Now the org officer, in a highly idealized org, would have an organizing officer in each division of that org, as the deputy secretary. And would call these cats together, and would say, "This is the way it jumps. Let's have the product here of projects. And what are each one of you guys going to do in order to do this?"

Now the product officer at this particular stage of the game would simply be going on getting more product. Now I do this unreasonable thing whenever I'm in an org, and one of the reasons it's very, very workable in an org; you will see an org go zoom around it. And the reason why is I never take any pity on the organization. I am the most pitiless production officer you have ever heard of. Absolutely pitiless. And if not followed up by an organization action, and compliance with orders to organize, why then I have to start operating to correct the product and correct the establishment, but I do it.

1.) As the Product Officer gets products, he stacks up more resources in terms of money - but he may not have ANY resources in terms of TRAINED PERSONEL.

For instance, every now and then you hear of a director of processing or a CS, or the head of, the tech sec saying, "We can't take more than six pcs because we don't have any more auditors than that." And at that moment you will find me issuing an order to promotion, "At once, promote, to get in all the pcs you possibly can get in from everywhere. To the registrar, sign everyone up. And to the tech sec, you've had it. Where is that part of your hat that says you are to employ auditors? How many auditors do you know? Where do you know them? Get them in here. I think probably your peak load will probably come in another fourteen days, so you have lots of time to put on twelve additional auditors. Get them totally trained and grooved in, and your estate bureau, who ever is handling buildings and so forth, rent two more houses."

2.) The SO is expanding since 67, 68 - Now have 3 AOs, 3 SHs, more orgs, more franchises. The stats have become more "compartmented" but over all, added up, Scientology is expanding and is now bigger than even the '68 boom period.

Now, what do you have to do if you do all this? Now we went back over the analysis of successful actions. Successful actions. And the analysis of successful actions in this particular field is a complete pitiless product officer. He never thinks of the organization, he never thinks of its capacity, except to utilize it to its totality. If he's got an idle piece of machinery that ought to be turning out bunjucks, then by god, had better start turning out bunjucks, even though he has to grab the office boy and tell him to start winding that crank, and send out the janitor to steal raw material to put through it. Now that takes a hell of a disorganization, doesn't it? So where's your org officer that makes that correction real and that can push it back up, after you've done all that?

3.) The point where the strain shows up is the SO, because it doesn't have enough personell to quite keep up with it.

Well, the org officer actions which I have done in an org apparently are not repeated by other people in orgs. I have a report from LRH comms that they continually say, "The greatest trouble they have with an executive of an org is to get them to walk through their portion of the org." Now that is a direct report line, and so forth. Just awful, that's just awful. That's treason. Well, what the hell are they doing sitting there? What are they doing sitting at that desk? The executives of an organization...

4.) The orgs could be doing better, but franchise is doing well.

I'm only justified in sitting at a desk because I have a twenty-four hour messenger watch, and they run like hell. That's right. And I'm not justified sitting too long at that desk, only I have lines of information which come in from all over the place. I make sure that those lines stay in. But who are these line to? These lines are not necessarily; I'm the fellow who violates the external/internal. I don't know, I can do it and I don't find other people can. I don't know why that is, so I've not solved it particularly. But I do know that I resent having to handle too much product three while I am also having to wear some of my own hats. I know that there's some resentment will come up in that line sooner or later, mostly because there are only twenty-four hours in this cockeyed planet's day. There's only so much you can do. Of course that's a bad postulate too, because as I told you before, god couldn't hold this post. Not possible. You will also be saying that yourself, god can't hold this post, unless you listen very carefully to what I am telling you children, the Jabberwocky.

5.) In Washington DC, early days, they split off their personell to set up feeder orgs, but the feeders became independent so the result was that Washington became weaker in trained personell.

The whole point in the thing is there's ways to live with this. That there are certain ways to do this, and they are very standard. Now I can't imagine, it assaults my R, that somebody in charge of an organization would not be, have all kinds of mechanisms, being familiar with the organization, or that an executive would depend in any way, shape or form on his dispatches. Dispatches are usually to forward information, schedules, things that are written down, need OKs and that sort of thing. Dispatches aren't there to handle things. It would just be impossible, if you weren't in total communication with your organization, to handle it at all. It just assaults my R, it's not possible. And I have a very willing group, and they write me anything that they think I ought to know about. That has the liability that you mustn't act on such reports when they contain too much entheta, and so on. You never act on such reports, without getting a recoil. Once in a while I do, I'm always sorry that I do, but it keeps information up.

6.) The SO is now running 3 AOs. They make the same income as one AO when combinded, but it's 3 Establishments to care for.

I also have the ability to look around without going around too much. And the net result of that is a fairly close finger on the pulse. We go back over successful actions, when I'm running an org as an executive director, at least once a day I walk through that entire organization, and speak to every person in that organization. And as I'm normally operating from a product point of view, I nevertheless, because we had no product/org officer system at that time, take the organization step as well. I'm interested in what their product is, I'm interesting in what they're doing personally. I'm interested in what they need on their post, in order to get their product out. There are some people here who've seen me do this."'? Now I sometimes miss a day, and so forth, but I know when I've missed a day, and I know when I should get some more information. And the result of that is, that the org officer's function is performed, completely in addition to the product officer's function, the org officer function.

7.) The "better idea" now to handle this is force ALL of them to be BIG! (Don't contract, or "go back" to a former size or operating basis.)

Now, an org officer should make a daily inspection around the org, finding out how the staff members are doing. And noting when they're not hatted or slightly unhatted, and rapidly put their hats on, if there's any trouble with that. You'll find hat is the main thing that goes out. There's evidently a scale of hats, which we've suddenly evolved here. I haven't named any of these things. They've been a spontaneous evolution from some quarter or another inside the ship here. And there's instant hatting, there's mini hatting, and then there's full hatting. New nomenclature.

8.) The "ban" in Australia was totally ineffective. We have our books back and orgs are operating again. It's a dead "statute" (or law), because it isn't enforced.

Instant hatting is a sort of an action you do when you slam somebody onto a post and he's got to take the load of it and so forth, and you tell him what you want him to do. That's just instant hatting. You tell him what his post title is and what he's supposed to be doing on that post. Instant hatting, brrr. Don't get on with it. And then of course, HCO can come along, if he's going to be posted there actually. HCO can come along and the first thing they would do, would give him a mini hat. And if it takes more than about thirty minutes to get on a mini hat, then there's probably something wrong with either HCO or the staff member. And then they schedule him up to be fully hatted. That's the sequence of events. If they're fully hatted they get a certificate for it, so that's always been missing. Who is certified for what as having passed what hat? Actually it should be something that happens and is accounted for in a certs and awards area.

