Scientology pages index  |  Contact

A printing history of the materials of Scientology  &      Some proposals to solution for dubiousnesses found (Scientology: The History of a Policy Letter)

(to other Scientology pages)

1) G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w / i n t r o d u c t i o n :   M i s s i o n   s t a t e m e n t ,   o v e r v i e w ,   r e s e a r c h   s p e c i f i c s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   L R H K e e p i n g   S c i e n t o l o g y   W o r k i n g ,   f u n d a m en t al s S c i e n t o l o g y   i n   m e d i a   a nd   I n t e r n e t   ( +   f o r u m s ,   W i k i p e d i a ) S c i e n t o l o g y :   I t s   t r u e   h i s t o r y   e x p o s e d ? S c i e n t o l o g y   Q & A   ( F A Q ) E x t e r n a l   l i n k s M a t e r i a l s   w a n t   l i s t R e c o m m e n d e d   l i s t   o f   m a t e r i a l s 2) R e s p o n s e s   ( w i t h   a n n o t a t i o n s ) : A p p r e c i a t i v e   r e s p o n s e s   t o   m y   p a g e s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 1 )   f r o m   c h u r c h g o i n g   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 2 )   f r o m   o u t - o f - c h u r c h   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d    ( 3 )   f r o m   a n t i - S c i e n t o l o g i s t s 3) T o p i c s   o f   p a r t i c u l a r   i n t e r e s t : (a): G e n e r a l   t o p i c s H o l y   S c r i p t u r e s   v s   S c i e n t o l o g y L R H   v s   D i c t i o n a r i e s L R H   v s   t h e o r y   o f   e v o l u t i o n L R H ' s   w o r k s   o f   f i c t i o n (b): O r g a n i z a t i o n a l   t o p i c s A   p r i n t i n g   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   m a t e r i a l s   o f   S c i e n t o l o g y S c i e n t o l o g y   M e m b e r s h i p :   H A S I   v s   I A S L R H   v s   p r i c i n g   p o l i c i e s T h e   c o p y r i g h t s   i s s u e   a n d   l i c e n s i n g (c): T e c h n i c a l   t o p i c s H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   a )   G e n e r a l H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   b )   D e t a i l e d ‘ C l e a r ’   d e f i n e d N E D   f o r   O T s T h e   ‘ P r i m a r y   R u n d o w n ’ 4) C o n t r o v e r s i a l   t o p i c s : M i s t a k e n   i d e a s   o f   ‘ E t h i c s ’   c l a r i f i e d T h e   F a i r    G a m e   L a w P r a c t i c e   o f   D i s c o n n e c t i o n S e c u r i t y   C h e c k i n g F r e e l o a d e r s   v s   E x - s t a f f   m e m b e r s T h e   ‘ R e h a b i l i t a t i o n   P r o j e c t   F o r c e ’   ( R P F ) 5) C h a n g e s   i n   t h e   f l o w   o f   ‘ i n f o r m a t i o n ’: (a): A l t e r a t i o n s   ( L R H   o r   n o n- L R H ? ) L R H   v s   A l t e r a t i o n s N o n - L R H   t u r n s   i n t o   L R H ?   &   P r o p o s a l   t o   s o l u t i o n T h e    ‘ C r a m m i n g   S e r i e s ’   -   L R H   o r   n o t   L R H ? B a s e d   o n   L R H   p u b l i c a t i o n s (b): G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w L R H   v s   A   N e w   O r d e r   ( i n t r o d u c t i o n ) → A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   a n d    o r g a n i z a t i o n a l   m a t t e r s S e t u p   o f   t h e   p r i n t e d   m a t e r i a l s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 ) T h e   R T R C ,   t h e   u n i t   t h a t   w r o t e   L R H   i s s u e s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 2 ) T h e   d a w n i n g   o f   R T C   a n d   n e w   m a n a g e m e n t   ( 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 ) → T e c h n i c a l   m a t t e r s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   t h e   e v e n t   o f   l o s i n g   a   B r i d g e ) A n a l y s i s   o f   H C O B   “ T e c h   C o r r e c t i o n   R o u n d - u p ” L o s t   B r i d g e :   T e c h   c h a n g e s   d u r i n g   1 9 7 8 - 8 2 T h e   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   o r i g i n a l   O T   V I I I ‘ G o l d e n   A g e   o f   T e c h ’   ( G A T )   a n a l y s i s D r i l l i n g   i n   S c i e n t o l o g y (c): T h e   m a t t e r   o f   D a v i d   M a y o S t o r y   o f   D a v i d   M a y o ‘ S O   E D   2 3 4 4   I n t’   a n a l y s i s T r a i n i n g   d r i l l s   ( T R s ) M a y o   r e f e r e n c e   l i s t 6) C o n s p i r a c i e s   -   I n   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ' s   f o o t s t e p s S c i e n t o l o g y   v s   a   N e w   W o r l d   O r d e r → W h e r e   i s   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ?   ( c h r o n o l o g y   o f   S c n   h i s t o r y ) W h e r e a b o u t s   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   c h r o n o l o g y T h e   e r a   o f   a d o r a t i o n ;   P r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   i n t o   a r t i s t r y :   M u s i c   &   F i l m → W h e r e   i s   h i s   w i f e   a n d   f a m i l y ? S t o r y   o f   M a r y   S u e   H u b b a r d T h e   l a s t   s t a n d :   T h e   G u a r d i a n   O f f i c e 7) S c i e n t o l o g y   u n d e r   a t t a c k (a): A   p r e m e d i t a t e d   s e r i e s   o f   o c c u r r e n c e s ?   ( ’ 8 0 s   c o n s p i r a c y ) I n t r o d u c t i o n   &   R o n   D e W o l f G e r r y   A r m s t r o n g   ( ‘ a f f i r m a t i o n s ’ ) R u s s e l l   M i l l e r    ( ‘ B a r e - F a c e d   M e s s i a h ’ ) A   r e l i g i o n   c r e a t e d   f o r   t h e   m o n e y ? (b): B a t t l e s   f o u g h t   a n d   t h e   i n t e r n e t   ( 2 0 1 6 -   ) L e a h   R e m i n i :   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   t h e   A f t e r m a t h   ( T V   s h o w )

