1.) Normally, you don't offload or fire anyone unless the terms of his staff application form or contract have been falsified.

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.

2.) The "bad off" cases will normally falsify it anyhow.

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.

3.) Ex: They say they are "free from debts" and they owe 10,000!

3.) There were two reasons for this:

4.) The time comes when you can only "hold up and support" someone for only so long. So, HANDLE staff so they CAN perform.

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

5.) But if they produce enormous amounts of Dev-T, you are better off putting them on a direct, simple job under direct, constant supervision.

6.) The "bad off" person used to be called "insane" about 100 years ago.

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.

7.) There is another category of person by the way: (See # 11, ESTO 3)

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

D.) The guy who lives an oddball life, you know? He doesn't eat or sleep much, burns his candle at both ends, etc. You just handle these with good 8C. "You get some sleep. I want you "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" tomorrow. And EAT well."

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.

8.) Your first action usually in HANDLING a goofy area is just to directly handle it with an order, right away. You observe, do a fast on the spot eval and TELL the guy and order the correct action done. This is the "cope" HANDLING.

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

9.) Here comes the Reality that an ESTO must know. When you tell somebody the TRUTH they get good indicators. (IF you don't relay it "nastilly or 1.1" or in an invalidative manner.)

8.) And Dev-T drowns the org.

10.) My messengers are trained to run messages and orders back and forth until GIs come in. Why? Because he will get GIs when he hits the TRUTH.

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.

11.) A student who has passed and deserved the pass, when TOLD he has passed, will get GI's. (GIs = good indicators)

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

12.) A student who has passed and deserved to pass, when TOLD he hasn't passed, will get BI's. (BIs = bad indicators)

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

13.) Why? It's NOT the TRUTH.

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!

14.) A person who hasn't passed honestly, and is told he hasn't passed honestly, will get GIs.

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.

15.) So the way you get GIs is with the truth.

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

16.) A person who HASN'T passed and is told he HAS passed will get BIs.

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.

17.) So you TELL THEM the truth. Ex: A staff applicant has 3 girlfriends and promised to marry 2 of them. You tell him "that's a situation" and he "should handle it". He gets GIs because he KNOWS he should.

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.

18.) If you hit the right why, you get GIs. So tell them.

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

19.) Now if you don't get GIs, you haven't got the right why, so don't go off into accusing the person or other desperate statements. Just recognize you don't have the right why.

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?"

20.) The "reasonability" of the humanoid starts coming in in some cases, the "cultural reasonability".

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

Ex: Person drinks too much. You tell him to stop drinking BIs come in. A "reasonable" person will think the BIs are because he was told to stop drinking. No, it's because DRINKING is NOT the RIGHT WHY for this person. It's NOT what is wrong with him. You have missed.

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!)

21.) Actually, people love to have their lives inquired into. It's a great relief to them. If you stick to the TRUTH and don't invalidate them. An ESTO will only feel bad about doing it if he can't find the RIGHT "why".

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

22.) Psychoanalysists are not liked in this respect because they are always finding and indicating the "wrong why".

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

23.) They will find the slightest early childhood "lock" and indicate it as the "reason" for all the person's problems and neuroses in life.

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

24.) They know Dianetics "works". They use it to get the person to recall childhood so they can evaluate their own fixed idea to the patient when anything comes up that seems to fit. Ex: "Aha, you hate your father because he didn't change your diapers when you were a baby!"

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

25.) So your action with a staff member is to find the information about what is causing the non-optimum performance, tell them what it is and to handle it. If you get GIs, you've got it. If you get BIs, you haven't got it.

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.

26.) If you didn't get GIs, then immediately find the RIGHT WHY.

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?"

27.) Now, however, if you have to handle the same person every day, then it's more deep seated and is an AUDITING problem, and requires case handling.

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.

28.) Remember, you are just trying to get the person to do the functions of his post and produce his products without Dev-T. So if he DOES, fine. If he doesn't, find the WHY and tell him to handle. If he DOES produce then, fine. But if it goes on and on, only auditing will handle it. You have a PC as a staff member.

