Hello. (Hello.) In view of the fact that the lectures the other day were popular, we decided we would repeat the performance just for your special benefit. It's the twenty-third of January AD 21, FEBC Flag.

Now the reason why I want to talk to you however is not just to see your pleasant, smiling faces, which I am always happy to see, but because having cleared up this thing called a product officer, we are, as you would suppose, up against the next barricade.

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 the product officer's first product is an org officer. The org officer's first product is an HCO AS. The HCO area secretary's first product is an HCO, and the first product of the HCO is the establishment. Imagine my horror during the last seventy-two hours to find I was dealing with people who didn't know what an establishment was. Horror. And I think it's because people get their attention stuck on bodies.

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 many years ago we used to have some drills which were extremely interesting, which was pat your body, and feel your body, and look at your body, and look around the room and look at your body. You know that sort of thing? I think you'll have to run it, because all I find out an establishment consists of is some bodies. That of course would make a mortuary the ideal establishment.

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

Now this is so gross that I think actually it's one of those points that has to be cleared on an org officer, because until some of these points were cleared, we did not find operation by the org officer effective at all. And when these; we already have a little case history on that; when this point was cleared, and why then it started to work out very well. So we've had a positive and a negative run on this, and the positive run in the Flag bureau was good, and the run actually that has occurred in the tech division FAO just now, was not good, by a long way. But, what happened was, we were letting the Flag bureau clarification of these points go along to see if they worked out, and since that time, why they have worked out. And, it has not been cleared up in the FAO, or the, that's the Flag admin org, or the FAO division four, that's the tech division, has not been cleared up in that sector, and it is running, you wouldn't believe it. So therefore, what I'm talking to you about is of very great importance. It is not slight. And the reason I called this lecture so suddenly was as I say, not to look at your bright and smiling faces, but to give you some information which you cannot live without.

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

If you try to use this product/org officer system without this data, you're going to come a cropper as an executive director, a CO or a product officer, or an org officer, or an HCO sec, or an HCO, and not know why it all isn't working somehow. But it is something on the order of the auditor has forgotten to turn on his E-Meter. I mean, it's a grossness, but it apparently is something that needs pointing out, it is something that needs clearing, and it is something that needs drilling.

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.

Now the product officer can get confused enough in trying to differentiate between his job and his org officer's job, because of course he has a legion of problems and so on, which are bouncing up along his lines. He will find himself however running on a short term cope per products, and his products will get worse, and he will have more and more trouble, and he'll get very exhausted, and he'll eventually say, "This system doesn't work somehow, and it's too exhausting and it's too horrible." And he won't be able to sleep at night, and will be found prowling the streets or sitting in parks with his head in his hands, with over loads and ARC breaks, which can't be audited because he's too exhausted.

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.

The product officer Flag bureau and I had a talk about this when we saw, in the wee, small hours of the morning, when we saw that there was something wrong with this line up. And we discussed it, and kicked it back and forth, and used the practical experiences and applications which we had already had with regard to it. And we finally isolated it, and this is apparently it. And you see, we found the why, and now when we applied the why did it all work out? And the answer is yes. So I'm giving you a valid, tested result.

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 this why can't be just brushed off as an org officer's ignorance of organization, or something of this sort. This is no shame, blame, regret on the org officer's side of it. It is just what does the org officer have to know? And what does he have to do? Because you see, he could know a hundred million details, and he actually doesn't have to.

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.

The way we were clarifying this originally is, the org officer was the cheerleader. Oh that shifted your gears in a hell of a hurry, didn't it? Yeah well, the org consists of bodies and hats. Yeah. Let's take a look at this, he's a cheerleader.

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 in our orgs particularly, we are taking care of the problems of the world. Well who takes care of our people? The org officer. When they're over loaded and sick and caved in and need somebody to hold their hands, who is it? It's the org officer, naturally. When they're under paid and over worked, who handles it? It's the org officer, naturally. But to do this kind of thing, the org officer has to have; it isn't that he's just a chaplain, far from it. But that is one of the things he'd have to do. And that was the original little see-through. We all of a sudden saw through in discussing it, this point, of where the org officer might fail.

