуникатор ЛРХ), в чьём ведении находится данное отделение, назначает состояние ОПАСНОСТИ руководителям, которые должны были следить за выполнением данной программы, и лично добивается того, чтобы программу снова начали выполнять.

To handle legal situations which built up by non-compliance by attorneys internal and external in org. (Under solution by forming Guardian Legal Branch.)

To improve and maintain affluences. (Just begun.)

Ко второму шагу переходят, когда при выполнении вышеуказанного пункта 1 обнаруживаются любые случаи неисполнения. Поскольку состояние Опасности уже было назначено и исполнительный секретарь (или другой руководитель) уже занимается этой программой, действуя в обход, и, если кто-либо всё ещё не может заново приступить к выполнению программы, не остаётся никакого иного выхода, кроме как взять данную программу под контроль своего офиса. Кто-то явно препятствует выполнению этой программы. Хотя мы можем попытаться выяснить КТО, это не повод позволять этой программе увязать и дальше. Если по прошествии какого-то времени после назначения состояния Опасности в ходе выполнения программы не наблюдается никаких изменений, то главный руководитель будет лишь терять своё время, продолжая проталкивать выполнение программы через промежуточную точку. Более лёгким способом было бы просто сказать: «Поскольку секции адрессографа какое-то время назад было назначено состояние Опасности, но она так и продолжает валять дурака, я, исполнительный секретарь ОХС, забираю секцию адрессографа под контроль своего офиса в отделении 7 и лично приведу эту секцию в порядок, а тем временем рекомендательный совет должен назвать исполнительному совету новую кандидатуру на должность секретаря местного ОХС».

To help Scientology dissemination and attack more broadly to prevent such quantities of legal defense. (OT Activities programme just begun.)

В действительности я часто выполняю те действия, которые указаны в пункте 1-я назначаю состояние Опасности по той программе, которая не выполняется, лично справляюсь с этой ситуацией и применяю этику по отношению к тем, кого обхожу.

To safeguard, continue and expand all Scientology orgs. (Worked on a bit, not really concentrated on except for Cash-Bills and Staff Status.)

В тех ситуациях, когда действия, предпринимаемые в соответствии с пунктом один, не дают результата, мне становится ясно, что выполнению программы всё ещё что-то мешает. Я перетаскиваю всю секцию целиком в свой офис и делаю её функции функциями моего офиса. Она может оставаться здесь достаточно долго. Затем я полностью перемещаю её куда-нибудь в другое место. Иногда через какое-то время после этого мне приходится перетаскивать её назад. Обычно это происходит из-за того, что секцию поместили не туда, куда нужно. Если вы помещаете секцию в отдел или отделение организации, к которым она не имеет отношения, она просто не будет функционировать. Исключение составляет административное отделение, куда на некоторое время можно поместить всё, что угодно.

General improvement of finances. (OT Activities.)

Распространённая ошибка руководителя при выполнении пункта 2 заключается в том, что он забывает о существовании таких программ в своём отделе и забывает передавать их назад после соответствующей отладки. Если руководитель посмотрит, какие шляпы он носит, он обычно обнаружит одну или две программы, которыми занимается и которые ему необходимо привести в окончательный вид и надлежащим образом передать для выполнения в организацию.

Buildings for Scn orgs. (OT Activities.)

Теоретически, любой руководитель или ответственный за какую-либо сферу деятельности может выполнять действия, предусмотренные в вышеуказанных пунктах 1 и 2.

To establish better audio-visio educational facilities. (Barely begun.)

Если действия, выполняемые в соответствии с пунктом 1, не дают результата, выполняйте пункт 2. Главная ошибка в данном случае состоит в том, что руководитель забывает завершить выполнение пункта 2, поскольку не передаёт выполнение программы назад в организацию. Чтобы при выполнении пункта 2 предотвратить такую ситуацию, вносите изменения и на оргсхему. При этом программа, которую вы выполняете, остаётся на виду. В противном случае человек забывает о том, что работает над программой, и вскоре начинает чувствовать себя перегруженным работой.

Практически все руководители занимаются выполнением одного или двух особых проектов или даже выполнением программы. Поэтому руководителю необходимо регулярно просматривать свои шляпы, выявлять те, которые относятся к выполнению таких проектов и программ, и завершать связанные с ними циклы.

These have been and are the major programme steps which have been implemented or are under development at Saint Hill since 1959 and forward to the end of 1966.

Some of the years covered acquired names such as:

1965- The Year of Organisation.

1966 — The Year of the Clears.

1967 — will probably be the Year of the O.T.’s.

It will be noted that each of these programmes solved a self-evident problem.

It must be realized then that these problems did exist.