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.

29.) Remember this: IF SOMEONE IS GIVING YOU DEV-T - and you are the expert in handling it - THEN they are raising HELL with every one else in the org, because those people don't know how to defend themselves against Dev-T!

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!"

30.) F HE GENERATES DEV-T FOR YOU AND IS HARD TO HANDLE,HE IS HELL ON OTHER PEOPLE'S LINES.

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.

31.) You are only getting a small portion of what he is handing out elsewhere.

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!

32.) Just indicate this datum to executives and they will have a big realization about this - because they have Dev-T sources on their lines, but perhaps didn't realize that when not in view to them, then Dev-T is being caused on the REST OF THE ORG out of sight!

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.

33.) Now, what about this guy you can't handle? Well, you could Comm EV and off-load or have a fitness board, etc. But it is worth-while to SALVAGE personell as long as you don't take it to great lengths. You give them a chance. Always give them a chance.

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

34.) For example, you can have an "Estates Project Force" to do jobs under Supervision. MEST work.

- 3 injuries

35.) But watch out, because a remarkable thing can happen. Others will use the Project Force as a PERSONELL POOL and put these Dev-T producers right back on a post BEFORE they are handled!

- Broken dishes.

36.) People just coming into the org could also get their basics in by being put on the Project Force while learning their basics.

- Commodore and 2 messengers involved for 1 hour.

37.) So there would be two categories on the Project Force:

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

Category A: New people learning their basics.

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

Category B: People who have had a chance and are being rehabilitated so they can produce without Dev-T.

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.

38.) Don't put Category B people back on post until they ARE handled.

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

39.) Employment, Exercise, and a Change of Enviornment can do wonders for a person.

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).

40.) Before psychairitry, there were practitioners called "Alienists" who used to do this kind of therapy. Back in the 1800's.

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

41.) Employment, Exercise amnd Change of Enviornment with Supervision will Extrovert people quite remarkably.

39.) Ex:

42.) If a staff memeber is doing this and getting his basics in better and his staff hat on, why then he can have another chance.

- Bulk mail stat down.

43.) You will find that you can salvage a lot of Dev-T producers that way. So there should be such a unit. But it MUST be run right!

- Investigated.

44.) You don't want it to happen that no one ever gets OFF an Estates Project Force. That way no one would ever get another chance. And if it was new staff, they never would get ANY chance.

- Found no postage money asked for in FP.

45.) We have found that if you use a new staff member as an HCO Expeditor, he gets sneaked into a post almost immediately WITHOUT hatting.

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

46.) Most of your failures here at FLAG were because a new staff recruit came and was put at once onto a post without basics. It was VERY UNeconomical. Ex: Four were put on in Mimeo Files and 8 months later had accomplished NOTHING.

- 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".

47.) So it is a waste of time to put someone on post with no BASICS in.

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.

48.) The principle these Project Forces work on is: ONE JOB, ONE PLACE, ONE TIME. If you just scatter them around through the org, the whole purpose is defeated.

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!

49.) If that rule is violated, then you will NOT get a result of your order to "assign this person to the Project Force until case and study are handled".

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

50.) It takes an MAA (Master at Arms) or Ethics Officer to be in charge of such a unit.

51.) They are run on Project Orders to paint, polish, build, renovate, clean, etc. Thus they are doing productive work and are not a drag on the organization.

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.

52.) The MAA muster them, orders them and keeps them working. The MAA is NOT a member of the Project Force. He is Hatted Staff Member.

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.

53.) So it is a valuable, organized, operated, producing unit.

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.

54.) They MUST have study time to get their basics in. When graduated from Basics (or RETRAIN of Basics), they go onto a regular post.

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".

55.) The anxiety of people for posting more staff will defeate the project force unless it is protected very strongly. This anxiety for personell can cause enormous Dev-T in an org by itself.