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

The org officer, in communication continuously with the product officer can, he would go right ahead and pick up the speed of trying to get it organized in order to keep up with the product officer. That is for sure. And he actually should sort of run along ahead. We're going to increase the load on this division, production is going up, well the org officer should be in ahead of that. It's like your heavy traffic warning. The first one to pick that up would be the org officer. Not the product officer, that would be after the fact.

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.)

So if the org officer does not pick this up in the first place, ahead of the product officer, you will get a sequence of booms and depressions, which will consist of this: Over load, lines break, somehow or other put it together, somehow. And over load, lines break, put it together, and so on, because there's no rule that every time loads increase why, those points of your organization which are weak blow up. And we've been observing that here for a long time.

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 the org officer is there to do product three, which is the correction of the establishment. Preferably before the fact, and certainly swiftly after the fact. And the org's org officer is there for that purpose. And the org officer of the division is there for that purpose, and he's a product three man. You say, "Yeah, well what do you mean 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.

There are four products. One, product one, establishment. Establishing the establishment. Product two is the product of the establishment. It's what does the establishment produce. Product three is the correction of the establishment itself. And product four is the correction of the product. Now these are just arbitrary figures and you could figure it all out backwards, and actually should do your org board backwards, you could rename all of these things, but these are numbers and so on. But just recognize what they are, they are simply the sequential numbers, more or less in order of writing the bulletin. I mean, there isn't any particular reason for those numbers. See? You could say, "Well they're one and two and three and four, and so on."

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

So, there is no point actually in discussing the chicken and the egg problem. What comes first? The establishment or the product. What comes first? Well, what came first, the chicken or the egg? It's pretty obvious, pretty obvious that the egg came first, didn't it? Well the egg would have to come first, because otherwise there would have been a missing sequence that arrived at the chicken. So we have solved that old, ancient problem. Just look over your data series, perfectly true. There would have been omitted, omitted points of sequence, and an altered sequence of events if the chicken came first. So it's quite obvious.

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

So actually probably, the product however does come first. A fellow goes out and he gets some leather, and he brings the leather in and gets an old kitchen knife and so on. He cuts himself a pair of sandals, and somebody else wants some sandals, so he scrounges some more leather and he cuts that up. And eventually why, making money from making sandals, he is able to purchase a better knife, and he can lay in more raw materials. But that better knife is when he starts into establishment. And then he gets an awl, and he's got more establishment, hasn't he? And he himself is gaining more expertise in how to do this, so of course that is more establishment. And gradually, out of the product arrives the establishment. And the funny part of it is, this is perfectly true. You could probably take a hundred thousand dollars, establish an org in New York City, and it'd promptly fail. We've done it. You wonder why we always insist that an org make its own way? And every once in a while we get; we've only had a couple of these in recent years. Somebody puts in a proposal that Flag pay three thousand dollars a week to support this org while it got on its feet; and we've had a couple like this. And believe me, if you want to run something backwards, do that. That's all great.

Million Dollars? - OK.

Now of course big factories do this all the time, and they don't own themselves anymore. They're all owned by the bank. I wonder how they lost the whole lousy lot? Well they just did it backwards, that's all. And Mr. Henry Ford starts with the, a bicycle factory and winds up with the Ford Motor Company, which winds up with a lot of subsidiaries, so that the Ford Motor Company at any time might establish a subsidiary with the cash it has at hand, and it goes on and manufactures things. And I notice though, as time goes on, the more the reserves are taken out of the Ford Motor Company to establish a subsidiary to do this, that or the other thing, why the less the stockholders get, and the less belong to Mr. Ford. He isn't even there anymore.

20 Auditors? - OK.

The point I'm making is, is there is no point at which the flow can be reversed. So therefore, you could say that product one is really the product. You see, there would be good reason for reversing this numbering. The product, the establishment, and so on. However, it is as it is. Number one is the establishment as a product, number two is the product of the establishment. If you want to work all this out, why just look at a generator, or something like that for a while, and it'll all evolve. And then of course you have to correct the establishment, and then you have to correct the product. It's easier to take it odd numbers, org officer, and even numbers, product officer.