9.) If you don't continue to pile up resources in terms of trained staff, space, and money - that is what is going to break your back - because you are EXPANDING and to keep up with it you need RESOURCES.

So the org officer, however, is not just unhumanly interested in the organization, the org officer is interested in the individual as an individual, how he doing, how he is getting on, whether he is able to do his job, if his health is maintaining, if that post is over loaded, if it needs help, or if the post is empty and isn't getting any product.

10.) Don't plan on a "level" graph. Keep making resources - trained hatted people, allegiance in the field, etc.

How is this fellow doing? Is he so, has he got nothing to do on post so that he is bored stiff? Has he got too much to do on post and is going down hill? Now let's add this up to detection of a decline, product three. And with a daily swing around an organization, and seeing everybody in the organization, an org officer would of course be in a position; he doesn't take up their time, he doesn't talk to them very long; he would be in a position then to know what was cooking in the place. He would have to know everybody in the place, he would have to know what every one in the place did, so that he could immediately detect any departure from the ideal scene. But he would also be interested in whether the person was getting his pay, whether the person was having troubles.

11.) Auditors Assn, handling ARCB in the field, reviews done, etc. will keep you expanding when the strain comes - (those people, who hat RESULTS, will HELP.)

Now it isn't that this would affect efficiency, it's he's interested in them as human being. And that would be an essential action of the org officer.

12.) The Org Officer has to keep track of RESOURCES. Especially TRAINED people. He should be "greedy". He should stack them up - Auditors, Books, Money, etc. The Product Officer keeps making products, but the O/O should keep track of them as RESOURCES for EXPANSION.

Now it's alright to have a chaplain doing this sort of thing, but the trouble with having a chaplain doing this sort of thing is the org officer wouldn't have the information, would he? So therefore he couldn't repair a decline or anticipate a decline. So he couldn't do his product three.

13.) OVER-hat as much as possible - a person who knows 3 hats is a better resource than a person who only knows ONE hat.

Now as he walks around on that sort of thing, he would also get a look at the rest of the establishment. What's it look like? Now he could determine out of that they didn't have enough cleaners, or people weren't interested in cleaning, or the cleaning establishment was organized all backwards. Cleaning establishment might have posted themselves as cleaner in charge, and have no product of any kind whatsoever, like clean quarters, or anything of this sort. Maybe all the locks are falling off the doors. Well that obviously means that somebody is, some maintenance hat is totally neglected around here. So here is a needed organizational piece. Well he fills that in. He doesn't go in and look at the org board and say, "Where are some holes in this org board?" As a matter of fact, he might do quite the reverse. In wandering around and talking to the people, and checking them off on his list and so forth on his rounds, he might find out that about thirty percent of that org board is mis-posted. Now he certainly should do something about it. He can leave the org board hanging there, with all those posts held from above that are inactive, or he's got to determine whether or not those posts have any functions and should be filled. He's got to make a judgement. Three. The decline. Arresting the decline.

14.) Sudden "demands" can now be handled: Ex:

Alright, from the arresting of the decline he can pass information through so that those responsible for putting the establishment there, who are under his orders, those responsible for it can get together and push it back to its ideal scene, or even raise the ideal scene's height, so that is can handle the traffic. Now do you see how the lines would go there?

New Building? - OK - by the O/O:

Now the production officer and so on is worrying about product all this time, and he will find holes. And he will find what he is doing, so he keeps notes of these thing. And he, while getting his product, passes this information back to the org officer. The org officer, if he's made his tours and he knows what it's all about and so forth, probably knows at that point who's idle, who isn't idle, what he can do to instantly shift this thing. Go over and get somebody by the nap of the neck and shove them over onto that post, and that sort of thing. He knows exactly where his personnel resources are. He knows exactly where his supplies are. As he goes on his tour he also knows where all the spare typewriters that aren't being used are and what state they are in, and the mimeograph machine, and whether the photo offset machine has got any supplies for it, and he's got this and he's got that and he's got the other thing. And he's got his finger on all these points, so that he can detect an incipient or existing decline, get the Now of course one of the things he has to do, and the biggest hole we've got in an organization is hat. And that is the first thing that an org officer detects is wrong, the person's hat. Just like that. "We're having trouble with the, we're having trouble over here with the success stories, and so forth." He doesn't wonder, the org officer doesn't wonder whether or not, he can almost in advance know that whoever is, there is either nobody on the line, or that people on that line haven't got their hat. He can just, just like that. "Well, unhatted, good."

Million Dollars? - OK.

You'll find out that this work work out ninety-nine and forty-four one hundredths percent of the time. Something wrong with the hats and so forth, so he just does an instant hatting, right away quick. "Look, you're supposed to sit here at the desk, and when the people come along and they give you these successes and so forth, why you're supposed to have some paper here, and they write down the successes. And you're supposed not to snarl at them, or frown at them, you're supposed to be pleasant to them. And they write down their successes, and you take those over and you put them in this folder and so forth, so that that can be staticized, and so that those are available for promotion, so they can be counted. You got that now?" And the guy says, "Well, actually, so on, I haven't seen any case gains go through this org. You see, I don't have any case gain myself. I mean, you know, and I've just been wondering whether or not Scientology works, you see?" And the org officer at that moment knows exactly what to do.

20 Auditors? - OK.

He knows exactly what to do at that particular split instant. He knows exactly where there is a personnel who isn't totally utilized. Within three and a half minutes flat there is another personnel sitting there, and he tells this other personnel, "Now, when the people come through along this line, you have this piece of paper and so on. And there's your ball points and here's a pad over here, and when they write up that thing and so on, why you put in in the folder so it can be counted up. You got that all straight now? Good. Now when people don't come through this line, let's get your hat a little bit expanded now. When people don't come through that line, you go in and you tell the examiner to send them to you, and you put a sign on the examiner's desk. And if that doesn't work we'll move your desk over alongside the examiner's desk. How's that?" The guy says, "What am I supposed to be doing?" And you say, "You're the success officer. You're the guy who is supposed to monitor the successes people have, and so forth. And you have this piece of paper, and don't snarl at them and don't bla-bla, and so on."

15.) The O/O only falls behind when his resources are limited.

What do you do with this other guy? Route him to qual. HGO says, "What's the state of the personnel in this org today?" "Transferred all the left side over to the right side, and the right side over to the left side." No, you've got to inform HCO, and get an authorization for the transfer, and the reason why and so on, and etcetera, and it's all done after the fact. Everything after the fact. Org officer always operates, he always tells people to authorize things after they have been done. He runs totally backwards.

