“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: Freeloaders and Ex-staff members examined  or
     What shall we do with our old?
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

“A freeloader is someone who takes but does not contribute.”
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from LRH Advice 12 Nov 72 “Freeloader Billings”)  

The information supplied on this page is primarily meant for those persons who have been on staff in a Scientology organization (esp. the Sea Org) and who were –one way or the other– unable to fulfill their previous staff obligations. Secondarily this is also meant to be a detailed study of this subject and attempts to capture its history within the Church of Scientology.
So, here you have all the information in one place. Its purpose is to help people to clear up any misunderstanding they may have on the subject by consulting the issues themselves.


Situation and definitions
  I have been sacked, what now?
             - ‘Condition Order’
- The easy way out
  What is a ‘freeloader’?
      - The word as defined in Scientology writings and as per ordinary dictionaries
- “A condition of Doubt ...”
  What about staff members who did contribute but decided to leave staff for some reason?
      - HCO PL 11 Jun 81 “Violation of Staff Covenant”
- Cancellation of HCO PL 11 Jun 81R (Revised 18 Mar 82) “Violation of Staff Covenant”
- “Liable for FULL PAYMENT ...”
  What about those contributing staff members who got sick or due to old age were unable to continue functioning as a staff member?
  The definition of ‘freeloader’ as found in the ‘Scientology Admin Dictionary’
      - ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976)
- ‘HCO PL 13 Oct 72’  vs  ‘BPL 13 Oct 72R’
Further notices
  A word about SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings”
  A word about ‘leaves’ and ‘leaving security checks’
      - Leaves
- Leaving security checks
- “Crew members who leave ...”

Back to Main Index Introduction


The information found on this page will enable those in need of it to find out what there actual condition is toward the Scientology organization. It appears that there are quite a few misconceptions about this, especially if you look around on the Internet. As much as possible I will let the applicable issues speak for themselves. Some of these may have been cancelled, however they are being quoted as their contents will clarify some things. One should also realize that Flag Orders (FOs) are primarily to be enforced on Sea Org members, whereas HCO Policy Letters are to be enforced on all.

Consult the information supplied, get an understanding of it. Then look at your own situation. What do these issues say about that? Have I been assigned the correct condition? Do I disagree with anything?
When you do find out your actual condition, then you should take action!
This could be any of the following:

  1. It is all clear to me and yes I have been assigned the correct condition and so on, and I will stand for it.
  2. No, some aspects on this are not really clear to me, why should for example this thing here apply on me? Some mistake has been made. I should clarify this.

If it is #1 you should simply go ahead with it! If it is #2 you should clarify your disagreements with the proper terminals.
I can not stress this enough, but if you are confronted with opposition you still should follow your own integrity at all times. If you don't do this now, you will have to handle it at some later date. It may also be much harder to get it clarified later on, as some things are difficult to reverse.

Just keep in mind:
“Just because the world is injust is no reason we must ever be.”          LRH*
(from ‘LRH FCO 1205R’, ca 1970)

Situation and definitions

Back to Main Index I have been sacked, what now?

The purpose of this chapter is an attempt to simply put you at cause over your situation! It is based on personal experiences and problems that other persons I know about have had with this. Ensure that you are very familiar with all the justice policies, Board of Reviews and Committee of Evidence's have in fact time machines on them, they should not go on for ever. Let the policy letters work for you, they have been created to be put at use.

Go back ‘Condition Order’

Your first action is to ensure that you have received your condition assignment in writing. When you leave your staff position you will find yourself in a different situation or condition towards the organization. The section within Scientology that determines these things is the HCO Division. HCO will after evaluation of your personal circumstances and situation determine what your condition is towards the Scientology organization, you will be informed about their findings through this Condition Order. This Condition Order will briefly fold out your personal situation, inform its readers if in fact you respectively are a freeloader, a contributing ex-staff member or other, and if in fact there exist any outstanding financial obligations or other towards the organization. It will also inform you about which steps you have to do prior to being eligible for rejoining staff if you at any time wish to do that. This Condition Order is compiled in the format of an Ethics Order as is laid out in HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order”. You really have to insist getting this Condition Order. If you have not received this, your assignment is basically non-existent as per “If it isn't written it isn't true.”  LRH  . This paper is also important as you can present this if you are going on services in a Scientology organization and questions are being asked concerning your status.

Often it goes like this, some person left staff and the personnel folder of this person is then as a rule send to the Treasury Division. They then will start calculating how much services and/or auditing the person has received. Usually no distinction is made between Professional Rates for auditing or Student Auditing, the total amount of hours of all auditing are simply calculated and added on a bill at Professional Rates. Below we can see that there is a difference between these. If you have received this Student Auditing you should clarify this.