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

So what comes first, the chicken or the egg? The egg came first, and always will come first. And it's economically unsound not to have it first, the egg as first. In other words, two is always primary and senior. But it's properly numbered after all, because to get anything you have to work backwards. You actually do, you have to figure it all out backwards. So, that numbering system presses this point home. If you want to work out an organization, take its product and then work backwards, and you will wind up with the org board. And if you take the org board and write it up, if you haven't got any product, and you aren't going to have any product, and you didn't have any product, and you aren't going to have any product, and that is all. You got an org board, you got a bad, heavy payroll, you got a this and that.

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

Org after org after org is sitting out there, and because we have delivered an org board, they've put up this org board, but if they had to really work it out they would figure out what their product was and work backwards to their org board. We can give them the org board that they should wind up with, but it is posted backwards. An org board is always posted backwards. It is not posted in such a way as, we put a name on a post. There's a post, so we put somebody on it. There's a post, so we put somebody on it. So there's a post, so we put somebody on it. That is not how, and is actually pointed out in your OEC as an absolutely fatal way to go about it. And you'd wind up probably with a government that governed nobody and nothing.

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 do you, what do you actually do to put together an org board, even when you have one handed you? You post the personnel who get the product. And if you're organizing an org you would put on these posts. Alright, why? See?

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

Now let me give you the valuable products. The basic valuable products of an org are auditors, preclears and money. And they're the final valuable products that are the obvious ones. There are some additional ones, but these certainly are the obvious ones. So therefore, you work it backwards. You don't post an HCO OES, OES, PES in a three man org, who don't also work. Somebody could hold these posts, but it'd have to be posted backwards. You'd have to put on an auditor or auditors, to make the preclears, you'd have to put on the course supervisors, to make the auditors, and then you'd have to put on somebody to get the people to collect the money.

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 if we went at this very straightforwardly we'd find in what I've just told you there's a slight altered sequence of events. So, I'll just show you how neat this is. You would of course put on a course supervisor. And you'd put on somebody, even if it was the course supervisor, to get some students to pay to be trained. That gives you the money. And then you'd put on some auditors who had been so trained, in order to process pcs who are procured, and that gives you some money. And then you train more auditors, and you get some money. And you've now got auditors who can process more pcs, which gives you some money. And so, you can buy broader promotion in order to more broadly bring people in to be trained, so you about this time you've got to have somebody hot on the promotion line. You get how we're posting this thing now? And one of the little secrets of org failures is, is they don't post the course supervisor first. He's posted as an afterthought. And they don't bother to deliver the course because it isn't a primary posted action. And so of course they don't get any auditors who can audit, so there, when they bring in pcs they don't get audited, and then people don't pay money for no service on a course and no service from the auditor, so of course you run out of money, and it goes backwards, because it wasn't posted backwards. Posted backwards.

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 when we say somebody to train a course, we want a course supervisor, not somebody that once heard of something. When we audit people, we want an auditor. What is an auditor? An auditor is somebody who attains flubless results. Right now about fifty percent of the field auditors, maybe not that great a percentage. We haven't done a survey, but it seems like that, with cases coming back. Why the walls down there in Flag Qual would be charred. Absolutely charred. We're going at a level of certainty which does not say, "Well of course the reason why the session, or the pc, bla-bla, reasonable, you know, it explains easily. I mean, married a long time ago and probably is still PTS to somebody in Nero's time. You know? Ha, ha, ha. So of course, you say there's nothing you can do about it, and so on. And the reason that the chain didn't F/N at the examiner is it didn't F/N at the auditor's end, because it, narrative or something. But that doesn't have anything to do with it, because nobody knows what a narrative somatic is. And..."

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

So now, let us go over this again. If you want an org you would post it backwards. You would post a course supervisor, not somebody to not be there. Now he would have to have the materials, wouldn't he? And then, when we gild the lily here, we'd have to have somebody counting the noses of students as they walked in and out of the door, and have folders for them and so forth, so we'd have to have some administrative check on all of this to find out of they were coming to class at all. So we would build it up from product to org officer.