16.) He gets ahead by increasing and hoarding his resources.

An org officer who sits around and waits for approvals of course is very safe, until you see his stats, because his stats will be nowhere. You get the, the run of the thing?

17.) You don't wand a "miser" as an O/O who never lets go of the resources. You want a "provident" O/O who has resources for USE in future need.

So what does he do about this person? He routes this person to qual. What does he do? He can now put it on a dispatch line, he can even give the person the dispatch, "Take this to qual." Maybe the person doesn't wind up in qual, but he's got to get another dispatch to HCO and say, "So and so has been routed to qual." Well what's qual going to do with him? That's qual's problem. Qual ought to be well enough organized to take care of that. Person says, "What do I do?" And qual says, "What's it all about?" They can find out. They also would then get some kind of, if the qual sec was part of the product/org scene, or if there was a deputy qual sec as there would be in ideally organized org, he would have the full gen on this, within the next day or so.

18.) You can't expand unless you have resources. So pile them up and keep ahead of the game.

Now the failure to publish what goes on is the fault. The failure to publish, and that is what your orders of the day are for. They are really not for those people who have cleaning stations and so forth, and Bessie Ann Glutz was married yesterday and we're happy about her, and so on. That has nothing to do with this. The org officer says so and so, and the product officer says so and so. And they don't have to be gloomy about it all, but they certainly have the dominant point. They have to keep the org informed as to their actions.

19.) In orgs I used to run, you find a lot of stuff piled up in the garage, never used. Was that a waste? No, it was just "providence" extended a little TOO far.

Now there's such a thing as keeping an org informed of just what is going on. But certainly, what affects the org would be the product officer and org officer, so that if they don't inform the org of what's going on, why all hell breaks loose, because nobody knows. And they become very unstabilized. And they go in, and they see an examiner one day, and they see another examiner the next day. And then they go around, and they think they're talking to the examiner, but he's now cleaning out mud boxes or something, and they think he sure looks funny as an examiner all covered with mud. And so forth, well they don't know. They don't know. Sews the place with little mysteries unless it's published what you did.

20.) If you looked around, you would ALSO see all the resources I DID use, and if you examined accounts you would see I also had high RESERVES OF MONEY in those periods. The staffs were also WELL AID at those times.

Now that in itself is quite an action. So, the action which I rehearsed on this thing and so on, because I actually moved in as a product officer, and I've been an org officer and so on, so I'm speaking from first hand information, not from a theoretical workout. Is, I found out that after I had undertaken a product and had begun to get the product, at that moment I had to write up whatever I had to do, in order to get that product, and make it known. Now the ball could only be picked up by other people if that were done. So you're operating on two systems. One is the lineal system and the other's the triangular system. The lineal system would be where the product officer is more or less operating autonomously, and he is writing up his products as he, he got the product, he got it going, and then he made notes while he was doing this. And then he wrote it up in some fashion or another, and then he says what he thinks ought to have happened over in that org area. And it may not be what happens over in the org area, but what he has stated that he ran into will be cared for, because you see, he didn't conduct a thorough investigation. It might be somewhat different by the time it's investigated, but he just indicates what he ran into, and then he passes all of that sideways over onto the org officer's lines. So you keep a running fire of what is happening.

21.) So these are the criteria by which the O/O operates.

Now he also has notes, and he should mark in these notes consistently and continuously what outnesses he finds. Now he will find a certain number of flubs, and he certainly carries a notation of these flubs. Now the org officer's stats or reputation depends on the reduction of these flubs. If the product officer's notes as of the first week in January are the same as the product officer's notes, carrying the same flubs and names in the third week in January, then the org officer's definitely not doing his job. In other words, the organization is not advancing back toward the ideal scene, because these flub points have not been handled.

22.) He has to know what resources are: (Space, Furniture, Equipment, the Establishment Factors of the Org, any of these can be resources if not being utilized in current production.)

Now to some degree you will find that there are always some flub points that don't get handled. It's impossible, just that, absolutes are unobtainable, and nowhere are they unobtainable so much as in an org officer's area, because he has various human elements. He has to produce personnel from nowhere, he has to actually cope with the fact that finance is busy telling him that "There is no possible FP. If you hire two more people you will decrease our pay and we won't be able to something or other, and of course," if you don't hire. Then he can say, "Well if you don't hire two more people you won't have any pay at all." And it goes back and forth, but he has other conflicts and lines which he is trying to cope with in this, so he doesn't always bring it off the way the product officer thinks it ought to have been brought off, because other factors may have been present. Do you follow?

23.) But what happens to the Final Valuable Products of the Org? The Product Officer makes them, and THEN the O/O steps in and makes sure they become resources. That's how he gets AHEAD of the P/O

So these things that the product officer writes up are not necessarily orders in themselves. But they are indicators and what he would like to have happen, and what he thinks is wrong. And that gives you a working basis on which to operate. So a product officer, busy getting his product, why it's fine. He at least has to express what he's running into. An org officer, because we're talking mainly about org officers at this time, would be absolutely up the spout if he didn't know what the product officer was up to, and what the product officer had run into in trying to get this and that. He would not actually be able to do his job very long or very well. I've found that that was definitely the case while I was operating as a product officer, and I could imagine what would happen if a person operating as an org officer was not informed of these sudden shifts, changes, actions, orders, and so on, which had occurred, because it would look to the org officer now; let's take the org officer's point of view; it'd look to the org officer like all the product officer was doing was tearing up the organization as fast as it could be put back together again. That would be the complete conviction an org officer would eventually get into, if the product officer didn't scribble down some notes, and make these things available, and so forth, to the org officer of what he was trying to do.

24.) If you open an O/Os desk and he has no list of potential auditors and sups & staff, then he is in poverty.

So therefore, in order to do his job at all, he would have to have a daily cruise around the place, he would have to in that daily cruise note such things as supplies. And you'd have to note such things as the condition of equipment and machinery and whether it was being kept up or not. And you'd certainly have to notice the condition and morale, and the business or lack of business of the personnel involved. And you'd have to notice the condition of the communication lines. And then, the next action that would have to be done there by the org officer, he'd have to ensure, daily, that the org's training program was being followed, and that hatting, on a long range basis, is never slacked off. In other words, is HCO continuing to do a job? Is there a schedule in this place so that we eventually have fully hatted people? Or are we going to go through life with instant hatted people or people on post in total mystery?

25.) The O/O tries to keep it all organized and org-boarded, until the Org Board gets in his road, then he handles as needed and gets an org board change approved after the fact. Otherwise he won't be able to handle weak points which show up during expansion.

