Now the product officer, as he goes on and stacks up more money; of course we get more and more resources in terms of money, but we may not have resources in terms of trained personnel. The Sea Org expansion and so on is absolutely staggering, in terms of; you know, I actually think you, you guys probably believe that we were doing great in '68, and it's all sort of gone down hill, and etcetera and etcetera. It's very, very funny. What's happened is that our statistics at this particular time, have become divided up. And the statistics are of more individual units and areas. And those statistics, do you see, well there's this type of thing. The Sea Org now is running three AOs, there are now three SHs, there's a great many more Scientology orgs, and there are a tremendous number of franchises which are really kind of orgs, do you see, and it's quite amazing. But when you add up these statistics you find out there's just been a general, you should do it just for fun.

Now there's just been a consistent general expansion, and the stats have been going up, and they're going up and going up, the general stats. But it's because they've become compartmented, they're assigned to different units and nobody adds up all the units.

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.

Now furthermore, if you take the Scientology org income, which has lagged as compared to franchise income, and so on, the truth of the matter is the franchises were financed by the AOs, by FSMs early on. So they've sort of robbed the orgs of their income, and then the orgs haven't kept up on that FSM line that would have expanded them, and they haven't continued to operate as their own reliable selves, and they've tried to maintain establishments and so forth without actually producing the things they should have produced. And it's gone agley. But when you add it all up you find out quite amazingly, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and then you think maybe there was a bong. No at that time there was a tremendous spread, and it just went right on up the keyboard. It went down, it goes down, it goes up.

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.

But you take our stats as this minute compared to the stats of 1967 and they're way up. And they're way up above 1968. Look it over the you'll see that they are. It's quite amazing.

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

We are expanding. And the place that it shows strain particularly is in the Sea Org, because in the Sea Org we have a limited number of personnel. And they have already, over a period of time, consistently been stretched so thin; you see we're maintaining three AOs instead of one. We're still making the income of one AO, do you see, but now we've got three establishments to man. And it's just got the lines thin. You'll find that that to a large degree is, the lot of the execs of Washington D.C. for instance were yanked out into the smaller orgs, and so on. There were all kinds of wild personnel tangles, and there was a lot of weight on Washington. And as a matter of fact, I did not want and did not approve the establishment of these tiny orgs. They could only be of service if they were feeder orgs. And they didn't, they set themselves up as independent organizations. Now they're continuously in trouble, but actually they rob some of the income from Washington. So they're harder to manage because there are more of them, but the aggregate income is comparable. And it's been in my mind several times, is to retire some of those places to franchise and force them to feeder service to Washington again. We probably won't do that, we've got a better idea right now. We'll just force all of them to be big.

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

But I thought I would interject that just in passing, because I found out the general impression was that something was happening with this. No, it isn't. As a matter of fact, the Australian, the attacks on Australia and so on are the most ineffective attacks that anybody ever; they've passed laws and bans all over the place, the police have given us all back our books, and there's nothing. To hell with it. Nobody had anything to do with it, so it sits on the books as a dead statute. It made the staffs timid, it worried them, it upset them, it did this and that and the other thing, but it sure discredited the enemy.

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.

So if at any time, any time you don't continue to pile up resources in terms of trained staff members, if you don't continue to pile up resources in terms of space, why that is what is going to break your back, because you are not on any down trend at all, you're on an escalating up trend.

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 invite you to look at the franchise statistics of the last three years, and they're, they almost go double each year. It's not quite that steep, but that's the way it looks. You look at it on a graph, up she went. So don't plan on a level graph.

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.)

Your resources are your resources, and they are mainly in terms of manpower. How many people have you hatted? How many people have you trained? How many people in the field do you still have the allegiance of? How many people have you patched up? How many ARC breaks have you handled, and how many members do you have in your auditor's association, and so forth are the only things which will keep you above water, because it's a problem in resources. And the resources are a thing which the org officer has to watch. And if he sees his resources declining; well we just established a new course out in Longville, as a branch course or something from the org. Oh, oh, oh, oh, there goes the trained something, and there goes a trained something else, and so on. Has he got them to send out? So he should stockpile all the resources he can. Money, auditors, books, he should be greedy.

