Failed Orgs ≠ Admin Tech

I’ve heard more than one person now point to failed orgs and low staff pay as evidence that Admin doesn’t work. Talk about your wrong Why. Let me illustrate this with an entirely different example.

A guy designs and builds a new kind of car. This baby is sleek, and man, is it fast. Even though it’s street-legal (not a race car), it can do 0–60 in two seconds flat! Needless to say he’s pretty proud of his baby. To sell it, he invites a bunch of people to take it for a spin.

The first guy gets behind the wheel, but the car doesn’t move at all. The crowd watching starts to chuckle, and the first driver gives up. The next guy gets in and he manages to get the car to go, but in fits and starts, lurching a bit, then stopping. He gives up and walks away, shaking his head. Driver number three gives it a try and he manages to get the car going smoothly, but only barely — certainly not a speed demon. The crowd’s laughter grows as he leaves the vehicle. Then number four confidently gives it a try, and while he does go faster, it’s still pretty slow. Meanwhile, the car’s designer is pulling out his hair. “What’s happening?” he asks himself. “I succeeded in breaking speed records with this baby.” So what went wrong?

Well, the first driver managed to turn the car on, but he never put it into gear. Number two got it into gear, but didn’t know how to use a clutch. The next guy got past the clutch issue, but didn’t give it any gas. And the last guy knew to give it gas, but he was also riding the brake. So there wasn’t anything wrong with the car — the drivers weren’t properly hatted on how to drive it. And that’s what’s wrong with Orgs — the staff aren’t properly hatted, fail to correctly use Admin, and things don’t work right.

Okay, I hear some of you saying, “Well, you should build a car that’s easier to drive.” Really? That’s your answer? Does the same viewpoint apply to the Tech? Would you plop someone in the chair with a meter and tell him to audit a PC despite not learning the Level first? In other words, should there be no need to train an auditor? (For the few of you nodding yes, dang!)

It’s funny, the Admin-trained people I know all have the utmost respect for red-on-white, but I’ve heard from some auditors who view green-on-white with complete disdain. Let me tell you, as someone who’s trained on Admin, it can be life changing. I experienced LFBDs from some of the things I studied. Just as Tech can help you understand why people do what they do, Admin can help you understand all kinds of whys. The Data Series is awesome tech. So is the Esto Series. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Don’t do an A=A.

Breaking away

I’ve been meaning to write this post for some time, but better late than never. I want to give a sincere “very well done” to the brave folks at the Dror Center in Israel. These Mission Holders, Dani and Tami Lemberger, realized they could no longer support CofS. This was documented in a Village Voice article and on Marty Rathbun’s blog.

After making their break, Dror continues to flourish and prosper, and they’ve expanded beyond the limits of a CofS Mission, now able to deliver OT auditing as well as Academy training. This is terrific! My only concern is I see they’re requiring pre-OTs to do Level 0 before going on to the Solo course. Seems like an arbitrary and a checksheet additive. Not sure what they’re basing this decision on.

What thrills me most about Dror is that, on top of servicing existing Scientologists, they’re promoting to raw public. That makes my heart sing. As I’ve said in earlier posts, we’ve still got a planet to clear and that can only happen if we reach out to raw public.

I would love to see more Mission Holders wake up and do the same thing. They’re in the perfect position to help further the Code of a Scientologist, particularly:

“18. To increase the numbers and strength of Scientology over the world.”


“20. To make this world a saner, better place.”

Missions are very much outwardly focused, reaching out to raw public, helping them cognite on the benefits and value of Scientology. They are set up to both audit and train for balanced delivery. (I’m a big believer in how auditing is only half the Bridge.)

This is exactly what is needed and wanted in the Field. If you have any comm lines to Mission staff, or better still Mission Holders, do all you can to help them confront what’s currently going on in the Church. Let’s hope they choose the red pill and see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

War-gaming the future

My husband and I have had several conversations about Scientology’s future free of CofS. How will things play out? We’ve war-gamed various scenarios, and one that sends chills down my spine revolves around the ability to audit PCs without interference from the government.

Right now we have CofS’s deep pockets keeping that wolf at bay. Auditing is covered as pastoral counseling, but CofS calls those in the Field apostates, defrocked ministers, etc. Do we still have that protection? Consider this…

Let’s say a Field auditor decides to take on a PC that’s actively taking psych drugs. Or in the middle of a raging PTS Type A sit. Or something else that causes the auditing to go sideways (out Auditor’s Code issues, squirrel tech, etc.). Everything goes seriously and rapidly downhill and this imagined Field auditor has a Lisa McPherson-type case on his hands, with the same disastrous result. The victim’s family knows the PC had been getting auditing and they hire a lawyer. When they naturally try to go after CofS and its deep pockets, CofS says, “We had nothing to do with it. What that apostate did couldn’t have been Scientology pastoral counseling because he’s been kicked out of the Church.” They may even make up some proof our poor auditor was known to foul up and that’s why he was kicked out, his certs revoked.