Professional Rates   
Student Auditing      
  - done by a certified auditor and addresses the action that is needed especially for your personal progress, this costs money  
(HCO PL 17 May 65 “Free Scientology Center” & HCO PL 8 Jun 70 II “Student Auditing”)  
  - an auditor in training who may have been in need of a person to train their newly acquired knowledge as indicated on their course checksheet, this usually consists of very short auditing sequences, this is at no charge at all  
  - auditing received by a trainee, this may cost money or is at no charge at all  

This bill is always addressed (incorrect as this may be) as a so-called freeloader bill. You then have received a bill without having received this Condition Order. In this example it is then the Treasury Division that has taken the liberty to charge you for things without consent or verification from the HCO Division. The simplicity of it is that Treasury Division does not have the authority to originate and make these decisions, they can not put you in a condition of being in debt. The correct action for you to take is to insist in getting a Condition Order from the HCO Division. As I said earlier as long as you do not have this, your debt or any other is non-existent as it didn't go and was not approved while going through the correct channels. You can also not be denied services as long as you do not have this paper, but enforce this only if you yourself know that you have no outstanding obligations towards the Scientology organization. You have in fact the option to calculate your own bill and make a proposal. You should however be able to present your side of the story and copies of the letters you've send to get all this clarified and that demonstrate your intention and your persistence getting this standardly handled. Always, always keep copies of everything you have send, this is your evidence! Advised is to be in close communication with the Ethics Officer, and even ask for his help in sorting this out. Just insist on policy letters applied and use sound judgment. If you want this handled you need to act, it will not handle it by itself.
A note has to be made about freeloader and bill, these should be treated as 2 separate things. Also if it is found that the designation of freeloader is incorrect, then don't accept your bill (if in fact you would have one) being addressed as freeloader bill. Calling someone a freeloader is basically saying he/she is a parasite, or a sponger or a hanger-on. It is about time that things are addressed as for what they in reality are! It can not be used as name-calling for any person that has been staff, and isn't anymore. For many years this has been a nasty and very persistent agreement, ensure that you are not going in agreement with it!

When you have received your Condition Order you should verify if this is correctly put together, and that the information is truthful. If you do not agree with what it says and you can substantiate that with hard verifiable data, you are advised to write a simple query on it as per HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”. You do this query as then the order or the assignment is not in effect and an obvious injustice should not stop you from taking service in any organization. At the same time you also request a Board of Review or a Committee of Evidence to be done to sort everything out. These cycles can take time and you should not allow that to interfere with your progress either way. So when you have good arguments and only then if you have these good arguments, this is the way to go about it.

When you are staff you receive processing and study for free, but still you are being presented a receipt describing the service and the cost of it. There is this habit in the Scientology organizations (at least in Sea Org) to add a text on them that goes something like “To be paid in full in event of contract breakage”. Prior to starting on this service you are asked to sign the receipt. The original of this will go into your personnel folder, when you leave your staff position these receipts may be presented to you. To my knowledge however there is not any reference that says that they are to do such a thing, and is therefore off-policy. You can also be assured that signing these is not legally binding you to anything.

Go back The easy way out

Various persons may choose the easy way out. Which is to simply accept the freeloader designation and pay whatever is asked just like that, Condition Order or not. This is however solely up to you.

If you have been staff in a Scientology organization and you did not fulfill your contract obligations it is of vital importance that you do find out your true condition towards the Scientology organization! Basically the message of Scientology is complete sanity, this means you can not accept a lie or any untruth to be in existence. If you do allow this of happening it will definitely bar your progress within Scientology and as a spiritual being. So, do not agree with something that is not true for you!

So, what initially may have seemed to be ‘the easy way out’, may turn out to be ‘the easy way into something’ which you wished –after the fact– you never had gotten yourself involved in!

“Never compromise with your own reality.”          LRH
(from ‘PAB 40’, 26 Nov 54 “Code of Honor”)

“WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself
  And when you lose that you have lost everything.”         
(from ‘Ability 125’, Feb 61 “Personal Integrity”)

Go to index

Back to Main Index What is a ‘freeloader’?

Go back
The word as defined in Scientology writings and as per ordinary dictionaries

Usually all ex-staff members are referred to as being freeloaders. But is this the correct word to use? What does L. Ron Hubbard say about this? And how do ordinary dictionaries define it?