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.

Now the product officer can go on turning out products, turning out products, turning out products, turning out products, but when somebody doesn't do something with these as resources, and get his resources off that line, and stack them up and preserve them in terms of field people and so forth, they're willing to help out, and somebody might come on staff, and the auditor was trained and he wants to know when he can go working for the org. Those are resources. And everybody you hat becomes a resource. So of course he wants to over hat, always. A person hatted for three posts is better than a person hatted for one post. He's a better resource. So your org officer has the duty of piling up resources.

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.

Now his sudden demands made, made on him a piece of cake. He's way ahead of it. "Oh, need to buy a new building? OK. How much it cost? Alright, OK. We'll look for one. Yeah, good. Only a million? Well aright, poof. Alright, OK." He's in that position. "Oh you need two hundred auditors? OK." Do you see how an org officer gets behind, because his resources are limited. So therefore he gets ahead by increasing and hording his resources. See how it's done?

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

Now you don't want a miser on the post who holds the resources to his chest and never will let them go, but you want a provident sort of housewife who has a basement full of next years' canned good rations, and doesn't have to go screaming down to the Safeway to buy a cup of sugar every time that there is a guest for dinner. Now if you look this over from the standpoint of expanding by resources you will see that you cannot expand unless you have stockpiled resources, or tried to. Now you should always try to stockpile resources, and that's how the org officer keeps ahead of the game.

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.)

How many replacement aids do we have in the Flag bureau already trained, who can be spared on their posts at this particular moment? And that tells you exactly what the resources are. That is poverty, boy. That is right down to the bottom of that ole' barrel. "I'm sure there must be a half a herring left in this herring barrel some place. Somebody get a flashlight." Do you see where she errors?

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.

So now the org officer system should increase resources. And so, when he's called on for one he gets two. And yes, you will eventually wind up, and orgs which I manage by the way generally do wind up, there's an awful lot of old stuff out there that nobody's ever used in the garage. And it probably never will be used now. Somebody says, "Wasn't that a terrible waste." No, no, no. That was just providence extended a little too far. They also don't turn around immediately and look at the rest of the resources that were used. And they're all over the place in full use. And they also don't look around at the bank accounts, because those periods were also attended by very high bank account reserves that went pouring in. And the staffs also were well paid at that time.

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.

So these are the criteria by which an org officer operates. Now he has to know what a resource is. Resources are things like space, furniture, equipment, and the establishment of the factors of the org. Any of those can be resources. But the final valuable products, what happens to the final valuable products after they're final valuable product? So the org officer sort of steps in after the product officer. And that's how he gets ahead of him.

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

So the product officer, you see he's turned out a lot of his final valuable products, and they're sitting all over the place. At this moment the org officer says, "Heh heh heh heh! Let's get some of these." Got it? Open up an org officer's desk and there's no list of potential staff members for posts and so forth, he's in poverty.

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

Now, naturally an org officer tries to keep everything on an org board, and he tries to keep it all straight, and tries to keep it this way and tries to keep it that way, right up to the point when the org board gets in his road. And at that moment why he can make do in some fashion or another, and get some approved change so that it can be officialized. That's approval sort of after the fact. Otherwise, as you expand you won't be able to fill in the weak points. So the org board is saying, "Well you can't have an organization without weak points if there's a point missing on the org board that you need to have filled." Do you follow? That's a contradiction. If you have a strong organization which won't blow up at the joints, it's of course going to get an expanding org board. Fortunately the org board, 1967 org board, expands from about two or three people, or one person can operate on it actually, to about a hundred thousand. It's inherent expansion is that great so you really don't have to vary the pattern of the org board much. That was the reason it was planned.

Million Dollars? - OK.

Now the close work with the HCO we've covered, and the org officer moves very fast, and should always move faster than the product officer. Yes. The product officer's going a hundred miles an hour, the org officer will be lost if he doesn't travel at a hundred and twenty-five. If he only travels at a hundred and twenty-five he will be overtaken sooner or later, because he has to stop by the wayside every once in a while to pick up the bodies and pat them together. The best laid plans of org officers aft gangagly. "Yes, we will be able to take care of it. Bessie Ann just ran off with another man."