A fellow is looking at this stack of folders blankly. And every once in a while he looks over and he sees all that stack of folders, and he's getting kind of allergic to that stack of folders. He doesn't know his post title, and he doesn't know why those folders keep stacking up on his desk. That would be the reductio ad absurdum of the whole show. So he's got to make sure that there is some continuous training action going on, and that hatting is occurring.

26.) You need an Org Board that won't blow up at the joints when expansion occurs.

He also has the idea of major courses, because as I told you, you begin with a course supervisor, who makes auditors. And then the auditors, you take on some of those auditors and you audit pcs with those auditors, do you see? And he therefore has got to make sure that some of the staff members he has are on some kind of a training schedule, quite in addition to the number of public students who are coming in.

27.) The 1967 Org Board works well on expansion. If can work from 1, 2 or 3 people on it up to about 100.000 staff.

Now in a Sea Org org this becomes vital, because Sea Org members have to be pushed on up the line, and you all of a sudden find yourself organizationally, "Yipes! We got no... We got eight hundred and sixty-five pcs, oh my god. What the hell are we going to do here, because there's no, whoops, no auditors." And then they start hiring auditors, and then the next thing you know why, the Sea Org org is all scrambled up in some fashion or another, and you can't have any Sea Org members in charge of anything because they don't have the technical; that's peculiarly a Sea Org problem. Very peculiarly. You all of a sudden look around, you wind up and you've got a bunch of HDCs, at the most you see, and what you need at that particular moment is class six. And then you can't, you've only got HDCs, so nobody has actually been pushed up the line to become a qual sec. And suddenly you'll find that you're terribly, terribly thin at the top, just because nobody has anticipated a long range training schedule.

28.) So you don't have to vary the pattern of the org board much - that's the reason it was planned - for EXPANSION.

At this moment we could use aboard Flag, at an absolute minimum, right aboard Flag at this instant, we could use three FEBCs. Just at this instant, just to fill in the screaming gaps. And then you'd need some more, and we should have a spare CLO team, all of whom should be FEBCs.

29.) The O/O must be travelling AHEAD of the Product Officer.

Well, we have to work on a new basis. And we; I mean not a new basis but an old basis. What we do organizationally on long range training and so on, is we always send out people who are better trained than the last team. And we just work on that as the way we work toward the ideal scene. It's always just that, better trained.

30.) At peak periods, they work as a team - together. At these heavy traffic periods they must not be distant from one another.

The art formula applies here, perfection. You can work for perfection to a point of where you get nothing done, and an organizing officer can do this, oh my god. He can go for perfection before he lets anything go, and so on. Well that is how we do it with; this time it is better than the last one. And it's true. It's worked out over the last couple of years. We're always sending out a better team than the last one we sent.

31.) The O/O should be so familar with the personnel of an org that he would know at any time what they are all doing.

But to do that, to do that you have to make sure that there's not only full hatting training, but there is also some people who are being full time trained along administrative lines. Or, if you can't do that, certainly part time trained along administrative lines, so that you would get another program would follow in through the back of the hat program. The person would finish up his hatting program, and then we're continuing him on to finish off his administrative courses, like his OEC, his FEBC. And we do that at part time. And then if we had very, very alert organizing officers in the tech division who were thinking of the organization at large, they would scream like banshees at the idea of there being a very few people on major courses. And sure enough, not too long ago, were screaming, and said, "There's nobody down here at all on a major technical course. And there hasn't been a full time technical course student for some time." Well they were calling the shots, and it was perfectly true. So that's part of the organization scene. Not only the hatting, but also making sure that somewhere up the line you'll have personnel qualified, even though you're doing it on a part time basis. So he's got to have some kind of programming for some future organization. And an organization is composed of trained people, it isn't composed of dead bodies.

32.) The 2. Aug. 65 PL on 7 div org board gives the pattern, or "Form of the Org". It says what the HES does and what the OES does. That was the first "borning" of the Prod-Org System. When Orgs violated that, they became harder to manage. Really the HES was an O/O and the OES was a Product Officer.

The Sea Org does a fantastic amount of training. We do a fabulous amount of training. An in compares, definitely with; we used to do a lot of training in earlier Scientology orgs. That training factor of the staff is nowhere near today what it used to be, but I've managed to get it going again in Scientology orgs over the last year. But it's not adequate. Somebody is thinking in terms of, "We haven't got enough money, we don't have enough people world population explosion, we haven't got enough people - bull! I might have believed somebody in 1705. The scarcest thing there is in the world today is a hat. Do you think that for one moment these people on welfare and relief and so forth in the United States or in other areas and so on, are happy to be suddenly relegated to a hatless life? No, boy! Every time you have welfare payments you've got unhappy people, and you've got an incipient revolution. There's people all over the place. But a group has a tendency to exclude, and it shouldn't, particularly a group such as ours.

OES (P/O) - money, auditors, pcs, field products. - Divs 3, 4, 5, 6.

Well, you raise your, you raise your security standards too high and you don't get any people at all, and you put them too low and the next thing you know you've got some wild ones on your hands. Alright, so somewhere in between is the right level. It not only never has been found, but it never will be found. What it takes is an alert HCO. And by the time the guy thinks his post consists of breaking ketchup bottles on the funnel and so forth, why you have to do something about it. But you have this problem, you have this problem in orgs.

HES (O/O) - hatting, personnel, form of org, files, names and ESTATES in Div 7 (Establishment). - Divs 7, 1, 2.

Now what an organizing officer has to do as he goes around, he very easily detects where recruitment has been, or hiring has been at fault. Now if he's too critical of it, I've seen somebody stumble around for a day or two, and fumble and try to find the staircase and so on, and finally actually wind up with repeated instant hattings and so forth, and informings and so forth, finally wind up so that they had enough familiarity to do the job. I've seen this happen. But I've also seen it happen, they just got worse and worse, and that, short of processing, you see your management misunderstoods. See, the organization misunderstoods cycle there is something that we can pay some attention to. But those who are out in orgs at this moment are not able to pay as much attention to it as we are at Flag, because in the first place we're dealing with a very superior, and not to be snide about it, in Flag we're dealing with a very superior level of flubless auditing. We do it by the book, and nobody gets by anything, and so on, so the auditing doesn't foul up. And also we're dealing with a very superior level of tech, which when orgs qualify they can have. You will be in the clover when you have got an org well enough put together so it can afford an department that could run L-10s.

J. It (2 Aug. 65) contains the elements of the system we are now working with. It was based on an older system. But the '67 org board is a PRESERVATION of the system also. So it is evolving.