“If a staffmember does leave a TECHNICAL POST WITHOUT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON in the first year of employment, he is charged $1,000.00 for his training, providing he has not been dismissed. ...
The reason for this directive is the fact that the organization in Washington and London has been occasionally victimized by persons giving their services to the organization for the sole purpose of acquiring training. ... . ... it is only right that a course fee be charged where this trick is pulled.”          LRH
(from HASI PL/FCPL 19 Jun 58 “Freeloaders”)

“An SO* mission to orgs* in the US recently uncovered undermanned orgs as a reason for low stats*.
According to this mission many people had joined staffs, signed contracts, gotten free services and then went off staff.
This is nice work if one can get it.  It leaves the good guys burdened with tech delivery with no proper income.
Such contractbreakers are to be designated FREELOADERS.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 13 Oct 72R “Freeloaders”, presently in use as HCO PL 2 Dec 69R “Freeloaders”)
Note:  Originally issued as ‘LRH ED* 44 Int’, 2 Dec 69 “Freeloaders” which had a 12-month validity, on Oct 13, 72 it was reissued as an HCO PL which has permanent validity, during the late 80s it was decided to give the HCO PL the date of the original LRH ED.

The keyword in the second issue is “Such”. It can be seen here and in the foregoing issue that L. Ron Hubbard designates that only a certain group of people is to be made subject to this.

LRH Advice 12 Nov 72 Freeloader Billings” says:
“A freeloader is someone who takes but does not contribute.”          LRH
Note:  An LRH Advice can be any kind of communication from the hand of L. Ron Hubbard, but not being in any official issue form (a telex message, a despatch, a letter written etc..). This particular LRH Advice was a communication from L. Ron Hubbard to the purser, it was his response to a report he had gotten concerning affairs regarding freeloaders. This whole communication was handwritten. Click here (pop-up window) to see this quotation in its original handwriting.

This all is clear enough and this all does make sense, does it not? Ordinary dictionaries comply with this as they say the following:

‘freeload’ in “Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 3rd Edition” gives:
    “To impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved or without making an effort to return the favour or remove the obligation.” 

It prescribes certain conditions which must be in effect before one is to be assigned this condition of having had a free load or being a freeloader. The essential thing is that they show clearly that not everyone is to be subject to that condition! It all seems to be a matter of proper exchange.

Go back
“A condition of Doubt ...”

There is one additional note about what it says in HCO PL 2 Dec 69R “Freeloaders”:
“A condition of Doubt is automatically assigned ... .”          LRH

That would mean those who did not contribute and were designated being freeloaders. Those who were let go off staff because of physical disturbances or otherwise making them unqualified to remain on staff naturally do not fall under this category.

Go to index

Back to Main Index What about staff members who did contribute but decided to leave staff for some reason?

Go back
HCO PL 11 Jun 81 “Violation of Staff Covenant”

Now then, not all ex-staff members had been non-contributing. For these persons there used to be a regulation which attempted to calculate the exchange between that staff member and the organization. This was HCO PL 11 Jun 81 “Violation of Staff Covenant”.  It was an HCO PL although this one was not actually signed by L. Ron Hubbard.
It is instead signed with: “THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHURCH OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL” & “Assisted by Lyman Spurlock”. Composer initials indicate: “BDCSI:LS”. Per the signature rules since and as directed by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” it was the indicated assistant that actually wrote and compiled it.

HCO PL 11 Jun 81 “Violation of Staff Covenant” reads:
The original policy on the subject of freeloaders, HCO PL 13 October 1972, FREELOADERS, was written to handle a problem that existed in the late sixties and early seventies. This problem was individuals joining staff solely for the purpose of getting free services and then leaving without giving a proper exchange to the org* that trained and audited them. such persons were labeled ‘Freeloaders’ and were made ineligible for further training or processing until they paid in full for any services received while on staff.
The original freeloader handling was successful in that it has been found by investigating that since that time very few people joined staff with the sole purpose of getting free training and processing and then left.
A later policy, HCO PL 13 October 1972R, FREELOADER PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION, WHO IS A FREELOADER?, written by a former CS-3*, extended the ‘Freeloader’ handling to anybody and everybody who ever left staff without completing a covenant. This policy made no distinction between those who actually contributed while on staff and those who were on staff solely for first dynamic* reasons and who contributed nothing.
It is necessary to make an allowance for the contribution a person who failed to complete his covenant did make while on staff. This is because a contributing staff member is entitled to services as part of the exchange due to him. Such allowance is not at all intended to diminish the overt* of leaving staff without completing a covenant. Rather, its purpose is to more accurately measure the exchange between the person and the org.
To the degree that such a person contributed while on staff, he owes something less than the full amount of the services received while a staff member.”