20 Auditors? - OK.

Now in urgent peak periods the org officer might be required to understudy and be at the product officer's side. In other words, they work as a team, and at peak periods or at tough points they must work as a team. They must not be distant from each other. They just work right there, hammer/pound, and they will get over one of these things.

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

Now the org officer should be so familiar with his org's personnel that he would at any time be able to say what each staff member is up to, and know what they are doing. And in his operations he of course follows the data already supplied by LRH in CDOs and lectures. Now if you're operating right now at a period of transition, it doesn't change very much, because of 2 August 1965 HCOPL, which lays down a basic form. That is the one which says what the HES does and what the OES does, that is the first borning of this. And when that was violated, something went astray, and orgs became harder to manage. Really, the HES was an org officer, and the OES was a product officer. And if you look under the OES you will find money in division three, you will find auditors, in the student auditors, in the directors of training, and you will find pcs in the department of processing. And then you will find under also distribution, you will find the field and the products which are going out into the field. And up at the beginning of the line in the first two divisions you find the HES and so forth had hatting forming and so forth, and also had the executive division which contained the estate section. So you see, it all works out right, and that's 2 August HCOPL. And it contains the first elements of the system in which we're operating.

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

Now that was an older system than the '67 org board, but the '67 org board was the preservation of this system, and the '67 org board was very well tried out at Saint Hill, and was functioning very, very well at Saint Hill during its peak periods. The org board was copied with all corrections by Mary Sue, in 1967. And I found that when a section is on the wrong part of an org board you'll get into trouble at once. And a great many of these adjustments were made, so the 1967 seven division org board is a fully tested org board. Unfortunately, the division three of that org board was lost, and not published. And the elements of it are still around, and I think we're making some effort to publish this at this time. But Mary Sue wrote it up, and for some reason or other, it just wasn't mimeographed. And I can't imagine what happened.

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.

The fact that we have developed some new principles in the field of PR, and in the distribution division, has tended to throw the distribution division a bit out because its product was not anticipated totally at that time. And its product is Scientologists. That is its product. And these Scientologists, of course, have products of sold books, contacted people, and other, sending people in, you know interested persons and so on. And they also have, the guardian's office is carrying on some of that now, and they have all kinds of committees and that sort of thing stretched around the world, and they use these committees, and so on. That was really an original distribution division function. So that is in a state of flux at this particular moment, and you could either just use what is on the nine division public divisions, use that, or use the old distribution division org board with these elements put into it. But I can tell you right now that the PE foundation is going straight back in the academy, because a PE foundation requires course supervisors, and it's just, it's just a lower level of the same action of a course supervisor, and they have the facilities, tech services and other things which can be doubled in brass to handle these public actions. Because they're not public actions, it's the same action all over again.

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

You will see something resembling a staff college or hatting college thrown into the line up, and that of course makes a valuable final product, if some of the PE actions also came over to it. At the time I'm speaking to you, this has not been completely released. But it shouldn't give you any trouble at all. Just those public courses and so on, right over there. Right over there, bingo, into the academy or department of training. And you'll find they're better cared for.

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.

When that was that way, by the way, I have reports on when it was that way, the public coming in and running into students who were all enthusiastic and in good shape, and had status with them. Then the public had already managed to reach and withdraw. So the organizational pattern, the organizational pattern with which you're dealing, and the OEC which you study, are all of a piece. And there's nothing out of line with any of these patterns. You will occasionally have, something has moved to another division and will have the wrong department or divisional designation on it. That could even be corrected up, because the functions in actual fact haven't much changed. Therefore there is a tremendous wealth of information and technology which has been developed, all of which is of infinite use to the org officer, and he is rich in terms of theory and technology of organization, and particularly rich with the theory and technology of the org product officer system.

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.

An organization is liable to organize forever without producing anything. An organization is liable to try to produce forever without organizing anything. Both of these things are a hideous crime, because both of them will crash. You can't continue to produce without organizing it, you can't continue to organize without producing.