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

56.) Ex: Stewards area crashes, plates broken, area filthy, execs frantic. It was found that the steward's project force were all put on POSTS in the area without completing their basic study and hatting.

57.) So there is a way to salvage people. You don't have to comm EV, Fitness Board, or offload them necessairily.

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

58.) UNLESS they are definitely a "pc2 after all this. They will tell you they are only there to have their "case" handled.

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

59.) Staff members have to handle the WORLD. They don't have time to handle ALSO cases within their own ranks in the org.

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.

60.) The amount of Dev-T will interiorize it, engulf it, and it won't be able to function.

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.

61.) Now I have given you the methods of establishing whether a staff member or recruit is allright or not, and the methods of handling him when he isn't allright.

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

62.) It's a sort of a STANDARD TECH for handling staff. It's STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE TECH. This is what you do, ok?

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

63.) Now, if or when the staff is OK, you just hat and train and keep improving his post performance and you are away!

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

64.) Then the division or org will function.

65.) What you as an ESTO will tend to bog down on, is that Category of "NOT OK for post". Don't get FIXATED on this kind of people or you will neglect the org!

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.

66.) Remember, don't "reward a down stat" with your time and attention to the exclusion of other producing staff, or you won't have a division or org.

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

67.) A C/S can fall into this trap too. He doesn't do the steps to get trained auditors, so sticks trying to keep on handling the same thins over and over.

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.

68.) As an ESTO, you may have to hat the C/Ses too.

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.

69.) You say. "Bit wow! He's a Class 12, What do I know about his post?"

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).

70.) Oh, yeah? He may be a Class 12 Technical Person, but REMEMBER, auditors quite often know NOTHING about administrative tech. It is one of their MAJOR WEAKNESSES.

• OCA = OXFORD CAPACITY ANALYSIS

71.) If you try to put a Class VIII; NON-ADMIN TRAINED person on, say, HCO, you WON'T get a HCO Exec and you have LOST an auditor.

"EVALUATION... PART 2" -6- ESTO SERIES - 4

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.

72.) So if that occurs, you know as an ESTO, you have PLENTY of hatting to do.

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

73.) Now if you have a highly trained technical Person who is ALSO trained as an administrator - WOW! This is great! Teriffic!

74.) But it can get lopsided the other way too. You can have a staff member who doesn't even know the ARC triangle!

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.

75.) You will find both conditions:

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!

- People on ADMIN posts who say "HCOBs have nothing to do with us".

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!

- People on TECH posts who say "HCOPLs have nothing to do with us".

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.

76.) So, if you as an ESTO are handling a C/S who can't get his auditors delivering successfully, you will normally find he has not completed the cycle of:

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

1) Instruct

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.)

2) Cram

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

3) Retread

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.

4) Retrain

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.

but has become stuck in 1) and 2).

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

77.) Now a "RETREAD" is Method 4 Wordclearing on ALL the materials of the area of tech the auditor is goofing up on. So after a few Instructs and Crams, you order a "Retread".

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.

78.) You as an ESTO should know how to do M4 on a meter to find misunderstoods in people's hats.

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

79.) M4 does not interupt auditing or "ruin his case". It can be done anytime. It's just spotting and handling specific MUs.

It includes:

Tip: Don't ask too broad a question or you won't get anything.

- THE TEST BATTERY

Ex:

- HIS ETHICS RECORD

"Is there an MU word in your hat?" - WRONG.

- HIS PERSONELL RECORD

"Is there a MU word in this PL?" (as he looks it over; READ!) - CORRECT.

- HIS STATISTIC RECORD

80.) A RETREAD can also be done in a cycle of:

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

- EXAM on materials.

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.

- M4 on areas of not-know or wrong answers.

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

- RE-STUDY those areas after MUs handled.

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!

- EXAM on materials to a pass.

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

81.) After this he goes back to auditing. Now we Instruct and Cram again a few times. But if he goofs up continually now - we send him to 4) RETRAIN.