Now, how is the bill then calculated? The basic idea is a “yearly percentage adjustment”:
“The person's total bill for all services received while on staff is computed. 20% is taken off the bill for every full year spent on post producing under a covenant. This can be broken down to 10% for each full six-month period.”
In addition to this a “basic penance for violation of covenant” was charged for in case of breach of the original agreement. This amounted to $2,500 for Sea Org members, and $1,000 for Class IV-V organizations.

Go back Cancellation of HCO PL 11 Jun 81R (Revised 18 Mar 82) “Violation of Staff Covenant”

This HCO PL was cancelled by HCO Admin(istrative) Letter 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings”.  It says:
“It established a complex billing system for freeloaders which was contrary to LRH policy.”
Up to this very day I still have not been able figure out what the complexity consists of and where this supposed contradiction with LRH writings is based on! Nor has anyone so far been found able enough to explain this to me.
A misnomer is as well that the HCO Admin Letter claims that the HCO PL offered a handling for freeloaders, the fact is that it did not do any such thing. This simply would not be possible as freeloaders were not contributing in the first place. The HCO PL offered a handling only for contributing ex-staff members!

HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders” says:
“Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters.”          LRH

It may sound strange though that even if this particular HCO PL was not written by L. Ron Hubbard, it was in fact still an HCO PL. These series of HCO Admin Letters actually contain various listings of HCO PLs & HCOBs being cancelled.

Furthermore it said in this HCO Admin Letter 14 Feb 91:
“The correct handling of freeloaders is covered in LRH policies, such as the following: HCO PL 20 Jul 66RB ‘Staff Status’, HCO PL 12 Mar 75 ‘Grade Subsidy for Staff Forbidden in Other Orgs’ & HCO PL 13 Oct 72R ‘Freeloaders’”
In reality however only the last listed reference discusses freeloaders whereas the 2 previous listed discuss ex-staff, and these are not necessarily the same thing. The reference continues with:
“Additional policy on the calculation of Freeloader billings is contained in Scientology Policy Directive 14 Feb 91 ‘Freeloader Billings’”
Please note this being released at the exact same day as the HCO Admin Letter. This Scientology Policy Directive is discussed in more detail later on down this page.

There is an oddity about all this. The SPD issue-type was during 1982-88 actually itself cancelling HCO PLs that were not written by L. Ron Hubbard, this was done as per ‘SPD 4’, 2 May 82 “HCO PLs & HCOBs, Who Writes Them”. Instead we have now some minor authority issue like an HCO Admin Letter factually cancelling HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant”. It would have been a more direct line to let the SPD do the cancelling. In fact I had a very hard time locating the issue that cancelled this HCO PL. SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings” itself did not give me much of a clue either as it only said: “That issue has since been cancelled.”. Well, it appears that it was cancelled by a minor authority issue on the exact same day as the SPD was released, using the word “since” is in fact misleading. It sounds almost like if someone does not want you to know that it got cancelled the very same day as the SPD was issued, or to enable you to find the issue that was responsible for that as no data is given.

Go back “Liable for FULL PAYMENT ...”

“If a Staff Member breaks his Contract, leaving employ or going to a higher Org with Contract incomplete, he is then liable for FULL PAYMENT of all courses and processing he has received at full rate (not just 50%), and owes for all transport or expenses he may have been paid.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 20 Jul 66 (Amended 19 Mar 68) “Staff Status”)

Now, what does this actually mean? Let's have a look at this. The keyword seems to be ‘liable’.
    ‘Liable’ (as per Webster's Dictionary, 2nd Edition Def I ): “legally bound, as to make good any loss or damage that occurs in a transaction.”  & (as per Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms 1951): “... and mean by nature or situation in a position where something stated or implied may happen.”
This does mean the “FULL PAYMENT” is solely an option or possibility. What follows is that contribution of the staff member can be accounted for and will have to be distracted from the final bill!

The argument can be made that ‘liable’ is to be defined as “bound by law to pay”. What however is not taken in account here is that being liable is subject to circumstances. Sure, you are being held responsible, but your exchange and contribution has to be determined as well. This is logical and sane.

“When exchange is out, the whole social balance goes out.
It is EXCHANGE which maintains the inflow and outflow that gives a person space around him and keeps the bank* off of him.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 4 Apr 72 I “Ethics”)

Back to Main Index What about those contributing staff members who got sick or due to old age were unable to continue functioning as a staff member?

This is a different story. These people now in fact do wish to continue being a staff member, but their physical condition or other making them unable to do so. Initially they will have gotten a pass on their medical examinations, and now they are being confronted with qualifications that came into effect after their time of recruitment. These individuals unfortunately will have to be send away from their staff position in the organization. As in fact their covenant was not violated by themselves, but by the group for the good of the group. Therefore it simply would not be very fair to let these individuals pay any penalties. Instead their finances should be used to help them handle their condition in any way possible and enable them to return as soon as possible if they would choose to do so.