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, the product comes first, but to get the product you have to have organization. So we're back the other way around again. Chicken came first. If you were to crash in a space ship on a god awful desolate planet, and you were faced with having to build the entire civilization, you would probably have to start with a sharp rock, right? And from that, over a considerable period of time, why you would eventually get the metal that bubbles out of the stones that are parked around the fire, and have copper. Now those are the long spans. But even though you might look at this prospect and sigh, and even though you might have done this, there is no reason why it cannot be done, providing you start with a sharp rock. In other words, there is some place to start.

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

Now when you get to a product org officer line, you get this on your bing, bing. Now somebody's got to get some potential students who want to be trained, who will pay for the training, but the moment that that action starts, the org officer, anticipating a traffic flow, has ought to have procured at that moment a course supervisor, and the materials that the students will be taught, and the tape recorders, and the tapes, and the folder supplies, and the room, with a roof over it so the students don't get rained on, and the chairs, and the tables, and the clock, and the schedule. "Hey," you say, "what's this product officer doing all this time?" Well, if the org officer's that over burdened, he's putting in a product one, isn't he? He's putting in a product one all that time. So he'd better unload product one because he'll find it very rapidly in over burden. So he forms his first embryonic action of an HCO, even if he just does it by dividing his hat. Product one belongs to HCO, it belongs to the org officer's product. HCO AS.

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 what's the org officer do? Well he got rid of it, see? He got rid of it. And somebody's putting the establishment there. "Well yeah but," you'd say, "treasury actually buys this stuff and other things, and the bookstore orders this stuff. And it's all ordered up and down the org, and you haven't got any org." No, no, no, no. Product one, the establishment of the establishment belongs to HCO. "Yeah, but the org officer got rid of that, didn't he? He got somebody there to put in the establishment and so on." So what's he do? He's even got to get a registrar and somebody there to pull the students in, and put this thing together and so forth. But that's, you know, that's HCO, isn't it? So that's immediately at HCO, so it's..."

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 what's this org officer do? Well, product one. Product one is his responsibility. But having taken that responsibility he passes it over to somebody. So what's that leave him with? It leaves him with product three, the correction of the establishment. It leaves him with, when the chairs don't arrive, he gets some there. He calls the local funeral parlor and has them, rents some right away. Brezzo, zoom, boom.

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

Meanwhile, telling his establishment officer HCO ES, "You get some chairs. Buy some chairs." So he doesn't have anybody to operate as a course administrator because if nobody wandered in and it wasn't established, and so forth. That's a three then, isn't it? So he has a friend of his, or somebody that's standing around with his mouth open and so forth, suddenly finds himself kidnapped and on that post, and there's a dreadful row about this because the person's actually the director of disbursement. If he's director of disbursement, what the hell was he doing standing there? Good question. And that's the org officer's rebuttal.

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.

The assignment of the course administrator, the hiring of somebody, the putting of somebody there, under of course the pressure of the org's org officer, is of course the HCO job.

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

How do we actually get here? There are some other areas that have something to do with this establishment. There is the estate bureau. "Ah well hell, we don't have any estate bureau yet, we haven't even glued up an org board." So it must be, belong to what we call HCO. HCO generates the number one, establishment.

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

What's it consist of? It consists of the establishment. But what is an establishment? And right away we start to get into the basis of our deepest misunderstood. You ask almost anybody what an org consists of he'll say, "Well it consists of some people and it consists of some hats." And boy, that is about the faintest statement that anybody ever made under god's green Earth. You've got to beat this out and recognize it for real. What does an org consist of? What does an organization consist of? What is this thing called an establishment? We can go on and on and on and on and on. But it has very specific things. If you don't have a place to do this action, you will be training people in the rain, or the snow or something. So if an org just consists of some people, why they're going to awfully wet people. If it consists of some packs, they're certainly not going to be protected from the weather. There's got to be some safeguarded or protected space there. It's got to have a roof over it, it's got to have doors and windows and floors. And that contains what?

