Refs:

Refs:

• HCO PL 7 Feb. 65 KSW Series 1 KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING

• HCO PL 17 June 70RB I KSW Series 5 Rev. 25.10.83 TECHNICAL DEGRADES

In 1965 I wrote the policy letter KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING. It appears as the first item of nearly every Dianetics and Scientology course checksheet. And with good reason. Unswerving and relentless application of that one issue by every Scientologist is our only certain means of keeping the technology pure and the future hope of mankind alive.

How does standard “green-on-white” policy get lost? Just as with the “red-on- white” tech of auditing or training, it can potentially be obscured or made to seem unimportant by the actions of an ill-intentioned individual.

It may not be generally understood, however, that the principles given in that policy letter do not apply only to what is commonly referred to as “tech” — the first dynamic technology given in HCO Bulletins. You see, when “tech” goes out, the pc suffers. When “admin” goes out, the org declines.

Someone considers that the best way to get a new staff member quickly onto post is to shorten his hat checksheet or label key hat materials as “old.” The new staff member fails, dragging a whole unit or department down with him in a maelstrom of dev-t.

Therefore, to keep Scientology working, all of Scientology, one must insist on standard tech and admin. The principles of unvarying adherence to precise technology, constant alertness to tech alter-is and insistence that every Scientologist abide by these rules apply just as severely to the third dynamic technology of standard administration — POLICY.

In a hurry to get something accomplished, someone skimps on the usual, on- policy procedures and routings and soon his improvised (squirreled) “handling,” tolerated by others, becomes “the way it’s always done around here.” And crash goes that area.

Seeking to get his own stats up at any cost (and ignoring the effects of his actions on the org as a whole), an “expert” manages to obscure standard, on-policy lines and routings and implements his own “successful actions,” then torpedoes any attempt to get policy in. The result — the org falls far short of what it could be producing if it were operating by the book.

POLICY embraces the basic duties of a staff member, the precision technology of management in all its aspects and at every echelon, and standard ethics and justice procedures. Policy is found in HCO PLs, Flag Orders, Central Bureaux Orders, LRH EDs, taped lectures and other duly authorized and on-source administrative issues.

Such actions are suppressive. They are HIGH CRIMES. And they carry the same penalties as the suppression of the technologies of Dianetics and Scientology auditing or training — a condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a full investigation of the person’s background.

Just as with our technology of handling the individual, our policies for the establishment and expansion of effective organizations are based on fundamental laws of life derived through exhaustive research and experience. Every policy we have has been put to the acid test — “Does it work?” — and passed. Neither tech nor policy admit interpretation, alteration or “new ideas” generated by the bank. Bright, constructive application of exact principles, yes. Embellishment and know-best, never.

The following actions or omissions are classified as HIGH CRIMES:

To you, the individual executive or staff member, “Keeping Admin Working” means making sure that you have all the policy relating to your post and to your hat as a staff member. It means insisting that your org’s Qual Division maintains a complete library of policy for use by staff and that it is not unmocked or hidden away or rendered unusable. It means knowing the policies of one’s job, through standard hatting and training. It means insisting that standard staff courses exist complete with WHAT IS A COURSE? policy in down to the last comma, whose graduates go livid at the idea of anyone alter-ising standard policy. It means demanding that Qual provides a tough, standard Cramming Section that detects deviation from policy at the first pause of a stat and handles the hell out of it right now — including finding out how the scene was allowed to go awry in the first place and correcting THAT, too. It means total dedication on the part of every last Scientologist to putting in standard admin, straight by the book. It means holding an utterly unreasonable line on KEEPING standard admin IN.

1. Abbreviating an official course in standard Scientology administrative policy so as to lose the full theory, administrative procedures and effectiveness of the subject.

While our overall record of success is stellar in the extreme, the history of our organizations is dotted here and there with stat crashes brought about by out-admin. These range in scope from the collapse of one staff member’s post up to the near collapse of the whole international Scientology network in the 60s when squirrel “execs” at Worldwide were “managing” on their own know-best and over scores of misunderstoods on basic policy. That scene was salvaged by getting the admin squirrels off the lines, their orders cancelled and the simple on-policy usual done: org boards set straight and made known, hat checksheets and packs compiled, studied up and used by all staff, a schedule posted and adhered to, etc. Very simple, really. It just had to be DONE.

The fact is that every organizational failure or decline in our history can be traced to standard admin going OUT. Likewise, every boom or recovery can be traced to policy being put IN. It is a one-for-one.

It was once found that a senior exec (long since discovered and removed) was attempting to run a major org from his upper-management post on a day-to-day basis even though it was several echelons below him and despite numerous vividly clear policies forbidding such an activity. But this person “knew best.” And he managed (not accidentally) to crash the org’s delivery and leave a major mess for other, on- policy execs to come in and bail out on an emergency basis.

This same Mr. Know Best was also found to have worked his way onto the comm lines of some staff doing a vital project to revive a faltering org. He was covertly feeding them his own instructions (which were completely contrary to policy and the approved steps of the project) and getting them to forward his “successful actions” instead of policy. The result was a failed project which had to be redone from scratch. Had those executing the project adhered to policy instead of forwarding someone’s know-best and alter-is, their project could have ended in success instead of a crash.

People’s failure to recognize what standard policy is can sometimes get in your road. As an example, an executive once went into an org and established a standard, by-the-book (OEC Volume 4) Dept 10 with Dir Tech Services, HGC Admin, Tech Pages, Tech Receptionists, etc. The stats, of course, boomed. But after that, people kept referring to this exec’s actions as though they were something new and strange and referred to the project instead of the OEC Volume! From this, one can conclude that you have to put in policy with an ax and call it such and take no nonsense concerning it. For even when people see the fruits of the application of policy materialize, they have to be told again that that was POLICY and IS IN THEIR OEC VOLUMES.

The way to do this is to get in a competent Qual that hats the staff on HCO PLs, from basic staff status checksheets all the way up to FEBC, and crams them when they flub. Unless Qual is strong and functioning and pounds home green-on-white as the tried and true way to go about something, the staff are open to some suppressive moving in and leading them off into squirreldom.

We work, in our organizations, in the face of a bank that says that the group is all and the individual nothing. This you know. Know too that that same bank is constructed to make very sure that no one ever succeeds in forming anything resembling an effective group with true survival goals or purposes. So we face quite a challenge. But in standard admin policy we have a potent weapon with which to meet this challenge: a codified system of organization which, where it has been applied purely, has resulted in the most powerful and effective organizations this planet and sector have ever known. Required are only the courage, determination and confront to master and use this weapon.

I count on you — the individual Scientologist — to take up the challenge, to put standard Scientology administrative policy to work, and to WIN. You can, you know. And the victory will be not only for you but for Scientology and for all mankind.

Our policy is the result of years of hard-won experience. It works. It must be applied vigorously, intelligently and to the letter. Our own lives and happiness are at stake. This planet and universe are at stake. To carry off the task we need only keep and use these tools of standard admin.