Meanwhile the media is having a field day with this tragedy, splashing it across the front pages of papers. The news quickly reaches another group that would love nothing more than to shut Scientology down — the psychiatry/psychology field. From their viewpoint, we’ve been horning in on their territory for decades, stealing patients (read: money) from them all this time. They haven’t been able to bring down Scientology as a whole, but here’s their chance to make some inroads.

So their lawyers draft state-level legislation that basically calls any auditing outside of the official Church “practicing medicine without a license.” The tragic death of the PC serves to rile up the citizenry and they go along with the legislation. After all, even the Church says what that auditor did was bad, and not real Scientology.

Okay, you’re thinking, “well, that happened in another state; it won’t affect me.” But then psychs in your state see how successful that was and they do the same thing there, and it spreads all over the US, and beyond. CofS may even assist in this campaign as the Field has become a giant thorn in their side as well.

You may think this scenario is impossible, but with no Qual in the Field ensuring Standard Tech, there could easily be horrible results from bad auditing. And while the Field may be reveling in all the bad press CofS has been getting, it can also serve to tar all Scientology in the minds of wogs who don’t know any better. We start getting cases of PCs going Type 3, or worse, dying in the Field and all Hell is liable to break loose.

It’s in all our best interests to come up with some way to have at least a Qual function in the field. I offered the beginnings of an idea in my post “Assuring Standard Tech” , but it’s something we all need to confront and consider.

Assuring Standard Tech

In my last post, I got on my Admin soap box, but lest you think I just hobby-horse that subject because of my training, let me reveal my ‘ulterior’ motive.

I’ve had to come to accept that my Church will probably not be saved from total destruction. That concerns me on a number of levels. I know the Field has managed to ‘save’ much of the Tech, but what about things like tech films, the B.C.-only material on the Briefing Course, and all the upper levels? Will I be able to access these things in the Field? Will the Tech I receive be Standard?

What does that all have to do with Admin? Hand in hand with the aversion to Admin I’ve seen among some in the Field is an aversion to any kind of centralized Organization. I understand the fears — that any new Organization could some day turn into the monster we’re witnessing today in CofS — but there’s a reason LRH put in the level of organization he did.

Sure, in the early years things were pretty ‘wild and woolly’, but LRH soon figured out it wasn’t all that operational. Among other things, having a central Organization allowed for setting and enforcing standards. Think of it like McDonald’s. You know if you go into a MickyD’s in New York, LA, or even London, that Big Mac will taste the same. The same ingredients and cooking method will be used. Standardization is a good thing. It’s good for the employees who don’t have to reinvent the wheel. It’s good for the consumer who can satisfy his hunger without worrying about it tasting weird.

A central Organization provides a central repository for all the Tech. It can be kept safe and made available when needed.

A central Organization makes good business sense, too. One entity can handle promotion and marketing (something I’ll touch on in a future post), making it more cost effective.

But it’s the certainty of standardness, or lack thereof in the current scene, that I worry about most. My husband mentioned this in his recent post Whither Standard Tech?. I’m not auditor trained. I may not know whether an auditor is using the correct list. I won’t know if the auditor is properly reading the meter. Sure, if I “red tag” I’ll have a clue there’s something wrong, but I’d rather not, thank you. Perhaps some outness just means something that should take one intensive, ends up taking three. I won’t know there’s a problem. And to the degree I worry about things like this, is the degree I won’t be fully ‘in session’. It could give me a Present Time Problem (PTP) right from the get-go.

Before COB turned our tech delivery into “a dog’s breakfast”, you knew when you got auditing in an Org that the auditor was trained, interned, and answered to a CS, Tech Sec, etc. After you finished your session, you went to an examiner — another opportunity to catch any problem. You knew if he/she did something wrong in a session, it would be caught and corrected with cramming. But we don’t necessarily have that in the field.

Many field auditors are ‘one man shows’. Sure, they’re hopefully using a CS to program the case, but that’s usually done over a long distance comm line. No separate examiner. No Tech Sec or Qual Sec.

Even if the field auditor is using a separate CS, is that CS actually reviewing folders? Does the auditor ever submit videos of their sessions?

While the ideal solution is building a new Organization that enforces Standard Tech, Standard Admin, and hatting, I know that will be hard for some to accept. With that in mind, I offer another solution I hope the Field will consider. I think it addresses the fears of those against any kind of organization.

Some central entity (call it what you will) would ‘certify’ auditors through a specific VOLUNTARY process. Let me stress that again — this would be voluntary. Auditors who don’t do this could still audit in the field all they wanted. But those that do choose to could then market that fact. For illustration purposes, let’s call this certification status “Gold Seal”. The actual process to achieve this status should be designed by highly trained auditors, but off the top of my head I think they should:

1) Have to answer a test based on the training level they claim to have achieved.

2) Have to submit some folders for examination.

3) Have to submit some session videos where their metering and TRs could be checked.

Assuming they pass this certification process, they could then promote they’re “Gold Seal” auditors. That would be a great PR tool for the auditor. His/her PCs would feel more comfortable going into session.

The certification would need to be a paid service, but it shouldn’t be exorbitant. It should simply cover the costs of doing the review process. It should also only be good for a certain amount of time — perhaps a year. That way PCs will know the auditor’s tech will have been reviewed and certified relatively recently. Keeping it voluntary should appease those who are against any kind of organization. And those of us worried about the standardness of the Tech would be more assured. It’s a win-win.