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

Now I could go on and rattle off a list here of what, but I can give you certainly the basics it consists of. The tables, the chairs, the desks, supplies, the paper clips, the staplers, the comm baskets, the labels, the machinery, the typewriters, the address machines, the CF file cabinets, the CF folders, the content of the CF folders filed in them. It would consist of hats, and it would consist of packs and tape recorders, and it would consist of its various commercial contacts that set it up, and it would consist of; you get the idea. You start looking around, all of a sudden your eyes will open, the attention of anybody you're trying to break in as an org officer will come off of this thing called a body. That's the establishment.

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 you say, "Here, well yeah. Of course this is a, this is a ship, naturally. And of course that's under the ship org." Oh yeah? It's under what of the ship org? There must be somebody over there establishing a ship. So this is all very interesting.

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.

Now that's when you get very sophisticated indeed. Up to the time that it's all out it's all up to HCO. Somebody walks into HCO and says, "Where's the packs?" See? Yeah, but you only got one person, see? You say, "Well, you're division two today, too." That finishes that. Then you got two hats. "Where's the packs?" "Yes, well you see, and we wrote a letter..." and at that moment the org officer says, "God damn it to hell." Now, he deletes that because you must be nice. Remember your PR. "A dispatch is not a product, and it never will be, and it never will get us anything, and it is not anything that ever establishes anything. It is not a doingness, it is a gesture." And the first guy that says, "Well I wrote, I sent a dispatch to HCO..."

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

I'll tell you an exact situation. A personnel, who is facing internally; here you see, we have an internal/external situation, and that applies to CLOs. There's internal/external. Your org officer actually is operating a little more broadly in a CLO to establish the establishment, unless your CLOs HCO is competent to keep it established, because the org officer is operating internally, but the product officer in a CLO or on the Flag bureau is operating externally. It's a slightly different situation than you'll find in an org, because in an org directly, or in the FAO here, both the org and product officer are operating more or less internally. Their attention is internal.

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

Now it's very funny, when you have a personnel whose attention is external to the org, and internal to the org simultaneously, he tends to go bonkers. We've already analyzed this and we've had a lot of experience with this. The guy whose attention is out there and in there. The Guardian's Office for instance at this moment that I speak has heroically acceded to our pleas, so that we could teach an FEBC and hold the fort in, all over the world; and it's much broader than you imagine; has loaded onto itself a great many internal concerns. It's also trying to hold the fort externally. Well they can't do that very long, that's why you are getting pressure here, because the Guardian's Office will probably be holding the org, or the CLO out there will be holding the org, until trained personnel get back to that org. And it's not much mentioned to students, because it would harass them, and put them under a worry, and a stress. So I'm telling you, speed up.

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.

Actually the Guardian's Office at this exact moment all over the world is holding its breath, waiting for the FEBCs to come back, because they're holding internal actions. Now they're an external group. It wasn't the Guardian's Office in this instance, but I'm just telling you the difference between external and internal. Their attention is out into the public. Their tech is with the ARC broken pc out there in the public, not in the org. So, the person I was speaking to had permitted, who is an external personnel, I found was holding several internal hats. And I said, "Would you, what action have you taken to fill the vacant post?" And she said unfortunately, "I have repeatedly written a dispatch to HCO." That's what that charred mark is right there, my reply. We'll get the stewards to polish it out. And my order to her was, "You go down to the personnel files, and you look through these personnel files until you find somebody who is suitable, who is not holding a key post, and you take that person and put that person on that post." And the reason I did this is, I'm talking to a key personnel whose product is too valuable to be monkeyed with. And who was permitting herself to have an internal attention. Actually, probably a great deal of percentage of her time was being occupied internally.

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 in the; that's not the Guardian's Office; but in the Guardian's Office matter and so on, why the, Mary Sue is saying, "Where are the FEBCs? Where are the FEBCs? Where are they?" They're perfectly willing to handle this sort of a situation, but you've got policy knowledge and other actions of one kind or another in the Guardian's Office at this moment, holding posts of temporary executive director. USGO is holding a post, his communicator is holding a post in DC, or was 'til a very short time ago and so on. And they're spread thin. They're controlling all of Africa right now, and actually were telexing for help here within the last week or so. So this is an external/internal strain. So you got to figure out which is your external and which is your internal personnel. So you do have external personnel. Who's your registrar?