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

The general conduct of the org officer is met to the degree that he is familiar with his OEC, he's familiar with the hats, with the expectancies from duties on the various posts, with the resources he has, with what the establishment is particularly composed of. And the product officer, oddly enough, has to know all that better than the org officer. So if you find yourself going too far adrift or too far astray, either as product officer or an org officer, you do have a tremendous amount of material which can be reviewed. And that material is not out of line, and its theories are definitely not out of line. There's nothing, nothing been thrown away in it at all.

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.)

1970 was such a stellar year in the advancement of organizational technology that you would immediately expect it would throw everything away. Well, there's a consistency in it all, consistency in it all. It just showed up the importances, and how an evolution of it could take place.

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

There is another system on the org/product officer system that I must mention, in closing. And that system is simply the triangular system. That is where you have a very big organization, and until you had this unit up to where you were clicking along at around twenty-five, thirty thousand dollar-type org, you wouldn't really want this type of system, because it's a trifle cumbersome. And that is the triangular system by which the org officer and the product officer are handled by an executive director or commanding Now what happens there is that the product officer goes straight along with the duties as he has, and then he has the various problems which he is running into, or what he wants, or what he can think of, or what he's trying to get through. And the executive director at that time is the planning officer. Now I want to point out to you that the planning officer up to that time, on the lineal system of just product officer to org officer, the planning officer is the product officer. He is the planning officer of, "Where the hell are we going? What we going 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.

But the commanding officer, if he was operating with a product officer and an org officer, would be the planning officer. And he's the planning and coordinating officer. That is the way we are running the Flag bureau. We sort of run a mixture. It's a sort of a half and half. When we take a whole continental area and all the chips are down and that sort of thing is, why then I will step in as commanding officer and planning. And then I will take it up so that we get a plan of overall projects, and so on.

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.

So that it would be, actually, in a lineal system it would be the product officer who did that. He would be wearing, he would be double hatted. And where there is no, where the triangular system isn't in, the product officer is always double hatted as the commanding officer or executive director.

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

In any org that you're running at this particular moment, the lineal system would be the one you are using. But I wish to call to your attention that at the time when you have a product officer and an org officer, and they are working with a commanding officer or executive director, then you also need the rest of the frills. And the rest of the frills are a PR officer, who is a staff officer. He's not down in any division, he's handling the human emotion and reaction and you're going to start running into plenty of that. And you've got to have messengers or runners. That becomes a necessity. You would have to have an executive director's secretary who is shared to some degree in use, or as a guidance factor or coordinative factor with the product officer. And you've got quite a little staff.

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.

I'll just name them off for you. There's commanding officer, product officer, org officer, staff PR officer, and messengers, and secretary. The only plurality there is messenger. You can't expect a messenger actually to stay on duty forever. Anybody who tries to put a messenger on duty at eight o'clock in the morning and take them off at six o'clock at night's got rocks in his head, because what he's going to do, he's going to spend periods when he doesn't have any messenger, and if he's depending on messengers and so on, why he couldn't do it. But it takes messengers in order to handle anything rapidly enough.

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

Of course I'm doing, as usual, the Roman running three chariots simultaneously from a center horse, with the posts somewhat empty here and there along the line up. And that's done because of the expansion factor. I suppose some day it will all be improved, and it will all be perfect. I don't see it in the foreseeable future.

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

But actually the system which we are running on right now and getting into shape is actually three, a three org system. Commanding officer of three orgs simultaneously, each one with a pair. That is the product officer and an organizing officer. And with a bounteous number of messengers, and with excellent secretarial counselor-type back up. And one of those orgs right now, the ship org, is running solo at this particular moment. That is to say, there's a commanding officer but not; in essence a commanding officer who is not backed up by an organizing officer, and who at this moment doesn't even have an HCO to establish anything. And I don't know where that's going to go, but I know very well from where I look that at any given instant that there will be a small beginning little whistle of steam, which gradually goes into a high roar, because something, something wild will take place unless that is organized up.