>> 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.

	“HCO PLs and HCOBs are proven by time and are the senior data on which we operate.”
	L. Ron Hubbard
	(from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

This page is dedicated to background information of policy letters and other issue-types, and how they are supposed to be treated. What rules exist for cancellations, how they are revised, and who gets to see what. All sorts of information that is about to get lost. Here you have the story from someone who has been closely involved in the Mimeo Section at the Flag Land Base (Clearwater, Florida). More information about that and the fate of Flag Mimeo can be found here (separate window).

 
Index:

	Basic information about references and more in particular HCO PLs
		Policy letters and policy delineated...
		What are HCO PLs & HCOBs, who writes them and their historical legacy
			- Signatures established (1959) - A prelude? (1961) - HCO PLs & HCOBs explained (1970) - 1974-80: ‘Board Policy Letter’ (BPL), ‘Board Technical Bulletin’ (BTB) - 1982-88: ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ (SPD) cancelling HCO PLs & BPLs - 1991-93: ‘HCO Administrative Letters’ cancelling HCO PLs & HCOBs - (1) The irony of directions found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”  (or  HCO PLs and HCOBs are written by anyone again, but are attributed to L Ron Hubbard regardless) - (2) HCO PL & HCOB issue-type formats reserved for L. Ron Hubbard?
		What are ‘original mimeo print-offs’ and its relation to the Qual Library
			(Includes:  Qual Library;  A change in practice (1991))
		Information about revising, about distribution & initials found at the end of references
		What does it mean when a reference is cancelled
	Changes and questionable practices observed, with proposals to solution
		Understanding the importance of having different issue-types and what it means!
			- LRH EDs  vs  HCO PLs - Orders of the Day (OODs)  vs  HCO PLs/HCOBs - An inconsistency: ‘Ability article turns HCOB’  (HCOB 5 Nov 67 “Critics of Scientology”)
		Inconsequency regarding writer/compiler/typist initials during the late ’80s
		Original publication dates of references are interfered with since 1991
			- Change in approach of (re)dating references since 1991 - Examples of changes - The restoring to original dates is not being done consequently
		Consideration and various proposals to solution
			- Changing the issue authority of old information - Changing dates on HCO PLs & HCOBs
				(Includes:  Questionable practices in the early ’80s)

Policy letters and policy delineated...