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

Now your registrar is working for people to come in and take that course, so that they can become auditors. Right? So she's got time to monkey around with how the files are or are not straight? You want to cut your income to pieces? Take an external facing personnel and give them internal distractions.

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

Now that goes broader than that. You want to cut your products to pieces? Take an org officer who isn't anticipating or running before the product officer with load lines, because your product officer will have his attention yanked over onto the subject of organization.

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

Now just as there's external/internal, there is the organization of things and the production of things. The production of things is of course totally dependent upon the clear cut organization of things. But, the funny part of it is, you can produce without a clear cut organization, and one of the ways of stalling a whole org is to go into one hundred percent organize. You go into a hundred percent organize, you'll choke it down every time. You organize while you produce, is the proper sequence. And you produce while you organize is actually much closer to the truth.

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 when you look over this team of the product officer/org officer, you find out that the org officer has to have a fantastically clear idea, and so does an HCO AS have to have a fantastically clear idea of exactly what an establishment consists of. Now this idea that I'm talking about is just like this. What does it consist of? Well it consists of a building, or rooms, or auditing rooms, of desks, of typewriters, of supplies, of personnel, of hats or hatting actions, and so on. The whole thing. The whole bang shoot. And if they don't have a total grip on what is an establishment, the org officer will not be able to back up the product officer, because he will never detect a decline. He won't see it as a departure from the existing scene. It isn't necessarily staticized. You know, the roof falls in. There's no stat for the roof falling in. But it is a departure from the ideal scene, I assure you.

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

So, therefore the first requisite of an org officer is not necessarily a verbatim knowledge of the OEC, but the definition and the extent of, and everything that there is in this thing called an establishment. And not only that, but what is everything in this particular establishment. Just like that. Now comes his knowledge of the OEC, because that tells him how it ought to go together and how it ought to run.

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

Now along with that is apparently you cannot ever have sensible hiring or personnel posting in an organization, unless there is a list of all of the essential hats and duties of those hats, in the organization, which is just a mini list. It's not even a mini list, it's an instant hat list. What do these people on these posts do?

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.

No one in personnel can function at all in personnel unless he has such a list. And where does one exist right now? There is no such list, not even in the most sophisticated personnel offices anyplace. What is this job? Well very often you'll get some big corporation, and it'll have some personnel thing and so on, but you won't find that list. They'll say, "Get me a shop foreman." So they look around to find somebody who has been a shop foreman.

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

Now why do they do that nonsense? It's actually because they couldn't for the life of them define what are the duties of a shop foreman. Now it might only take three sentences to lay out what the duties of a shop foreman are, but you won't find anybody posting personnel at all sensibly, or hiring sensibly, unless they have a pretty good idea of exactly what each post does. Just in the last twenty-four hours I've run into it aboard here, you wouldn't believe it. I just tried to do a posting to fill in suddenly. Somebody had a class ten as a requisite to somebody to file folders, and to hand them out to people when the name was on the list. You won't believe that; I'm not being critical of this because we're just forming up. "What the hell do you want a class ten for?" "Well, you see, the duties of that post, you find the post there, the duties of that post are, and so forth, will host the CS conference with the auditors." "Hosts what conference?" "Well the CS's conference, you see, with the auditors is held by the D of P." "Whose conference?" "The CS's conference, with the auditors, is held by the D of P." He got the point.

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

Now once upon a time, the D of P had as part of his hat CSing. Well we have a CS, and I would like to see a class ten D of P who was not acquainted with the CS line of the various cases, trying to hold a conference with the auditors auditing those pcs. That would really be a clown performance. It wouldn't matter how much tech this fellow would know, he is not the CS. So the only person who could hold a CS conference, or a CS's conference would of course be the CS. But we weren't trying to post a CS, we had a CS. We were trying to post a D of P who would make up the programming of the auditors and the pc's lists, to hand to tech services. And to interview some of the people who were being audited who very often have questions, and walk around in mystery as to why that's being done. There's nobody a CS right now can say, a little side note, "Contact this guy." You can have the examiner say, "What did the auditor do?" but you can't say, "Contact this guy and clarify what his program is." What his auditing program is. It takes the mystery out of it. Well that's what you have to do on public lines, and because we're not handling actually public lines, why that function had dropped out. But it still leaves a whole bunch of little mysteries.