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

You can always anticipate something that, an area that isn't organized to some degree will cave in. So you've got to, as an organizing officer, anticipate the fact. You can look at an area and you say, "That isn't well enough organized, so therefore we can only let it go so long before there will be a boom."

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.

Now any time you try to increase the traffic on a line, and you don't increase the organizing functions on the line rapidly enough, or somebody drops the ball in the process of increasing those organizing actions, at that moment you do get a boom. It goes boom. And these are the periods when you've got to have a PR with his coded questions that can be decoded so we can find out what it is, so we can get a program in the thing while the organizing officer immediately gets a hold of this one and that one, and cools off the existing tempers. And you get instant hatting right away, and comm ev the HCOAS. Fast, fast, fast you see, because when it's let go you can operate on this principle, the longer you let it go the bigger the boom. And that is a definite operating principle.

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.

If you don't believe that, we had it all taped out many, many months ago what we were going to do. And it was for a period there when we did not put an organizational pattern together. And Ken and I were discussing this, and we should really organize this, and we really should take this organizational step. But at that particular time were unwilling to take the step due to some of the scarcities of personnel. And I don't know, I think we let it go for about six or seven days, and all of a sudden, boom! And now we had to put it all together in just no time at all. And the other principle is, the longer you neglect it, the more frantically you're going to have to work to salvage it. So foresight really pays off, and that's why the org officer should be way ahead of the product officer.

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

And he gets way ahead, I call to your attention again, by picking got five people here who are eligible to be executive directors in a pinch, and I've got six people who are triple hatted. That is to say they're on a single post, but they've been checked out on all of the hats in their particular area. Isn't that nice? And so on, now if we just check them out on all the hats of a couple of more divisions here, we possibly will have an org officer here. Ah, that's nice. Goodies." And that is the think which has to be back of that which puts the org officer ahead of the product officer. In poverty it is always very easy to starve to death very quickly.

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

And there's something I must mention to you in, actually in closing. Something I must mention to you. And that is that there's a make/break point of an org. There's a make/break point. And when an organization drops below a certain volume, a certain income and a certain personnel level, it is in the break point. And it not only breaks itself, it breaks the people in it.

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.

Now when you start to getting people trying to blow because of overload, and they can't cope with it and that sort of thing, you are definitely, definitely in the break area. And when you see a lot of trouble and strain and stress, you are in the break area.

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

Now the break might not be right where you are. It might be on an extensional line. You may have very overburdened lines without recognizing it, which, those lines are extensional outside the organization. Now that would be particularly true of a bureau. A Flag bureau or a liaison bureau set up is peculiarly liable to stresses which aren't easily locatable inside the org, because the stresses are on its traffic lines. Because where it has any responsibilities for organization of outside areas at all, those stresses show up inside the organization. So everything appears to be OK as far as personnel are concerned, and that sort of thing are concerned, but there's internal stress. You're actually in a break area. And that is the time to organize like hell, to promote like mad, and to push up your accumulation of resources at great speed.

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

Whenever you find yourself in that; and every Scientology org in the world as I speak at this moment is running below its make point. The make point of a Scientology organization where it's really rolling in cream and so on, is probably somewhere in the vicinity of about a twenty thousand GI. And if you're not doing that, then you're under strain, and very, very heavy strain. And the people inside the organization will be under strain. And then you can expect that to dwindle. Whatever you've got will dwindle, rather than increase, unless you take efforts to actually effectively push it up to the make point.

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

Now it's nothing very serious, you just make up your mind that we're going to expand this establishment up past the make point. For instance, the accumulated actions of an org like the Los Angeles org at this particular time, have not added up to moving itself into any zone of make. It got into the break point, and it's suddenly grabbed from every direction, and they're putting it back together again. But it is the money made by the individual staff member that determines your make/break point. And it's the old qual stat. And it actually isn't a term of sums of money. You can just lay it aside. I said that that was in that zone, and it is in that zone. You can lay that aside as being, that's only contemporary. Who knows but what tomorrow a barrel load of money will buy a loaf of bread and no more?