If the problems exist again, remember there was already a solution programme and usually it has only been dropped and the problem reappeared because it had been dropped. The proper directive action is to re-implement and improve the solution which is to say in the case of SH, the carrying out of the successful programmes noted above.

Ad Councils are always advancing new programmes and often it is only an old programme dropped out that needs re-instituting, not a new solution. Certainly an old problem has cropped up again.

There have been other programmes of course. Many solutions to old problems and of major importance, are found in Policy Letters. Some programmes although necessary have never been successfully implemented. There was the motion picture programme but it is dogged by technical bugs and became part of the Audio-Visio programme now being attempted. There has been the re-write of all books programme but I’ve been too overworked to attempt it.

Other future, self-evident programmes will come into being. They will only fail if earlier programmes, dropped out or not given reorganisation when needed, bring old problems into view by exposing them. All the problems underlying the programme solutions above still potentially exist, held in abeyance only by the programmes.

The best way to form programmes is to isolate actual problems at any level of operation and solve them either by removing elements that make them or by instituting a programme. Sensible planning tends toward both actions.

An unsuccessful programme usually will be found to be solving the wrong problem or is itself an improper solution to an actual problem.

If you want to establish the validity of a new programme offered by someone, ask him what problem it is seeking to solve. You can then see if you already have a solution to the problem, but most often you will see that no clarified idea of the problem existed and so the solution is poor or inadequate.

The common problem of an org is not the development of programmes but failure to execute existing ones.

Another difficulty with orgs is that they often alter the existing programme so that it no longer resolves the problem the programme was set up to handle. A current example is magazines. Magazines exist to solve the problem of public unawareness of an org. An org has no space unless it is sending out anchor points to make it. And it is in non-existence for its Scientology public unless it mails magazines regularly. Magazines do not develop much new public — that is another, largely unsolved, problem. Magazines exist to continue the awareness of the existing Scientology public. Now as these people are already aware of Scientology, the awareness one is trying to develop is that of the org and its services. Recently Continental magazines began to issue only Scientology data. The ads making the Scientology public aware of the org were toned down and omitted and the Cash-Bills ratio worsened in orgs. The orgs started toward non-existence. Significantly the trend was begun by a someone who did not like orgs but was in favour of Scientology. Issue Authority erred in not looking at old magazines and comparing them to the current layout. There was a vast difference. No ads in current ones. The programme had been altered.

Artists are taught to be “original” and to alter. Yet successful artists painted the same picture their whole lives under different names. These just seemed new.

To change, alter or drop a programme one must know what the programme was there to solve. Just change for change’s sake is mere aberration (making the lines crooked).

It’s a good exercise for a senior executive to list the problems the org really does have. To know the programmes of an org that are in is to see what problems an org would have if they were dropped.

It’s healthy to revert a programme now and then by meticulously examining how it was originally when it was very successful and then put it back the way it was originally. This is done not by adjusting lines but by looking up old magazines, old policy, old despatches and issue pieces, even old tapes. What did it used to consist of? If it is no longer successful:

(a) the programme was altered or dropped and

(b) the org will have a problem it once had long ago, or

(c) (rare) the causes of the problem have been removed

and the problem no longer exists.

There’s lots of trial and error in developing a programme. That’s why any new programme should only be a “special project” for a while, off the org main lines really, under special management. If a “special project” starts to show up well in finance (and only in finance), then one should include it “in” with its new staff as an org standard project.

To run new programmes in on existing lines is to disturb (by distraction and staff overload) existing programmes and even if good the new will fail and damage as well existing programmes.

Provide, then, staff and money to pioneer a new programme as a “special project”. If you don’t have money or staff to do this you would do far, far better simply looking over the problems the org faces and get in the old programmes that handled them. These are known winners and don’t forget, they cost a lot to find and prove as the thing to do. And they took a long time.

Take the Central Files, Letter Reg set-up in orgs. That’s a standard programme. Developed in London and D.C. in the mid ’50s. If you dropped it out, an org would fail. The problem is “how to achieve special individual contact with existing clientele and maintain existing already developed business.” One large firm, I was told the other day, that has put in our 7 division system was stunned to find they had never contacted their existing business clientele. They only had done business with new clientele. This cost them perhaps 200,000 sales a year! They promptly put in our CF-Letter Registrar system with a vengeance.

In their case (as in a forming or reorganised org) they weren’t even aware of the problem and so had no programme for it.

It is often the case that one can develop a programme that removes the need of some other programme. If one removes the factors that make the problem, one can dispense with the programme that solves it. But this is so rare it is non-human in most instances.