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

82.) A RETRAIN is a whole re-do of the course as if he was a brand new student.

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

83.) Then back to auditing. Now, if he doesn't make it, that's it. An auditor is allowed only one RETREAD and one RETRAIN.

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

84.) That's all you are willing to spend. It's EXPENSIVE to the org to retrain its auditors, in terms of the "coins of the org".

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

85.) You are always spending the "coins" of the org when you are handling personell. It's expensive. So don't always spend them on the same guy.

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

86.) I hope you never run into it, but sometimes a person will not send auditors to cram or retread because it "might ARC Break them". Wow! How about all the pcs THEY are ARC Breaking?

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.

87.) So, if you find auditors goofing after many crams, Courts, chits, etc., it's because the RETREAD was never done. It is a missing gradient in study. Somewhere the guy missed it.

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

88.) They can't LEARN or they can't DO. The missing step or MU must be found so they can LEARN and APPLY.

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

89.) If a person like this is sent to a project force, he can learn to DO things, CONFRONT Mest, to BE there in the Universe instead of just "figger-figgering" all the time. He can EXTROVERT, REACH outward, EXTERIORIZE, LOOK outward. Nobody ever made them do this.

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.)

90.) The Instruct, Cram, Retread, Retrain cycle applies to ADMIN Posts as well. As an ESTO you may have to send 3/4 of an area or division to Retread their hats. Or to Retrain while on the Project Force. Just like that you don't have a division. The Product Officer is screaming!

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.

91.) So how do you handle? You DO it. You may do it on a "one or two" at a time basis, or make the remaining staff cope like mad until the retread & retrains are back. You hold it there by "forte main". (Main Force).

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!

92.) Here is the real test of an ESTO. Because he will find people who have been there a "long time" but who have never done basics. And those who are overdue for retread or retrain.

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!

93.) People don't know "why they are there" or have "orientation" without the basics.

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

94.) The WRONG thing to do is to just conclude they are malicious or insane and just "shoot them".

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

95.) So you do as I've told you. Find the why. Put on the hats. Demonstrate a product producing ability. If needs basics, get them in.

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.

96.) You may have to do several evaluations during a day's work to find "whys". A very LIGHT day might be 4 or so.

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.

97.) It may be more like 20! But these are not the kind of Evals you do by writing it all up and doing a program. You do it from Observations, Questions & Answers to get Data. Evaluate and analyze the data to find outpoints, investigate more thoroughly that area with the most outpoints, find the WHY. Indicate it, and issue the order and get it complied with NOW! It can be all done in your head and the orders given verbally. But you better know the ideal scenes and policy for the area so you don't cross it and cause Dev-T yourself. Got it?

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.

98.) Now you are handling human beings, and they have feelings, so HE&R is definitely a commodity here.

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.

99.) The HE&R is handled by

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

1.) Finding Right Whys.

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

2.) Issuing the Correct Orders to Handle (Indicating the correct action).

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

3.) Never being reasonable about it, but being direct and forthright.

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.

100.) Now when you get somebody this DOESN'T work on, you have a pc there, a case.

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

101.) This is an auditing situation and requires "handling in depth" of a being who is way off the rails. This is best done while he is on a Project Force getting in his basics.

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.

102.) You DON'T want to keep them on post in the org because they are basically:

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."

• OUT OF COMM

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

• OTHER PURPOSED

• HAVE PROBLEMS

102.) Your viewpoint as an ESTO is:

• ARE ABERRATED

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

103.) Ex: After lots of auditing, he finds he has always had a problem with his mother, but she has been dead for 20 years.

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

104.) Aberration is NOT the same as Insanity.

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

Aberration is the basis of OUTPOINTS in thinking.

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.) There are the:

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.

1.) INSANE

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".

2.) PTS

3.) ABERRATED

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

106.) These are the 3 categories of being or states of being that produce NON-OPTIMUM behaviour.

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.

107.) They are 3 ENTIRELY different things.

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".