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

The make/break point and so on is dependent on the amount of money made by the individual staff member, and when it is too high you will find yourself in a break point, and if it's too low you'll find yourself in a break point. If you're counting on every individual staff member to pull in fifty-five hundred dollars a week for the organization, you are in too high a band. And there will be a little bit of a crack start showing up along that line, because you haven't put enough organization there to make that much money. And if it's too low, you've got too much and too inefficient an organization there, and its basis are too bad if it's down at the lower end of the band. And I can tell you that through 1969 the point of membership in orgs was sixteen to eighteen pounds per staff member. Let's look that over. That was the international, sixteen to eighteen pounds per staff member. That isn't even, wasn't even good pay for a Scientology org member out in the society. He couldn't even support himself at that, much less support the organization. So, that organization must have been absolutely product gone. They couldn't have had any product at all. Do you see what I mean? I'm giving you the actual data.

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).

Now at this time I instantly became very interested in this network. My ears went up, boom. And this was about, a little over a year ago that I saw what this trend was and I said that they're running organizationally at so low a level that they won't make it. And this is going to crack up somewhere along the line, so we'll bolster it up. And that was the LRH program number one, programs that you saw going out at that particular time were trying to lift that up, trying to lift that up and hold the fort until we could get a better basis of organization which could bring this about. The why of that was lack of products. They were not making products. And the products they were making were very often too poorly costed. Just, just insufficient volume, insufficient quality, and gave you insufficient viability. So that old qual stat will have to be restored.

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

Now, guess what? I don't know what it is at this exact instant, but all the members of the Sea Org, in orgs or not in orgs at this particular instant; well this is a figure that's taken from some considerable time ago actually measured up; but it counted all the people in the Sea Org and the gross income of the Sea Org, and it was fabulously high. The highest income per staff member ever made in the Sea Org was fifty-five hundred dollars. They were pretty high, heavily under strain too, but they were doing it.

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

Now the one, when I surveyed the thing, I said at this instant; not true; when I surveyed this last, and I don't guarantee the absolute accuracy of it and so on, but it was five hundred, about five hundred and twenty dollars for every person in the Sea Org on ships, in orgs and everything else, per Sea Org member, not per staff member. Now this shows there must be some outness.

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.

Now one of the outnesses is, is that the Scientology org does not have sufficiently large packages to sell. It is selling right now hours, which might not be wise. It ought to sell results of some kind or another, it ought to sell packages. And it could rescue itself very easily by selling training, which isn't cut rate training.

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

Do you know that the Los Angeles organization was selling courses for as little as thirty(c)five dollars apiece, actual cash received? They had internal systems of cutatives, so that there was thisa and thata, and that consideration. And then just a failure to walk around and collect the money and so on. And a whole series of their invoices and so on were inspected a few months ago, and it showed that, that somebody just had rocks in his head. And the org was having a great deal of trouble, and they were selling courses, but having sold the course they weren't really delivering the course. But what they sold the course for was staggering. Through some kind of internal think or arrangements or peculiarities and so on; I'm not trying to brand one org that's being particularly bad. I imagine this was fairly general. You could get a Dianetics course, thirty(c)five dollars, and so on.

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

Now how they managed this I don't know. But there could be, even when you have a package, and even when the package will bring in adequate income to support the org, things can happen internally in the organization, so the resource never, the valuable final product doesn't occur. Well that is of great interest.

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.)

Now one of the reasons why you have sophisticated technology at this particular time is because of the factors which I have been telling you, and also because of the difficulties of managing from a command position. These difficulties are sufficiently great that they're almost, were almost impossible. So therefore we had to have much higher, much more sophisticated technology, and 1970 was the year in which this was very carefully researched and developed. But your make/break part of your organization is improved to the degree that the policy and technology of Scientology is known and employed in the operation of that organization. And this is your first factor that you have to learn.

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.

With some horror just a few minutes ago, just a few minutes before the lecture, I was looking at an otherwise originated policy letter which caved in a corner of one of our finance systems. And now I have got to run this down, and round this up, and cancel this thing out in a hurry.