These are also the findings of the confidential ‘Flag Order 3814’, 10 Jun 81 “Fitness Boards and Freeloader or Incomplete Covenant Declares Clarification”. Written by Paul Laquerre, who at the time was the International Justice Chief. This release was Limited Distribution for which reason I will not directly quote from it, but there is not so much more information found in that issue that has not already been addressed on this page. That would mean here that the outcome as presented on this page concerning freeloaders and ex-staff is factually acknowledged by this confidential Flag Order. But one can already perceive from its very title that it addresses Freeloader and Incomplete Covenant as 2 different conditions.

You may also note that this reference was dated only one day apart from HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant”. It appears that all this was part of a project undertaken during that time clarifying any and all relating to this subject, figuring out a fair handling, and attempting to take away any confusion relating to the subject.

We know already that HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant” has been cancelled (see previous chapter). I also have been informed several times verbally and in writing by staff members of the CLO EU (Continental Liaisson Office for Europe) that ‘FO 3814’, 10 Jun 81 “Fitness Boards and Freeloader or Incomplete Covenant Declares Clarification” had been cancelled on 12 Mar 1992. Anyhow the new approach towards supposed ‘freeloaders’ had already been laid out by the earlier mentioned SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings”, which is discussed in more detail later on down this page.

Some valuable information is also given in ‘Flag Order 2934R’, 9 Oct 71 “MO (=Medical Officer) Duty Re Recruits & Students”. Those having medical conditions forcing them to “possibly recur on Medical Lines” are recommended to have a look at it. And yes, this reference is written by L. Ron Hubbard.

What shall we do with our old?

I fear there is no particular setup that facilitated matters for those persons that became of old age. They simply were let go off. This may or may not cause an economical problem for them as they are not awarded some pension or receive regular payouts from the organization. It is wholly pending if they have private funds saved or have family that will take take them in.

I recall that (during the 90s) at Flag (senior service organization located in Clearwater, FL), where working hours run from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., the elderly staff however were allowed to finish at 8 p.m.

Go to index

Back to Main Index The definition of ‘freeloader’ as found in the ‘Scientology Admin Dictionary’

Go back
‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976)

This Scientology publication is frequently, among Scientology parishioners, referred to as just ‘Admin Dictionary’.

If you consult this ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976) and you look under the heading of freeloader you will find 2 definitions listed:
“FREELOADER, 1. any person who has failed to complete a staff contract at a Sea Org or Scn org or mission is a freeloader. This includes persons legally dismissed from employment through Scn and Sea Org justice procedures such as Committees of Evidence and Fitness Boards on the Sea Org. It includes persons who blow or desert their post and organization of then own accord. It includes automatically all persons who request a leave of absence from the org or the Sea Organization for one year or longer. (BPL 13 Oct 72R)  2. a Sea Org mission to orgs in the U.S. uncovered “undermanned” as a reason for low stats. According to this mission many people had joined staffs, signed contracts, gotten free services and then went off staff. This is nice work if one can get it. It leaves the good guys burdened with tech delivery with no proper income. Such contract breakers are to be designated freeloaders. They are ineligible for further services at any org until they have corrected their overt. (HCO PL 13 Oct 72)”
The first definition given is taken from BPL 13 Oct 72R, the second one is taken from HCO PL 13 Oct 72. If you examine both these definitions given you may find that they contradict each other.

The original issue on the matter was HCO PL 13 Oct 72, and this was written by L. Ron Hubbard. In 1974 projects were started to reissue any HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard in a new issue-type called Board Policy Letter (BPL). See BPL 14 Jan 74R I “New Issues”. An extract from this BPL is given in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976) under heading ‘Board policy Letter’. The motivation was to reserve the HCO PL issue-type format solely for L. Ron Hubbard. These BPLs were given the same date as the original HCO PL, with the addition that it was noted on them that a particular BPL did cancel the HCO PL of that same date. Now, if some revision was made on the BPL-reissue, simply an ‘R’ was added on this BPL following the date.

This was the standard way of handling this. Then it seems odd that HCO PL 13 Oct 72 appears together with BPL 13 Oct 72R in this ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976)? This almost gives the impression that the BPL then would have cancelled the HCO PL actually written by L. Ron Hubbard, but anyhow both are being quoted in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976). This is however an incorrect conclusion as is explained in the below.