Who’s afraid of Admin?

Okay, now I’m really going to step into it! If you were to meet me, you’d never think I was the type to stir a hornets’ nest, but when I feel strongly about something, I tend to speak up. Ask my poor hubby…

I’ve noticed a viewpoint that appears to be held by some of the major voices in the Field that bothers me greatly — a blaming of Admin (Green-on-White) for a multitude of sins. Can you say “wrong target”? Most, if not all, the complaints I’ve read and heard regarding Admin can be traced back to a misapplication (or non-application) of Admin. Just as Red-on-White Tech would create poor results if not applied correctly, Green-on-White “tech” must also be standardly and correctly applied.

Sadly, there’s been widespread misapplication of Admin for many years. It’s usually the result of unhattedness. On the small scale, this plays out with someone slapped onto a post, given a pitiful excuse of a mini-hat (if that), and then yelled at for not producing stats. But the unhattedness goes all the way to the top of Orgs, of Management Orgs, and of CofS itself.

My husband has made the point on his blog that there’s also a problem with ‘corporate culture’. I’m sure there are people who are Admin trained, but after years of being mishandled, yelled at, and beaten down (in some cases, literally), haven’t been able to hold their position in space, going into agreement with the exact wrong way to do things.

Admin is something I know a thing or two about. When I was a Class V Org staff member, I was sent to LA to do the Organization Executive Course (OEC) and Flag Executive Briefing Course (FEBC). For those who don’t know those courses, the OEC covers the main Green volumes (Divisions 0-7) while the FEBC covers the Management Series volumes as well as some excellent LRH tapes (the FEBC and Est O tapes). The analogy used is that an OEC grad is to Admin as a Class VI auditor is to Tech, while an FEBC compares to a Class VIII auditor. So as an interned FEBC, Exec Status III, I know about Admin and how it’s supposed to work. Sadly, you’d be hard pressed to find it fully and correctly applied in CofS today.

Let’s start with why Admin is so important. Don’t listen to me; look at what LRH says:

HCO PL 29 May 1961 Quality and Admin in Central Orgs (Keeping Scientology Working Series 3):

“Administration is no unimportant function. On the contrary, I had to work in Scientology a long time before I found out that in the absence of good administration, technical quality is impossible.”

HCO PL 4 June 1971 Standard Admin:

“To approach the subject of STANDARD ADMINISTRATION realistically, one first must recognize that a right way to do things can exist.”

“There is a TECH of ADMIN. This would be the right ways to do administration actions or organize something.”

“There are correct ways to do things in ADMIN. For each correct procedure there can be an infinity of incorrect actions.”

“The subject of admin only appears difficult because those involved in it SELDOM LEARN THE CORRECT PROCEDURES. Instead they do other odd things that, taken as a whole, give a thoroughly confused scene.”

“‘On-policy’ (knowing and applying our procedures) has been the common denominator of each boom. ‘Off-policy’ (not knowing, not applying our procedures) has been the common denominator of every org or continental area collapse.”

HCO PL 10 July 1986 Keeping Admin Working:

“It may not be generally understood, however, that the principles given in that policy letter [Keeping Scientology Working, Ed.] 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.

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.”

I could go on, but I think you get his point. There’s been way too much misapplication of Admin and I’ve been on the receiving end of some. My org was a hot bed of unhattedness and the unusual solutions, stat pushes, low staff pay, etc. that go along with it. The “it’s 10:00 on a Wednesday night and nobody goes home until we get the Gross Book Sales up!” insanity. I know what it feels like to be subjected to incorrect (or missing altogether) justice actions. I do understand the pain and frustration this misapplication of Admin causes, but I also know what it’s like when it’s done as LRH lays out.

Before we ‘fired’ back into our orgs, FEBCs were treated to a tour of a true “Ideal Org”. It was an amazingly theta experience. The first thing that hit me was the complete and total lack of tension in the air. People were busy getting their products; they were focused, but happy and smiling as they went about their work. It was so unlike any Org I’d been in, from my home Org, to my Continental Liaison Office (CLO), to even Flag Command Bureau where we did our training. If only Int had insisted on getting all Management staff (from Int to Cont levels), through the FEBC program when LRH first developed it (at the time and ongoing to PT), perhaps COB could never have gotten the foothold to do all the damage he did.

Standard Admin has to start at the very top. I can’t speak for today, but when I was on staff, this was part of the problem. As a Class V Org ED, I answered to a Programs Chief at the continental level and that person was either (1) not admin trained at all, (2) beaten down over the years in the SO, or (3) trying to sabotage the Org. I won’t go into the particulars, but trust me, this person didn’t appreciate what an FEBC is trained to do.

My point is that Admin is not the boogeyman. It’s not this terrible tool to hit and hurt the suffering staff. It is misapplication or non-application of Admin that has done so much damage. Let me leave you with one more LRH passage:

HCO PL 10 July 1986 Admin Degrades:

“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.

“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.

“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.”