The standard of field auditing at this present moment forbids it utterly, so we've got to export course supervisors, course supervision, we've got to support all the little tricks and expectancies and so forth that are done on Flag, how we get these results. It isn't that nobody else in the world gets any results, but they've got to be uniformly good, and the flub results must not be tolerated. And the guy must make his flub results in areas of auditing where it doesn't mess up anything.

33.) The '67 org board worked very well at St. Hill during his peak periods. MSH copied it down with all its functions & corrections.

So you'll be in clover on your organizational misunderstoods the moment that a Scientology or Sea Org org has achieved a sufficient; well there's various eligibility factors with regard to it, and they probably will always exist, probably be varied one way or the other. Certain volume, certain successes, certain primacies, and so on, because the, at this moment you're in clover. Right now your neck is a little bit out in that you can't probably handle the extreme cases, the suppressives, and so forth, who actually get sideways onto your lines, and cause enturbulation. So you are still on a very heavy alertness along this line, particularly amongst new personnel.

34.) I found that if a section is on the wrong part of an org board you get into trouble at once.

Now you don't want to hire fifteen or twenty personnel, and then just keep them on forever. The principle we operate on is hire lots of them, and retain those who make it. And it's up to the org officer then in this patrol; there's two places in his patrol. He notes this, he sees what's going on, and he knows he's got somebody who is good, or he hasn't. And he can get too highly critical about the whole thing. There's another point where he can detect this. In hatting the person never can seem to get his hat on, and so the statistics, the study statistics he's getting off the individual, have some meaning. They are not reliable, it isn't the person who apparently studies very fast is not always the best personnel, and the person who studies very slow is not always the best personnel, but the person who can't study at all is quite something else.

35.) We adjusted these points, so the 1967 Org Board is a fully tested Org Board.

Now this will show up in your hatting actions. So the study rate, or the ability to apply the information which is studied is a factor in selecting personnel, which is often overlooked. So the org officer also, in his long range programs, in his daily study, and so on, should also have some kind of point stats and that sort of thing, so that he looks at it and sees who's doing well. I wouldn't go on that all by myself. I would take a personal observation of the post, combined with how the person is doing on his studying and so forth, makes a meaningful picture.

36.) We lost the manuscript of the Div 3 from that time but have gotten it more or less correct.

So maybe I'm beating that to death, but the study program has, I'll just point it out again. It has two factors that an organizing officer can get out of it. Not only does he make sure that it's occurring, but also is it being, is anybody getting anything done when he does study? Now it is not necessarily true that a bad personnel never goes to study. Now that is not a true factor either. Very often you find a personnel is too drowned on his post, and too responsible for his post and doing a good job on his post, within limits. And he will put his post ahead of his study. Well this, you can't, you can't be too critical of that. But, you can point out that the things he's having trouble with on his post are usually handled in study. And if he will afford a little bit of time to study he might have a little bit better time on his post. PR action.

37.) Distribution now goes a bit funny because new tech has gone in there (PR Tech) and its PRODUCT was not fully anticipated at that time (67).

That is very true. I've seen people struggle and have a hell of a time trying to get out, well let's say a project, something like that, when if, for the love of Pete they had ever spent any time whatsoever on studying the target policies or the data series, why it would all come straight. And the hours and hours they're busy wasting on trying to turn out flubby products could very better, much better be invested in some part time study on turning out a non-flubby product. So there's some point of adjustment in this. But you have to watch the progress of the staff member on his course, as well as his action on his job. It isn't too meaningful on the course, but it must occur. You're mainly interested, is it occurring?

38.) The product of Div 6 is now SCIENTOLOGISTS.

You'll find some sort of silly situations develop. As an organizing officer you'll find all kinds of silly situations like, a person has started eight courses. The way to handle that of course is which one requires the least time to finish. "Go on, finish it. Which is the next one that requires the least time to finish? Finish it." Don't let him start a new course. So you're monitor of that.

39.) Then the Scientologists have products of sold books, contracted people, interested people sent in, etc.

Now, the third point that we're making here is the, handle any and all orders from the product officer within the time you're given. Well that of course would be a heavenly dream if one could, but one can try. One can try, and if one does not have an establishment officer as different than an org officer, it isn't likely that any long range program will ever come off. So an org officer who isn't operating with a good HCOAS and so forth, it's very, very improbable that he will be able to; he'll find himself after a while, a third month on the post he will find that he is following less and less of the orders which he is getting. But if he's backed up by a good HAS who's putting an establishment there behind him, as he goes along he will find out that it's easier and easier to do this. And the dream of it is, is you say, "Look man, that product officer says, 'And so Bob, and we expect a hundred and sixty-two preclears in the next week, and very good!" The org officer says, "You better hire a hundred and sixty-two auditors, and they're going to be so forth over the next year, of which you will have something on the order of thirty of them will have to be on the job this next week." And immediately why personnel simply sends them telegrams and tells the people to report to work, and the next Monday why they're all there report to work, 'cause they've already been hatted and genned in, don't you see?

40.) You can use the the new 3 Public Div Org Board but I will tell you right now the PE and pub. div. training has to be back in DIV 4 because they have the Supervisors, Tech Services, etc. in Tech Div.

It could be so easy as you simply tell the chairman of the auditor's association that next Monday you will need seventeen additional Class IVs, and they will all be there. You see? Well we're really dealing with an ideal scene. But you see you could work it up to that. It doesn't always have to be frantic.

41.) You will also have a Staff College or Hatting College in Tech Div. for the same reason.

So that is a duty he has, and he tries to attain, as the org officer tries to handle the orders from the product officer. But the other thing is, is the org officer who waits for orders from the product officer is already four or five feet behind the product officer, and he ought to be four or five feet ahead of him. So he's got eight or ten feet that he has lost, and in view of the fact, which queen was it? He had to run like everything just to keep up in Alice In Wonderland. The org officer has to run like everything just to stay even with the product officer. What he have to do when he gets behind him? See the burst of speed and the demand would be, would be fabulous, so it's; he isn't then just waiting for orders. If he just sits around and wait for the product officer's orders, why right away, and so on.

42.) Just kick the Public or other curses right over into Training Dept. as they will e better cared for.

I always like to be in a saucy position as a subordinate, in a subordinate post. Very saucy, impudent. Actually it takes people aback. It's about the only way you can occupy it. I don't think very many people know how to occupy a subordinate post actually, if the org officer's subordinate to the product officer, it's an art. It's an actual art. And one time I thought I was; I've told you this story before. But one time I thought, "What is this. Every place I go and everything I do, I always wind up in command of it. I'm appointed the command of it. Is there something wrong with me? Can it be..." this was decades ago, you see, and I was saying was there something wrong with me? I mean is there something peculiar, that I have to be in charge of everything, that I have to be the boss? I guess I'd been reading Freudian literature or something. And, "There must be something wrong with me," and so on. And I would think, "Well, I don't know. I don't remember really, I have occasionally made a bid for that sort of thing, but there must be something wrong."