Go back ‘HCO PL 13 Oct 72’  vs  ‘BPL 13 Oct 72R’

HCO PL 13 Oct 72
(denotes HCO PL 13 Oct 72 “Freeloaders”)
Originally this was issued as ‘LRH ED 44 Int’, 2 Dec 69 “Freeloaders”. LRH EDs however have only a 12 month validity (meaning that this particular issue was only valid until 2 Dec ’70). It was then adjudicated that the information as contained in this reference should receive a permanent validity, for which reason it was now released under the HCO PL issue-type and issued as HCO PL 13 Oct 72 “Freeloaders”. Then in 1991 a small change was incorporated in some of the terminals mentioned in the reference after which it turned HCO PL 13 Oct 72R (Revised 10 Jan 91) “Freeloaders”. In the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes however you will find this issue also listed as HCO PL 2 Dec 69R (Revised 17 Jan 91) “Freeloaders”, here it had been given the date of the original LRH ED. In fact they appear under both dates in these volumes. Rectifications however had been send out that one could be pasted in (like a sticker) to the first print of these volumes where it was listed as HCO PL 13 Oct 72R (see ‘The Organization Executive Course: HCO Division, Volume 1’ (1991) on page 255).
Overview of the metamorphosis of this reference:
LRH ED 44 Int 2 Dec 69 “Freeloaders”
HCO PL 13 Oct 72 “Freeloaders”
HCO PL 13 Oct 72R (Revised 17 January 1991) “Freeloaders”
HCO PL 2 Dec 69R (Revised 17 January 1991) “Freeloaders”
(It is noted that in ‘The Organization Executive Course and Management Series: Policy Index’ (1991) that HCO PL 13 Oct 72R is indicated as revised on 10 January 1991, see page 549; the original mimeo print-off of this same HCO PL actually notes it as revised also on this 10 January 1991)

BPL 13 Oct 72R
(denotes BPL 13 Oct 72R (Revised and reissued 1 May 75) “Freeloader Program Administration”)
The original version was HCO PL 13 Oct 72 II “Freeloader Program Administration”. It appears that the very same day that it was decided to issue LRH ED 44 Int 2 Dec 69 “Freeloaders” with permanent validity as HCO PL 13 Oct 72 “Freeloaders”, that an additional reference was prepared for publication. This is why it received the designation “Issue II”. “More than one issued on the same date are marked Issue I, II, III, etc.”  LRH   (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”). This also explains why the BPL release of this issue did not get the Issue II designation added, simply because there was only one BPL issued that day.
I have never seen an actual copy of this HCO PL 13 Oct 72 II “Freeloader Program Administration” and do not know for sure who had compiled it. Until January 1974 still HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard were issued as HCO PLs. On 1 May 1975 the issue was revised and reissued as BPL 13 Oct 72 “Freeloader Program Administration”. If you have copies of either the HCO PL or the BPL above mentioned versions then please contact me!
Basically the whole Board Policy Letter project was instigated for separating policy written by L. Ron Hubbard from policy written by others. The fact that it was being cancelled as an HCO PL and reissued as an BPL should acknowledge that it was not written or originating from L. Ron Hubbard. This is good to know as in 1979 this BPL 13 Oct 72R “Freeloader Program Administration” was revised and reissued once again and turned HCO PL 13 Oct 72R II (Revised and reissued 9 May 79) “Freeloader Program Administration”, this time indicating that it was attributed as if deriving from L. Ron Hubbard.
Overview of the metamorphosis of this reference:
HCO PL 13 Oct 72, Issue II “Freeloader Program Administration”
BPL 13 Oct 72R (Revised & Reissued 1 May 75) “Freeloader Program Administration”
HCO PL 13 Oct 72R, Issue II (Revised and Reissued 9 May 79) “Freeloader Program Administration”

The quotations from this first version of this issue as found in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976) are still found unaltered in this latest 1979 revision:
“Any person who has failed to complete a staff contract at a Sea Org or Scientology Org or Mission is a freeloader.
This includes persons legally dismissed from employment through Scientology and Sea Org justice procedures such as Committees of Evidence and Fitness Boards in the Sea Org.
It includes persons who blow or desert their post and organization of their own accord.”
(from HCO PL 13 Oct 72R II (Revised and reissued 9 May 79) “Freeloader Program Administration”)

At the end of this 1979 revision it said:
  As assisted by Msm Louise Shekter, CS-3,
  Revision Assisted by Tracy Holmes, FMO 2079 2nd”

Theoretically this signature would indicate that L. Ron Hubbard had originated it, but why was it then earlier cancelled by an BPL? So was this written by L. Ron Hubbard or was it not? This 1979 revision was 2 years later cancelled by HCO PL 11 Jun 81 “Violation of Staff Covenant”. This HCO PL also acknowledges that the 1979 revision was written by someone other than L. Ron Hubbard as it says: “HCO PL 13 October 1972R, FREELOADER PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION, WHO IS A FREELOADER?, written by a former CS-3”. Here it is thus indicated that it was falsely attributed to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard.
It would appear here that we are dealing with one of the many references that received the signature of L. Ron Hubbard underneath it when it was actually written by some other person. There have been quite a few of these as well particularly during these early ’80s. For more info about this see the pages indicated at “4. Alterations  (LRH or non-LRH?)”, on my main index page.