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.)

"When am I ever going to get audited?" "What run down am I on?" You see? Guy goes into session with his jaw dropped, where he's audited with the mystery rud out. You get the idea? Well that's just because there's no D of P post. Well there's no trick to it.

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.

Now if confidential materials were at question, that would be something else. But the confidential materials were not at question. The person selected was of the class necessary to handle confidential materials. Also was a trained auditor. There were two such people available, idle, with nothing whatsoever to do, in that very department. Not auditing, not anything, either one of them quite capable of performing this duty. But somebody had to have a class ten auditor to perform this duty. I wouldn't know why. Another duty is to hand the list to a tech page, and get the folders together, tech services, see? Hand the list to the tech page so that he can do this list, and get the folders of these pcs together and give them to the other. This post couldn't be filled I think because the person was slow or something, by reputation. That's nonsense.

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 the situation arose by overload. These are actual org product officer situations. The situation arose by overload. The traffic line went way up in volume, the stat was going way up in volume, the predict would be that these lines will break. And they broke. The product officer of that division became ill, the tech services chief of that division, over loaded and with insufficient help went to bed with a temperature of a hundred, leaving the post empty. But my effort to fill the post on a high express action, seventy-two hours after the first order that the post must be bolstered up fast, was being done on dispatch lines during that entire period. Dispatch lines! What the hell. I suppose the world has lost feet, because it's an automotive age. And when the person was put on the post somebody in HCO developed a policy that any pc's mail incoming should be opened and read, in case it might enturbulate the pc. And the person put on the post which was supposed to hand out the folders and the list, was opening and censoring student mail in the tech division, which is totally, completely off hat and illegal. At that moment there were loud explosions all the way along the line. The person put on the other post was doing the tech services job because there wasn't anybody there to do it. In other words, it's scrambled up in a mess.

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

Now this is the consequence of not predicting a traffic flow in an organization which is just forming. Now when you have an organization just forming, the many outnesses which are presented to you can completely confuse an org officer. And at that time, as at no other time, must the org officer adhere to product three, correction of the establishment, and leave the establishment to someone to get that one. Get product one. And in a fast running organization, the total duty, the total duty of an org officer is arresting a decline. Product three, halting a decline, or a threatened decline.

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

So actually it works this way. When the product officer finds himself correcting the establishment's product, which is four, this passes at once to three, who may have it in hand already. That makes an org officer somebody with a crystal ball, doesn't it? I'll tell you just in a moment how he doesn't have to run it with a crystal ball. But it's almost a crystal ball job. By the time the product officer says, "The students coming off the line all seem to be limping in their left foot. You know? And they, when I talk to them and ask them why they don't go write a success story, why they sort of look down at their feet and limp off. And I think you ought to go in and see what materials they are being taught by whom, because I've got some inkling of this because I saw some textbooks on yogi lying around the classroom." Now if that team is really functioning; now of course I'm giving it to you a ridiculous pitch, as well as exposing some of our shames here. Well believe me, it's being straightened out. And things will get straightened out here much more fast as it straightens out. They can go wronger and get straightened out faster than anything you ever saw in your life.

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

But the org officer hat's working on product three, correction of establishment. If he was very good would be able to say to the product officer, "Yes, I spotted that yesterday. We have immediately somebody coming in here from San Francisco that used to be in the org, and so on. He's taking over as course supervisor. And as a matter of fact, the comm-ev has already been convened on the course administrator for crossing practices. And if you walk into class at this moment you will find one of the HGC auditors who is an HDG, at two o'clock took over the class." That'd be a very lucky product officer, wouldn't it? See? Really on the ball.

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

A little bit ahead of, a little bit ahead of is what, is what the org officer, that's where the org officer belongs. Anticipating the traffic flows, anticipating their sags, anticipating this sort of thing by reason of the actions of the product officer. So the product officer has to keep the org officer pretty well informed as to what was going on. Therefore, the product officer is always making notes. Anything he runs into, and after he's handled a kerfluffle he always writes it up, no matter how briefly, he makes notes of this kerfluffle, and he passes the thing over, and he usually indicates the organizational action.