43.) The public get into the Training Dept. and the students there on upper courses then have status and tend to interest public in further training. (It gives a Reach-Withdraw for the Public all IN the org.)

And I was very, very happy one time, because I was physically bunged up and wasn't supposed to be around at all, to be put in a subordinate capacity. And I was a third in command. I found it was a breeze. I was never so happy in my life as to discover I was just an excellent subordinate. It was just a piece of cake. I didn't have to be in command of things at all, and so forth. And in that subordinate capacity I was in command of a ship. Didn't want it, didn't want anything to do with it. Actually that was the mock-up.

44.) The Org pattern and OEC are all of a piece. Maybe a Div-Dept. designation has changed here and there, but the functions are usually the same.

But inevitably, and so forth, people come around and ask me if they were supposed to do what the captain said, and so on. I said, "No, man. Cool it off. Don't bother me," and so on. I found out the popular valence at that time was a gold brick, and I've had chief petty officers and that sort of thing say to me, "Mr. Hubbard, you are just about the greatest gold brick I have ever seen in the entire navy." Pride, you know? Admiration. And that was because I've, apparently, didn't ever work, and was able to get my job done on the time when somebody else was eating sandwiches, see? It would just be the speed of internal and immediate organization, don't you see? So it didn't appear to be very stressful. And got all kinds of things done left and right. And the way to be a perfectly impudent insouciant, utterly, completely tolerable, but utterly and awfully left alone by seniors subordinate, where they're very nice to you at parties and so forth, but just a little bit, just a little bit on the keeveeve where you were concerned is, "Oh I've done that. Yes, well thank you very much sir. Thank you, thank you. Yes, we handled that, thank you." Only it has to be a fact. Your answers to an order are always past tense.

45.) The O/O is RICH in Organizational Tech & Material - the OEC, Management Series, etc. And rich in information on the Org Product system.

So you see how this fits into an org officer/product relationship? A product officer storms in and he says, "There's going to be a hundred and sixteen pcs next week, and what are we going to do about it?" "Well yes, we actually got them and they're all lined up. All the auditors are lined up, we've got the auditing rooms and so on. We're going to use the preclear's own rented rooms when they come in, for auditing rooms and so on. They're all straightened up. We've got five new people on tech services, and they're being genned in this week. As a matter of fact they should be hatted now, as a matter of fact. So, thank you." "Thanks for telling me. It's confirmed, is that right? Oh good, thanks for confirming it. There we are."

46.) An org is liable to try to Organize forever without Producing - or tries to Produce forever without Organizing. Both are hideous CRIMES.

You would just be amazed at what this starts doing, except you have to be on the ball and you have to do your job the whole way. And when you do your job the whole way as an org officer, you're always in that position. Somebody says, "What the hell are we going to do? We're going to have this, this, we're going to have this new bunch of students. We're going to run this special course. And the literature and so on has been mailed, and what are we going to do for chairs and that sort of thing?" "They're being made now, sir." Only probably in the org officer/product officer relationship you wouldn't even use sir. Too close. But what an enviable position, and what a fearsome presence.

47.) Because both will crash. You can't continue to Organize without Producing and you can't continue to Produce without organizing it.

Now somebody else tries to occupy your boots, he's got a near impossibility. "Bessie Ann is off her post." "I know. I sent her home. George will be there in about five minutes to take care of it." But operate as a product officer, how would you like to have an org officer that was like that? Wouldn't that be, wouldn't that be a piece of cake? Wouldn't that be a piece of cake, huh? "Our GI target next month, our GI target next month is twenty-seven thousand a week." Alright, that's all the org officer'd have to hear. And he'd say, "That will take so much so and so, and so and so, and that's on, now take some on to A, and we'd better do so and so and so." And say, "The people in charge of financial planning, you'd better get your financial planning jacked up along the line and so on, because the promotion level is going to be so and so and so and so. We're going to send out very heavy mailing, and we need a whole bunch of new people here, their categories are so and so and so and so."

48.) The general conduct of the O/O is met to the degree he is familiar with: OEC, Hats, duties, resources, Establishment.

Now the product officer would actually be in his own rights to do a whole write up of how he was going to get that product. A weekly GI of twenty-seven thousand by next month. See, he'd be of his own right, he could plan it all out and figure it out and so on, but he'd have to decide how he was going to render that much service, and the big idea would be expected from him. "What's the big idea you're going to put out into the public that's going to bring that many men in, Mr. Bones?" See?

49.) The Product Officer has to know all that BETTER than the O/O.

You just saw one going out of here on and FBDO, and so on. That's a product officer penchant. What's he going to sell, and so on? One just went out of here. It's a big idea, they're all supposed to come in and get checked out for. So on. We've used it before, terribly successful. Would drive the people down on an org. So the product officer's mainly in the business of driving people in on the org. And the org officer's job is to put an org there that'll handle them. And he does that by preventing the decline of the existing org, and forcing the HCOAS to put enough org there to build it up. And that's the way you do the one, two, three. So the product officer, he's got to go and wham, wham, wham, wham, wham! And he never thinks about how many people he drives in on the org.

50.) If you as P/O or O/O go adrift, you have a lot of Policy there to Review to find out how to proceed.

And the org officer takes a look at this and says, "Let's see. The GI in January was two thousand a week, and in February it was three thousand a week, and in March was four thousand a week. I wonder why that little drop occurred there in March. Well I know why it dropped, because we'd already doubled our GI. Now, if that's increasing at the rate of two thousand a week it's probably a slight curve. It probably isn't, so we'll just stretch it out the rest of the year and find out what the GI's going to be by next January. Ah, next January at two thousand and so forth, we're going to be dealing with something on the order of about a twenty thousand GI per week, and that takes that many preclears, that many auditors, that many E-Meters, that many book sales, that much promotion money, this, that, the other thing. Well we'd better get on the ball. What actions are we taking at this very moment to train up auditors in this particular area, to go to work for the org?" So that's how he keeps ahead of the product officer.

51.) 1970 was a stellar year in Org Technology (Policy). You might suspect it "threw away" all the rest. NO. There is a CONSISTENCY in all of this. It just pointed up the IMPORTANCES of certain things and how an EVOLUTION can take place (of the 3rd Dynamic Tech).