Further notices

Back to Main Index A word about SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings”

By 1980 all these board issues such as BPLs had been revoked. In 1982 a new issue-type was created for such policy letters not written by L. Ron Hubbard. These were called Scientology Policy Directives (SPD).

An Issue Authority line had been set up for this that “must totally make sure that the issue is actually needed, and that it is not covered already by existing HCO PLs.. This was because “It has often been found that ... ‘policy’ has been issued that was not actually needed, and already much better covered in existing HCO PLs!”  (from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type, Scientology Policy Directives”).

Further supposed guidelines were ‘explained’ as late as 1997 as follows:
“Scientology Policy Directives are used to set forth internal administrative or Church policy. They are not senior to HCO PLs or HCOBs, or any other LRH issue type, and may not cancel any LRH issue. Indeed, SPDs do not even cover the same subjects as the LRH issues.”
(from SPD 26 Jan 97 “Scientology Policy Directives, Background”)
Various untruths are being relayed here. An examination of just this SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings” would make that rather obvious. It is interesting also that for example another of such an SPD clearly states at the end: “The above is unequivocal Church Policy.”  (see ‘SPD 28’, 13 Aug 82).

And so it may appear that SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings” is a prime example of adjusted LRH policy about these matters it proclaims to clarify. You can verify that matter all for yourself by consulting various quotations from this issue itself. Click here (pop-up window).

One should be able to be rather brief about it:
“Other officers issue administrative directives in place of policy letters but these may only forward policy.
If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 5 Mar 72 II “Policy: Source of”)

“No Aides Order or Flag® Bureaux Data Letter or Executive Directive, Directive or Base Order of any type, written or verbal, may alter or cancel any policy letter or HCOB. These remain senior.
Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

If it isn't written it isn't true.
If it's written, read it.
Did the person who wrote it have the authority or know-how to order it?
If you can't understand it, clarify it.
If you can't clarify it, clear the Mis-Us.
If the Mis-Us won't clear, query it.
Has it been altered from the original?
Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, on-policy, in-tech order.
Only if it holds up this far, force others to read it and follow it.”          LRH 
(from HCO PL 9 Feb 79R II “How to defeat Verbal Tech Checklist”)

Back to Main Index A word about ‘leaves’ and ‘leaving security checks’

Go back Leaves

There also seem to be some misconceptions about how the Scientology organization should deal with those who no longer wish to remain on staff in a Scientology organization. Stories are being told on the Internet that those who have expressed their wish to leave are being detained. It says for example that some person has been told that there is no auditor available right now for receiving their leaving security check and therefore they will have to wait till they have permission to leave. Would they choose to leave anyway they may be facing some unpleasant consequences. And so on...
There are some specific references about all this. I know of no references contrary to the ones quoted below. Therefore one has to insist upon that they are being enforced!

“Any who wish to leave the Sea Org may do so.
It is not our intention to detain anyone.
The gangway is open to all parts of the world.
We have some terrific people in the SO. But others who have no wish to be here may leave peaceably.”          LRH, Commodore
(from Orders of the Day (Yacht Apollo), No Date [late ’60s/early ’70s])

“There is no intention of holding onto people who do not want to be where they are.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Dec 76 “Leaving and Leaves”)

“The FMA* and HAS* are alerted to a consistent slow on offloading unfit personnel.
Personnel Policy No. 3 concerning those that want to leave should be effected within 24 hours of first warning.
Fitness Bd* and full line action must be effected in 24 hours.
There is no reason to delay.”          LRH
(from ‘Flag Conditions Order (FCO) 1329’, 12 Jul 71 “Personnel Policies”)
Now what is “Personnel Policy No. 3”?  This is explained in ‘Flag Order 2627RC’, 17 Jul 72:
         “Any person whose product or relations is consistently destructive or a continuing overt act and/or who wishes to leave.”         