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

Now you occasionally in the field will get an order, rarely, but you'll get them. An order or a policy or a directive or an ED which runs contrary to your production, and which makes your production difficult. You would be very remiss in your duties if you did not instantly call this to attention, rapidly. There is even a policy by which a destructive order can be halted on the lines.

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

For instance, in the middle of the Dianetics course installation, in the Dianetics course you have a statement, when it was released, "Do not drop any Scientology action which you have at this particular time." A couple of PLs, not written by me, and some directives and so forth went out, and in the southern United States you had a belief; the south western United States there was a belief that if anybody audited Scientology grades on anyone that he was committing a high crime, and would be liable to comm ev. Now who the hell put that out, I don't know. And yet that was into the teeth of the actual statement made on the HDC tape when it was made, and on the ED which released it. And for god sakes, don't drop any Scientology actions you are doing, just because we're giving you Dianetics.

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

So what was the broad spread action? To drop every single Scientology action that was being done. There was even a couple of policy letters originated that got by and got circulated, which canceled those things out, and which messes it up, oh my god! So you must assume that somewhere along your lines you will have somebody who finds it very satisfactory to interrupt forward progress. The writing of the current fashion, the writing of the current fad does more to destroy your stats than anything else you could do.

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

Yesterday it was true too, and yet man, because of his immediate concern with present time is continuously throwing away what he has in return for what he hopes to have. And it's a sort of an idiot game. Your resources are policy and HCOBs. Do you know that this moment we have just put on a check sheet, I don't know the date of this congress, it must be in the early sixties. Ken could tell me. The State of Man Congress. That's it, '59. We have just put it on a check sheet for a very high upper level course, The State of Man Congress. You haven't any idea of the, of the, what you could do with the resources. If you don't know what those resources are, why of course they won't be utilized, and you ride off in some high hopes of something. Because all the auditors in the HGC flub a Dianetic session, all of a sudden why some brand new technique is looked upon to solve all the cases in the neighborhood, any one of which would solve if anybody ever read the textbook and taught anybody the textbook on Dianetics in the first place.

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

The highest breakthrough we have at this moment is covered in full, in the early sixties. And the only thing that's happened with this breakthrough is we have used it to its totality, and have audited it with some new methods of handling a session, which make it come off smoothly enough. Only one new principle has been developed, but there are two new methods of auditing to make it smoother. But the whole theory of it is back there in the early sixties. Now that's amazing, isn't it? Now you're basically in the business of knowledge, as the one thing that you are putting out. And it's knowledge of self. So whatever other valuable final product you have is knowledge. And you would be absolutely startled, but a fellow who is a Class X in training at this moment got stopped by me the other day, and given, when he was asking me questions about why something was happening about a low TA, was told very directly, very directly and very forcefully that he'd damn well better go back and read the Original Thesis. He hadn't ever understood what happened in this session. I've had C/Ss who couldn't audit because they did not know the basic books. Therefore, you then basically are purveying knowledge. So how do you expect to succeed without your mimeo files? How do you expect to succeed without your book store absolutely crammed to the gunnels? How do you expect to succeed without every tape in that place, and packages for sale, that you possibly can lay your hands on? Because you're basically purveying knowledge.

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.

When we went over a whole series of franchises we picked out the most successful franchises. And we asked the fellow to write up what made it so successful. At the beginning of ever meeting that he had with his public on a PE level he read them a policy letter, almost regardless of what it was all about. And he got tremendous, he was just a howling success. So now you start comparing this with empty mimeograph files, with packs with holes in them, and you will see what causes your make/break point. You are not spending your primary asset, which is knowledge. And we're not dealing with the kind of knowledge which was true in '61 but was not true in '62. There's very little of that on the track, and it was all corrected out not too long ago. There are tapes beyond belief, the libraries and so forth which we have.

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).

So your organizing officer, your organizing officer must recognize that his first asset that he looks on as goodies is all that space taken up there with mimeo files. All that space taken up there with packs. And all of that space taken up in the book store with basic books, and so on. There's resources, and that's where his resources begin. His resources don't even begin with people. The people are all over the place, but they're worth nothing to anybody unless the knowledge is put out. And that is the basic business you're in.

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.