He can do an extrapolation. He can figure out what is the load, and what is the load going to be, just by extending the curve. Now you also extend the down curve, and he will find out what the load is going to be. It's going to be zero. So he's not going to have any organization at all if he extends the GI in some of these orgs a little bit further.

52.) There is another system called the TRIANGULAR system. But it's for big orgs. You wouldn't wand this until you are producing around 20.000 to 30.000 Dollars a week of delivery. Because it's a bit cumbersome.

Alright, now an org officer picks up any outnesses in the establishment of the organization, and handles and reports to the product officer what was done. So there's a back flow here. And where large actions are required he's got to write up a CSW of what was found, and recommended handling and so forth, to the product officer. Now we're still talking about a lineal line flow. That is where the product officer is more or less doubling in brass with the CO or executive director, see? So he would say, "Look, this is what we're going to have," or, "this is what we can't have. But this is what I can put in, and this is what I can't put in." In other words, he's got to give some kind of a back flow here, to inform, keep the product officer informed as to the facilities. And this comes under the heading actually of what you call capability. And the product officer has to have some idea of his org's capability, and some idea of his personnel's capability. Not necessarily to put a limitation on the thing, but so he can improve it or extend it.

53.) The triangular system is one by which the Org Officer and Product Officer are HANDLED and SUPERVISED or COORDINATED by an Executive Director or Commanding Officer.

Now the capability is in the hands of the organizing officer. What is he capable of? Now that takes resources, and we get into the whole subject of resources. They're already mentioned in the, in I think the org series, and so on. There's resources. What are the resources you have? And that's a product officer's, that's a product officers black dog of Karnak. He seldom has the resources to do what he's supposed to do, so actually the org officer should keep him advised of his resources.

54.) In the lineal (line) system, the P/O is the Planning Officer.

Well what are resources? How many auditors can we hire? How many course supervisors are there? How much auditing room do we have? And that sort of thing, these are our resources. I'll give you an idea right now. I had to solve a very bad problem administratively. A very bad problem. Something came up and so on, some stats were going down. I had to look around at once and do a resources estimation. Now that actually is an organizing officer has to answer up loud and clear, what resources do we have, because the resources I needed was a CO/product officer and an org officer, and an assistant production aid. Now that is an assistant production aid. And I had, what the devil? Where could we get them? And the resources, we were able to utilize the resources we had at that particular moment to save the situation, and then I actually rewrote the program just last night, to gain further resources. We were going to throw a couple away, so we all of a sudden got those, and we're going to utilize those. So this is resources. Do you follow? What are your resources? The ability to return things to the ideal scene, it's in the data series, the discussion of resources. How do you return things to the ideal scene depends on what resources you have.

55.) The C/O or E/D of an Org is the PLANNING and COORDINATING Officer. (On Flag Management, we use half-and-half. We have a P/O & O/O, but when a fast handling is needed for a Continent, I step in as C/O and give a plan and coordinate actions for the handling.)

56.) In any smaller org, the P/O is always the C/O or E/D as well.

57.) But when you put in the triangular system, you also put in the frills: A Staff PR Officer, messengers, and a Secretary for the C/O.

58.) The reason it's messengers, is because when things are moving fast, if you send one off, you don't have one until he gets back, so you wand more than one, so the flow can keep going rapidly.

59.) I'm doing the Roman Chariot trick of running 3 chariots from the center horse. I am the C/O of 3 Orgs on board (FAO, FB, & Ship) and have messengers and excellent secretarial-counselor service. At this point, the ship Org needs more HCO and Organizing.

60.) An area that isn't organized well, will cave in. You can predict that. It expands, weak points show up, somebody goofs - and crash!

61.) The longer you let it go, the bigger the "boom-crash"! So you have to get it organized better, use the PR Officer to find the buttons & tone for a handling, Comm EV The HCO AS for not establishing or recruiting, and handle.

62.) "The longer you neglect it, the more frantically you have to work to salvage it."

"The longer you let go, the bigger the crash."

These are two operating principles.

63.) Foresight pays off. The O/O has to be ahead of the P/O to prevent crashes and arrest declines.

64.) He thinks in terms of resources for expansion. More hatting, on several posts, to provide a quick replacement for a Div Head or Exec, etc.

65.) In poverty, it is always very easy to starve to death very quickly.

66.) There is an "Make-Break" point of an org. When it drops below a certain income, volume, & personel level it will "break" AND break the people in it.

67.) When you get people trying to "blow" because of overload and they can't cope with it - you are definitely in the "Break" area.

68.) Trouble, strain, stress are indicators of a "break" situation. The real trouble may not be RIGHT THERE, It may be on an extensional line - (like a bank cutting off the funds, or a cross-order from a network, etc.) A Bureau is suceptible to this - the stresses are not "in" the org, they are on its TRAFFIC LINES - because of its responsibility for external areas, Their stress can show up inside the org - it's NOT the personel of the bureau, they are OK. It's coming in on the LINES.

69.) That is the time to organize like mad, promote like hell, and push up your accumulation of resources at great speed.

70.) Every Scientology Org in the world in the moment I speak (Jan 71) is running below its "make" point.

71.) The "make" point of a Scientology Org is probably around a 20,000 Dollar/week GI with balanced delivery & other stats.

72.) If you are not doing that, there will be strain, and it will dwindle, unless you actively take efforts to push it up to the "make" point.

73.) You have to take the decision to EXPAND and push it up to the zone of "make".

74.) It's the money made by the individual staff member which determines the "make-break" point. It's the old Qual Stat - "GI divided by Staff".

75.) If it's too HIGH or too LOW, it's an indication of a "break" point. If too high - say 5000 per staff member, it means you haven't put enough organization there to make that much money and it will "crack". If too low, the staff is unproductive and Dev-T abounds so no products get produced, it's organized badly.

76.) In 1969, it was 16-18 Pounds per week International. (About 100 DM per week) That's not enough even for a staff member to support HIMSELF with - much less the organization.

77.) In that period there must not have been any product production, or it was done by only a few and the rest were UNORGANIZED HANGER-ONS. (An-hangers)

78.) I got alerted to this low stat (GI divided by staff) over one year ago, got out the LRH # 1 programs to hold the fort until we could get a better form of organization. (With this FEBC Tech)

79.) The "why" was lack of products. Insufficient volume & quality - and insufficient viability as a result.

80.) Whatever products that were produced, COST TOO MUCH of the org's time and resources.

81.) The highest income in the Sea Org ever made was 5500 Dollars (11,000 DM) per staff member per week. (AOLA - 1968 under Capt.W.B.Robertson) They were pretty much under strain but they were doing it.