There is even a fine for those responsible not complying with this:
“Therefore, on this 24 hour rule, the HAS, FMA and Ext Comm Bu Transport will split a fine of $10 a day per person after 24 hours if they have not been sent to the Fitness Bd, Registrar, had all CSW* done and been sent down the gangway.”          LRH    
(from ‘FCO 1329’, 12 Jul 71 “Personnel Policies”)

Go back Leaving security checks

“Before a person may leave staff and receive a final pay cheque, a security check must be made and any overts and withholds on the organization or personnel discovered must be audited at organization expense.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 3 Aug 60 “Security of Persons Leaving Staff”)

There is no reason to assume that the above should effect the 24-hour rule as found in FCO 1329 “Personnel Policies”.

Go back “Crew members who leave ...”

“Crew members who leave the ship must be paid. If they leave the vessel of their own accord the ship does not have to pay their fare but must pay their pay.
If a crew member is sacked his fare and pay must be paid, and there is nothing however that says a crew member must not be returned anywhere by air, it is usually cheapest transport, rail or 3rd class boat.”          LRH
(from ‘FO 658’, 29 Apr 68 (untitled) - full text of the Flag Order is given)

The above is actually very interesting. It discriminates 2 different kind of circumstances, and therewith also provides us with 2 different ways of handling these situations. It appears that this Flag Order, written by L. Ron Hubbard and all, does not agree with the earlier described SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings”, the issue that gives just one treatment for any kind of circumstance.

Go to index

Back to Main Index Summary

“A sea org member is supposed to get: ‘his allowance, transport, clothes, laundry, food, a bunk, medical expenses, courses, grades’.”          LRH
(from ‘FO 732’, 16 May 68 “Allowances”)

It appears then that there exist 3 different types of ex-staff members:
  (1) Freeloaders, those who did not contribute, but only took;
  (2) Contributing staff members that for some reason or another chose to leave staff and broke their contract;
  (3) Contributing staff members that were offloaded by the organization as they were found unfit for being on staff.

(1) then was to be fully charged for everything; (2) would be subjected to a calculation; and (3) was not to be charged anything.

The contract signed for this senior Scientology organization was for an unlimited period of time. The so-called Class IV & V Scientology organizations however offer contracts for a period of 2½ or 5 years. If the staff member decide not to extend his/her contract after finishing this term, then they are free to do so without any financial consequences as they fulfilled their contract, but if they choose to leave before the end of their earlier agreed upon term some calculation will be made.

That is a worthwhile product, is it not?”
(from HCO PL 11 Jun 81 “Violation of Staff Covenant”)



     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”. (HCOB 30 Apr 69)  See also at ‘reactive mind’ in vocabulary.
Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked.
Commodore Staff-Division 3’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. The 3 refers to Division 3 (Treasury division) of a Scientology organization.CS-3 is also referred to as ‘Finance Aide’ or ‘Treasury Aide’.
Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.”It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval.
     Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat)
Flag Condition Order’. Sea Org* issue-type reserved for ethics matters. Equivalent to Ethics Order (Condition Order) as used in lower classed Scientology organizations.
Founding Church Policy Letter’.This is a name for an early issued ‘HCO PL’. See further at ‘HASI PL’ and ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary.
     first dynamic:
There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These are referred to as ‘dynamics’ within Scientology. The ‘first dynamic’ is the urge toward existence as one's self. Here we have individuality expressed fully.
     Fitness Board (FB):
Its purpose is to determine the mental and physical fitness of personnel and recommend the issuance of probation or denial of a provisional or full fitness certificate. (FO 2630R)
     Flag Order (FO):
This is the equivalent to a policy letter (HCO PL) in the Sea Org (senior organization within the Church of Scientology). Contains policy and sea technical materials. They are numbered and dated. They do not decay, HCO PLs and FOs are both in effect on Sea Org orgs, ships, offices and bases. Black ink on white paper. Distribution to all Sea Org members. It is vital for SO units to have master files and quantity of FOs from which hats can be made up for SO personnel and courses. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
Flag Master at Arms’. Ethics Officer in Flag Sea Organization. See further at ‘Ethics Officer’.
HCO Area Secretary’.  1. The HCO Area Secretary (HAS) has the function of establishing the org. (HCO PL 7 Jul 71)  2. The HAS establishes, forms, puts there, corrects, posts, hats, equips, org boards, stats, corrects the org. All on a long term basis. (FO 2794)  He is in charge of the HCO Division (Div. 1).
     HASI PL:
Hubbard Association of Scientologists International Policy Letter’. This is an early name for an HCO PL. ‘HASI’ is also referred to as the ‘Founding Church’. In the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes these are renamed FCPL (‘Founding Church Policy Letter’). See further at ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary.
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH ED:
L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC EDs (Secretarial EDs). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     overt, overt act:
A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional.

Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other.
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PLs and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617)
     Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AOs) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.
Short for statistic(s).

Go to top of this page