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.

Now I don't know if I'm clarifying it for you to any great degree, because you may not believe me. It's just that you may not believe the important point that I'm trying to put across. You may believe you have, if you're operating as an executive director, a product officer, you may have, you may think you have somebody. It's not hard, it's not possible for you to believe completely, probably, because it assaults your common sense, and that's what you want to watch, boy. Common sense to you may appear like complete screaming genius to somebody else. It breaks down on the inability of the org officer to define, locate and establish everything in the establishment, including the duties of every hat in the establishment. And if you're going around in circles as to why you can't operate or why your product officer can't operate, that is the first thought.

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 you clear it. You can actually clear it in terms of reach and withdraw from typewriters, and reach and withdraw from staff members. Now we're not talking in a theoretical line now, because when we had this conversation that clarified this point and it gave us a win on the thing, this is; I'm not being down on org officers at all. I mean this is, this is the truth of the thing, and this was what was fouling up the line.

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, we get in the product officer's duties. The product officer has to be able to recognize his product, pang!, that he's trying to get. He has to recognize that it is a product, a product of the establishment. He has to be able to recognize that and he has to be able to get that thing out. That's what he's working on. He has to want that product. The two monitoring laws is, is he has to recognize and he has to want it. And the action is that he has to get it. Doesn't even say how. Actually he has to know more about the organization than the org officer, really.

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.

But where you will get a break down will just be on this other thing. That's its other point, this other point. It's just a failure actually to embrace what is this thing called an establishment, because if the establishment itself is not embraced, then no ideal scene could possibly be conceived of, and therefore the org's org officer would not be able to spot a departure from the ideal scene so as to arrest its decline. And he's just in the first business of arresting declines, and passing along back to the person who are responsible for the establishment itself and establishing the establishment, what will be required as an establishment? Now therefore, he can get this thing back up to an ideal scene. But he's working on three.

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

Now what is product three? Three is the product which corrects the establishment. Three is the correction of the establishment, and it is itself a product. It's a correction. And org org officer who doesn't work on product three constantly and continuously and so forth, will find that the decline of an organization is not arrested. And an organization will run, and your GDS's will all go up, and your GI will all go up, and everything will go fine, and then all of a sudden the GDS tails off, and all of a sudden another GDS will tail off, and all of a sudden the GI goes boom! And the organization goes all to pieces. And you wonder what the hell happened. And what you hit is an un-anticipated expansion, which sought and found and exploited every weakness in the organization, and it blew up. And that is the reason for booms and depressions of orgs. The booms and depressions of org is, as they expand they expand beyond their tolerance level of handling. The increased volume finds all their weak points, blows them up. Staff members become over loaded, over worked, they can't cope with it anymore. The lines are just too much. Things are too internally vrahh, human emotion has gotten in your road, oh my god. And somebody says, "I think I'll go back to Australia and sit under a Eucalyptus tree, because I'm going mad."

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.)

What happened is there was nobody watching product three, and detecting and remedying the points of decline, and patching them up, and pushing them in to the people responsible for the establishment, so they could hire it up and beef it up, hat it up, quick it up. HCO actually as the org board sits at this moment would seem to be totally incapable of putting an establishment there, because it has several thing that are not its preview. That ought to be remedied. But HCO could remedy it right now, because they can order, they can order the other parts of the organization. They've got a time machine to make sure the order is complied with. "We predict at this rate of expansion that we will have used up all existing space of this building by July, which is five months from now. You find this new building and your guy's promoting and so forth. Fix it up so there's every Sunday meetings teas and so forth after we move. But you find us a building, and so on." That is not the org officer's action. It's the org officer's spot, but it's the org officer's order that something be done about this. We need a bigger establishment. And that's going to shatter everything along the lines, and so forth.

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

So, the decline of the establishment is arrested by ordering bigger space and more staff members. But then somebody has got to figure out how to put this bigger establishment in there. So the order is simply that to arrest the decline it is necessary for you to expand the space of the establishment, economically, so that it does not eat up everything that you are going to make by the expansion.

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.