For instance, doctors are a public solution to the problem of human body illness. If one removed this problem, one could remove the “doctor programme” safely. That’s why doctors sometimes fight us. We are thought to be working to remove the problem to which they are a programme. One would have to have more than a better cure. One would have to remove in the 4th Dynamic (Mankind) the causes of illness. These would not be what people think they are as the problem persists and so does the “doctor programme” in the society. It can’t be the right problem. Only enough is known of the causes of illness to make the problem appear to be handled. Actually the bad statistic of ill people is rising. We have entered the field in research only far enough to know that suppressives make people ill but that’s a sufficient departure to make it an Ethics problem, not one in treatment! By extension of this theory one might find this problem not caused by Pasteur’s germs but by suppressive groups. In that case one would increase ethics programmes. Eventually, if this solved it, the “doctor programme” would be diminished as no longer the only solution.

The above is not a statement of intention or a plan. It is an example of how an old standard programme can become less important. Note that one would have to (a) state the problem better than it had been stated, (b) isolate causes of the real problem, (c) institute a “special project” to handle those causes, (d) see if the problem was now better handled, (e) abandon it if it didn’t handle the problem or (f) make it a standard programme if it did prove effective, (g) diminish the old programme.

So just dropping a proven programme (without going at it as above [a] to [f]) can be a catastrophe as it can let in an old problem when one already has quite enough problems already.

Abandoned programmes that were successful are currently the main cause of orgs being in any difficulty.

You can always make an org run better by studying old successful programmes and getting them back in.

If you were to take the above list at Saint Hill, the major SH programmes since 1959, and simply revert them (make them more like the original) and reinforce them, income would probably double.

If we abandoned as few as five of these the SH org would undoubtedly collapse.

If we added six new programmes directly into the org without seeing the problem to be solved we could distract staff to a point where the old standard programmes would suffer and the org would collapse.

Sometimes, even in our orgs, we enter new arbitraries which make new problems we don’t need. Those are the sources we can do without. If we didn’t routinely abolish such org-generated problems we would fade away in a year.

Therefore we cherish and forward the existing programmes we have and study them continually to be sure they don’t “go out”.

This is not a list of the problems faced at Saint Hill, it is a list of solutions. For these programmes may accidentally be solving problems we cannot yet clearly state.

This is not a list of all major programmes in Scientology. These are found in the Policy Letters of past years and particularly 1965.

This is a list of the major SH programmes for use by SH executives and as an illustration to others on how to programme and to show them that as Scientologists we use our knowledge of the mechanics of life, problems and solutions, to govern programmes.

If all the problems we faced were only ours only we could of course simply audit them out. But we exist in a 3rd and 4th Dynamic which is not merely aberrated but quite batty. This thrusts problems on us (finance, international ignorance and intolerance, religious and psychiatric cults, suppressive governments, retarded or misused scientific technology, lack of human dignity and a host of other factors).

We exist therefore in a rather madly tossing sea, beset by numerous counter currents.

As we grow we can remove vicious causes that make our problems problems. Only then can we begin to drop certain programmes as the problems will cease to exist. But at this writing those problems do exist and holding them in check are numerous solutions we call programmes.

Where one of our standard programmes fails through lack of recognition we then see a problem charging in on us demanding crash programming by higher executives.

When we let uninformed or worse people put in new arbitraries or solutions that solve no problem we disturb old programmes and soon have heavy trouble through unnecessary programming. (Watching a new inexperienced Ad Council propose “programmes” is a painful experience to a trained and effective executive. These proposed measures look silly because they confront no real problems of the org and are dangerous because they will distract the org from correct existing programmes of which the new Ad Council seems blissfully unaware.)

When an org doesn’t know its programmes it can get pretty silly and deeply in trouble. If it also knows its problems it is fortunate.

But any Scientology org is rich in programmes already proven and tested and in exact drill. If it just keeps these going it will win even if it doesn’t see the problems.

As it wins the org expands, can afford more assistance, is less under duress. Then it can begin to examine the problems themselves (still keeping the solution as a programme) and possibly remove some of the causes of the actual problem. Only when the problem is gone can one drop a programme.

A Scientology org is best fitted to do this as its staff is going up tone by processing and is more and more able to confront and see source. Therefore it eventually can remove the causes of its problems since it can (a) see the problem and (b) see the bad sources which make the problem.

Until it can see, it is not safe to drop any of the solutions. And as orgs are a channel or a way in themselves they always will have a bottom strata of people who cannot yet see the problems and so need explicit programmes to follow. As the lower strata moves up, a new lower strata, by expansion, takes its place so there is no real end to programmes until the day comes when the Universe is sane.

And that’s not tomorrow or even the day after.

But we are making steady, relentless progress in that direction. Mainly because of our programmes, well applied.