108.) The INSANE you detect by graphs and behaviour. (SP Characteristics, Ev. Purps.)

111.) So, it falls into 3 groups:

The PTS "roller-coaster" - grief, anatago, 1.1 "nice", propitiation, up and down.

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%)

The merely ABERRATED has outpoints in his thinking and doing.

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.....

109.) I made a list to handle these "aberrated" ones. It's called an "HC list". (Because at one time there was going to be a "Hubbard Counsellor") (or "Consultant".)

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.

110.) The HC list is simply an OUTPOINT LIST. And it's assessed.

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

111.) It's to find where the guy has outpoints crossing up his thinking.

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

112.) Having "outpoints in thinking" makes a person look very stupid. But it can be handled.

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

113.) I will outline these 3 for you more exactly:

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

- The INSANE person will make destructive "mistakes" and "errors". But they are NOT mistakes and errors to him. He knows all the time how to do it right and is DELIBERATELY trying to harm or destroy the organization. He is doing it KNOWINGLY. He will try to "cover it up", pretend they were "mistakes", etc.

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

- The PTS will get on everybody's lines, cause a lot of Dev-T, and be observed to go up and down the tone scale like a "yo-yo".

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?

- The ABERRATED will appear stupid in some areas, make mistakes, etc. but will handle when the outpoints are handled. He can improve.

114.) Now these are the 3 lowest categories pf personell. (A totally untrained person may ALSO apper "stupid" and make "mistakes" BUT in the course of normal hatting improves at a rate exactly proportional to the knowledge & application he receives by getting hatted or trained.

115.) So there is the ABERRATED one with outpoints who has trouble learning and applying.

And the MISSING DATA one who just needs hatting and then all is well.

116.) The guy who is NOT trained or hatted has missed his gradients and just DOES NOT KNOW. This is the "MISSING DATA" staff member.

117.) You, as an ESTO, are dealing with the field of OMITTED TECHNOLOGY.

118.) Where a staff are unhatted, the technology has been OMITTED.

119.) It's not that it doesn't exist. They just didn't study it or read it.

120.) Now, the ABERRATED one, who has OUTPOINTS in his thinking, don't believe they are just to do with Scientology or Tech or Policy. No, he's got them there all the time. If he's an "altered sequence" outpoint case, his time track will be all mixed up and he will talk and explain things also OUT OF SEQUENCE. Ex: " I came to the Sea Org then I left home before I was born."

121.) The simple outpoint of "OMITTED TECH" bridges from the aberrated one to the usual qualified staff member who CAN be trained and hatted. (And usually looks for the tech and data HIMSELF to learn more about his job.)

122.) So the 3 types of UNQUALIFIED STAFF are: INSANE, PTS (simply connected to somebody who IS insane), to the ABERRATED (outpoints), then to the OMITTED DATA (who just needs to be trained) and this bridges right into the QUALIFIED STAFF MEMBER.

123.) If you are very lucky, you will be dealing with these second types (QUALIFIED) who just need to be hatted or told what to do.

124.) From here on, your usual hatting and ESTO tech works very easily and well. If not, you have skipped a gradient or passed a MU or failed to detect the guy was really in a lower category.

ABERRATED = HC LIST

PTS = PTS RD

INSANE = PrPr 6 or Expanded Dianetics, etc.

125.) And when hiring, you will save yourself enormous amount of trouble by just NOT taking on a "pc".

126.) You are dealing with PERSONELL.

- PERSONELL ACQUISITION

- PERSONELL CORRECTION

128.) The Jesuits, I was told once, are taught to accept the world as it is and begin there. This is what an ESTO does. The staff he has are the staff that is THERE and that's where he begins.

129.) So when you go back to your org, we start with what you've got and start hatting them. Then if it doesn't work on a few, they are in these lower categories, so you find which, and handle.

130.) So you are dealing with people as they ARE and as what you HOPE they will be.

131.) So how LONG can you deal with people on a "HOPE THEY WIL BE GOOD STAFF" basis?