And if an org officer mistakes, you look it over, you will agree with me. I'm not just beating drum for anything of the sort. You look it over here, and you'll find out that you've got a guy in off the street, and you put him on as a clerk or a course administrator. Realize that you don't look on him as valuable at all until he has been checked out and trained, and this. Realize that you always automatically and very often very mistakenly make your Class VIII the HES, because he knows more, knowledge. So knowledge is what makes the difference. And the organizing officer is basically dealing with knowledgeable people, and so his basic asset and basic resource of course is knowledge. And he takes off from there, and then he gets that applied to people, and then the next thing you know, he'll see a thirty-two story building Scientology in gold letters across the front of it. It's more the org officer's basic hat than it is the product officer's, because the product officer doesn't look on a book ordered from some place or another as a product, he looks on a book sold as a product. But the book ordered is the organizing officer's worry.

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 of course the product officer could say, "Look, I can't sell any books until some books have been ordered and delivered." New York is failing at this moment. Everyone walking around in circles wondering, "Why is New York failing?" I happen to know the missing books that they do not have in New York, and they're all of the basic ones. They're just not there, they don't have them. We should be at Flag bureau, and probably will be, and there is an aide at this moment in charge of Pubs org pushing like screaming crazy to get a lot of basic titles back in print, and to get them into print in the U.S. The world has all of a sudden decided not only to be exclusive with its currency, but also with its literature. U.S. books can't come into Europe, European books can't go into the U.S. now. Very difficult. They can get in on individual book sales, but trying to get them in in any quantity at all is very terrible, and copy rights go to pieces if you do, and so on. So you're up against this.

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

So what, what basically, what basically is the basic resource? The individual walks in off the street, until he has been checked out, until he's been genned in, until he knows the administrative knowledge of the organization and so forth, is not a resource. He is just a resource to the point where he may be worth something, he may not be worth something. Now when he's checked out, so therefore knowledge is a dominant factor in the success of an org officer. And I want to point this out, not because of any other reason than when it isn't there he will fail. Time and time and time again this has been proved over and over and over and over.

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.)

So in just winding this up I want to put this, put this home. As far as, as far as the product officer is concerned, he won't get anyplace unless he's got some tapes going, every night, every night, every night, every night, every night, every night, every night, every night, every night, every night. We don't care whether he was running an HAS course or PE course or something, he ought to have some tapes going, every night, every night, every night, every night. Public tapes, on and on and on.

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

Now, you say, "Well," and so on. Somebody's making a resurgence in an org right now. They've gotten a hold of Ron's Journal '67, and they're just playing it every night. And it seems to me like they're making a terrible scarcity of the situation. But then we found out that the only tapes available were a mixed bag. A mixed bag. There were some excerpts from some various congresses, somebody picks all the cherries off the ice cream, you know? Or just one or two cherries off several ice creams, ruins several ice creams to have three cherries, or something. I don't know what the think is. But we're trying right now at the Flag bureau to do everything we can to bust these lines and to get distribution and so on. It might be done faster, it might be done this, it might be done that. We have certain various logistic problems and so on which we have to overcome. We're trying to make this thing available, but unless somebody at the other end of the line in the person of the org officer recognizes clearly that he is dealing with knowledge, and if he hasn't got it in book form, and if he hasn't got it in pack form, and if he can't make up packs out of any mimeograph set up, he's had it.

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.

Now it's true enough, he could probably get a few sets or one set of an OEC course. He could get that set, and you can see now the trying to do something with this bound set. Well he'd have to have several sets. Well good, so he could have several sets, but it doesn't give him actually the loose leafed stuff that he needs. Therefore, an org officer's whipped at once that he doesn't know what he's doing, and he can't immediately impart and directly and immediately gen in and impart to his staff members rapidly. And of course he could never back up a product officer.

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.

And if you want to know what is wrong with the make/break point of any organization, is Scientology orgs have dropped low on their resources of knowledge that they can hand around and use, at this particular moment, and the knowledge which is in practice and which is available to them as a practiced knowledge in the hands of auditors and instructors inside the org and in their neighborhood.

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.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good night now.

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.