82.) Recently, the Sea Org members divided into the Sea Org income gave ca. 520 Dollars (1040 DM) per week. Now that's ALL SO members, not just org staff at AO's. That is 10 x what the SCIENTOLOGY Orgs internationally did in 1969!

83.) One reason may be that Scientology Orgs do not sell "PACKAGES" or RESULTS. They sell "hours" of auditing. That might not be wise.

84.) Or they could rescue themselves by selling TRAINING which isn't "cut-rate" training.

85.) LA Org was selling courses for a little as 35 Dollars! All "cutatives" and just a failure to collect the money.

86.) Even though you sell a package of service, there may be internal difficulty so that the Final Valuable Product does not occur.

87.) So the reason you have now a sophisticated management technology is because of these factors and because of the difficulty of managing over a long distance line.

88.) 1970 was the year of this research and developement.

89.) YOUR "MAKE-BREAK" POINT OF THE ORGANIZATION IS IMPROVED TO THE DEGREE THAT SCIENTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY IS KNOWN AND EMPLOYED (APPLIED) IN THE ORGANIZATION'S OPERATION. THIS IS THE FIRST FACTOR YOU HAVE TO LEARN.

90.) I just found an other-originated policy that caved in a corner of our finance operations. Now I have to find out who, why and cancel it.

91.) Now occasionally you will get an order, ED, policy, or bulletin that runs counter to your PRODUCTION and makes it difficult. You must alert management to this at once. There is even a policy by which a Destructive Order can be halted. ("Orders, Query Of" - HCOPL)

92.) When I released the Dianetics Course, it says in the Pack: "Do not drop any Scientology actions you have in progress." In Southwestern US someone put out a "policy" that it was a "high crime" to audit Scientology Grades on people who hadn't done the Dianetics Auditing! Now WHO did that crazy thing, I don't know - but I WILL find out.

93.) You should be alert to those on your lines who try to destroy foreward progress.

94.) THE RIDING OF THE CURRENT "FASHION" or the CURRENT "FAD" DOES MORE TO DESTROY YOUR STATS THAN ANYTHING ELSE YOU COULD DO.

95.) MAN, IN HIS CONTINUAL, IMMEDIATE CONCERN WITH PRESENT TIME, IS CONTINOUSLY THROWING AWAY WHAT HE HAS IN RETURN FOR WHAT HE "HOPES TO HAVE".

96.) Your BASIC resources are POLICIES and HCOBs. Don't throw them away!

97.) We have just put the "State of Man" Congress from 1950 on very high level, upper level, course. It was a RESOURCE.

98.) If you don't know what your resources ARE, then they won't be utilized.

99.) Just because Auditors flub on Dianetics, you shouldn't look for a "new method". If they really understood the Dianetics book the cases would ALL resolve.

100.) The highest breakthrough we have at this time is covered in full in the early 60's. The only thing we have done is used it to its TOTALITY, and audited it with some new methods of handling a session which make it come off smoothly, only one new principle has been developed. But there are two new methods of auditing to make it smoother. But the theory of it is back there in the early "60's". (XDN" L's?)

101.) Basically you are in the business of KNOWLEDGE. It's the one thing you are putting out - KNOWLEDGE OF SELF. That IS a Final Valuable Product, no matter what other ones you have.

102.) A person who was a Class 10 asked me the other day and I referred him to "Dianetics the Original Thesis". (It was in regard to a Low TA case and not understanding why it audited a certain way.)

103.) I've hat C/Ses who couldn't audit or C/S because they did not know the basic books.

104.) Your are basically PURVEYING KNOWLEDGE. So how can you do this without your MIMEO FILES, YOUR BOOKS, TAPES, etc. crammed into the bookstore and shelves in the org?

105.) We analyzed a franchise who had the best stats - asked him for his successful actions - he read a POLICY LETTER at the beginning of each PE lecture! He had a howling success on sign ups for auditing and courses.

106.) Compare this to empty MIMEO files, packs with "holes" in them, etc. and you see what causes your "MAKE-BREAK" point.

107.) You are not spending your primary asset - which is KNOWLEDGE.

108.) We are not dealing with the kind of knowledge that "was" true last year and is "not" true this year. It's TRUE FOREVER and always has been TRUE.

109.) So an O/O must realize his primary asset is "all that space taken up by MIMEO FILES, PACKS, BOOKS and TAPES.

110.) There are TAPES beyond belief!

111.) Those are his RESOURCES, and that's where they begin. They don't begin with people.

112.) There are people all over the place - but they are worth nothing to anybody unless the KNOWLEDGE is put out, duplicated, and applied.

113.) THAT IS THE BASIC BUSINESS YOU ARE IN.

(Note: Making PLAYERS! BR)

114.) You choose people for posts usually because they KNOW MORE. What you are saying is they have a VFP of KNOWLEDGE.

115.) So the O/O is trying to get resources of KNOWLEDGABLE people - and thus his basic RESOURCE IS KNOWLEDGE.

117.) He then takes off from these, applies the ASSET of KNOWLEDGE to people, gets HATTED, TRAINED staff members - and soon he will see the 32 story building with "Scientology" across the front in Gold Letters.

118.) The BOOK ORDERED for the bookstore is the O/O's job.

The BOOK SOLD is the P/O's job.

119.) New York Org is failing now because of a lack of basic books for sale. I have a PUBS AIDE on it. Guess what? The world has decided to become exclusive with literature. US Books can't go to Europe. European books can't go to US. You have to get them reprinted IN the area you sell them.

120.) You CAN get them in on INDIVIDUAL ORDERS, but not in Quantity. Copyrights go to pieces, etc. They did the same thing with currencies (money).

121.) An individual off the street is not a resource until he's been checked out, genned in, hatted administratively.

122.) Therefore, KNOWLEDGE is a dominant factor in the success of an Org Officer.

123.) When it isn't there - he WILL FAIL.

124.) The P/O won't get anywhere unless he has ah LRH Tape Play EVERY NIGHT, on and on and on at the org at PE or Intro Lecture time.

125.) One Org. is playing Ron's Journal '67 every night. A bit of a scarcity. There are 1000's of tapes. But we find orgs don't have them! Or just a few - like the cherries on the top of the ice cream.

126.) So an O/O without resources of knowledge is beaten before he starts.

127.) Scientology Orgs at this time are doing badly because the resources of KNOWLEDGE in administration and tech are LOW, and the PRACTICE thereby suffers. (They cannot DEMONSTRATE THEIR COMPETENCE because COMPETENCE requires a professional APPLICATION of KNOWLEDGE.) You as FEBC's, are here to remedy that.

128.) Thank you very much.