132.) Well, with an auditor it may be several MONTHS. Therefor, the recruitment of auditors should take place far ahead of anyone else, and no matter how soon you start, it will be too late. There's ALWAYS a need for auditors.

133.) So you do work on a HOPE basis. But when you walk in to a division, you start with what you have RIGHT THERE, RIGHT NOW.

134.) Then your HOPE factor comes in - What you HOPE to do with the personell and what do you have to do to make that HOPE come true?

135.) And that is your up-grade toward the IDEAL SCENE.

136.) And many are the losses which one must be willing to experience in this line of country.

137.) So realize that you are still making progress when you do three steps forward and only 2 back ( a way they tech the school children in Russia). You will eventually get there.

138.) If you expect success with EVERY human being, you are an optimist the like of which is not seen much anymore, because there are other STRESSES operating on people in the culture of society today.

139.) And other STRESSES in the org itself. Ex: A high exec wants a key staff member to go onto a network job or to Flag, or they want them offloaded.

140.) How do you handle this? Well, don't just sit there and try to "defend" the staff from Execs. That won't help. But do make a sound recommendation on what to do to either SALVAGE or REPLACE the person.

141.) The only way you will get in trouble as an ESTO is if the staff are not getting MORE EFFECTIVE ON POST as you go along.

142.) If they stay the same or get LESS effective, execs and staff both will be colliding with you, AND them. The Dev-T will get enormous. (Ex: You fail to handle the Treasury Division Hats, so the staff don't get paid after waiting in line and the check for payroll can't be cashed till Monday. Now you have HE&R from staff, execs, everybody! All over Treasury AND you.)

143.) So you had better give a "hope factor" to the guys you are hatting too! So they will feel the future will be better, less noise and confusion, stable orderly working conditions, regular pay, etc.

144.) Get them to envision a little more of the "ideal scene" that they CAN envision.

145.) If they finally get to where they ARE producing and wearing their hats - their MORALE will go right on up and they will WIN.

146.) If you guide them well and do the standard things to handle them, these guys will WIN.

147.) It would be great if it all went 1, 2, 3. You get a hat compiled, get it in his hands, check him out, get him producing and then you find it isn't working out - he's OFF post every time you come around. Why? - Well, THAT'S your first EVALUATION.

148.) Now, be prepared to find out anything. And when you do find it out, handle it.

149.) So expect these "bumps" in the road. But you have the tools to handle it. And when you have the "Right Why" handled, it will all straighten out - bongo!

150.) And the beautiful part is that you will find that the "malice" or "bad intention" under it was so slight, in most cases, as to be nearly negligible.

151.) (Gives example of an area where all staff were ridgy, B.I.s, antago, sullen, etc. Finally investigation discovered the "Right Why" that even the staff didn't realize until indicated. Then VGIs and cooperation all over the place. The staff had been driven by outpoints and "wrong whys" into almost a "quiet mutiny". Now, it all blew and VGIs came in - and there was NOT malice or bad intention in the whole area!)

152.) So I just wish that some of these birds who used to run Slave Plantations, and guys like Napoleon who used to run armies and the heads of some of these totalitarian States, would do a little study on the Data Series.

153.) Because they would find out that man was not an "evil beast".

154.) The INABILITY of the Catholic Church, Angelican, Methodist, and other faiths, to unravel the "WHY" that lay behind Human Emotion & Reaction (HE&R), that conceived them utterly that man was a "sinful" being convinced in sin, born in sin, and would die in sin. He was "EVIL". You can see them now shaking their fingers at their congregations and preaching that they were all "evil sinners". No, they just never had the RIGHT WHY.

155.) So, your own future MORALE as an EESTO, ist greatly dependent on your ability to penetrate a situation and discover a correct "WHY".

156.) The definition of a WHY is: "something that will move something higher toward an ideal scene".

157.) And your REWARD will be the total CERTAINTY that you are NOT handling MALICIOUS OR EVIL BEINGS.

158.) Thank you very much!