Spread the word...

Policy letters deal with and address exact matters. They are about organizational issues, how to run an organization. They deal with a situation, a situation that is discussed in the policy letter and the solution to that situation is being forwarded. The routing indicated on policy letters (left upper corner) give a clue to what area it is to be applied, often enough however the title of the policy letter already will have made it very clear.
We should only find actual policy in the issue-types that are about these things and related. That we see however in the Scientology organization is that the parishioners tend to regard information that is found in books, in technical bulletins, and much of that which was ever published also as policy, most particularly if it carried the signature of L. Ron Hubbard. This is a strange notion as these are not policy as such.

“Almost all policy has been developed by actual experience.”          LRH (from HCO PL 5 Mar 65 II “Policy: Source of”)

“Following policy is a matter of grasping situations and knowing policy well enough to apply the right policy to the right situation–where no policy covers, an experienced, quick person can easily extend the idea of general policy to cover it, knowing it isn't covered.”          LRH (from HCO PL 13 Mar 65 “The Structure of Organization, What is Policy?”)

This opens up a new space to work in. If you apply it, and you have done it correctly, then what will you do if you figured out a policy that works better for a given situation? So, what will you do? There should not exist a particular problem here.

“The only way policy can be changed is by writing up a policy letter in full and sending it to L. Ron Hubbard for approval or disapproval.”          LRH (from HCO PL 5 Mar 65 II “Policy: Source of”)

Today, I guess, you would send it to the unit in the organization that is replacing the person. Although it was announced five years later that “It took 20 years to find out how to run orgs.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”). In that respect it should be a done cycle. Or?

Well, consider some plausible scenarios and options:

Don't be surprised about the last option. Hundreds of references have been cancelled because they had false signatures (see chapter ‘1991-93: ‘HCO Administrative Letters’ cancelling HCO PLs & HCOBs’). If there are at least that many it is rather easy to miss some.

What will you do if you are faced with suspicion, then how will you go about it? Well, there is a form even for this, it is called HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”.

	“COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
	COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.          LRH (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)

And if you change/adjust everything again, as was done, various things can and will go wrong. References did not stop getting written either. We had an LRH issue writing unit (RTRC*) that wrote references that were published with his signature but that he did not author. They were going through any scrap of paper once written by L. Ron Hubbard and issued compilations of sorts among other as HCOBs and HCO PLs. So, be aware...

What are HCO PLs & HCOBs, who writes them and their historical legacy

• Signatures established (1959)
• A prelude? (1961)
• HCO PLs & HCOBs explained (1970)
• 1974-80: ‘Board Policy Letter’ (BPL), ‘Board Technical Bulletin’ (BTB)
• 1982-88: ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ (SPD) cancelling HCO PLs & BPLs
• 1991-93: ‘HCO Administrative Letters’ cancelling HCO PLs & HCOBs
• (1) The irony of directions found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” (or HCO PLs and HCOBs are written by anyone again, but are attributed to L Ron Hubbard regardless)
• (2) HCO PL & HCOB issue-type formats reserved for L. Ron Hubbard?

At some point in time not all HCO PLs & HCOBs were written solely by L. Ron Hubbard.  In present days these particular HCO PLs & HCOBs are either cancelled or were reissued as another issue-type.

 
Signatures established (1959)

The original rules for adding signatures on references were as follows:

	“Only when I have personally written a bulletin, a policy letter or a Sec ED* should it be signed ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ or ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.
	When I have knowledge of or have okayed a bulletin, policy letter or Sec ED but have not actually written it, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (the name of the actual writer) for L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.
	When I have not seen or okayed a policy letter or a bulletin or a Sec ED but it is published by the authority of a held post such as HCO Sec*, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (actual name of person issuing) HCO Sec (or other title)’.
	The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.”          LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs” - full text of the policy letter is given)

As a rule those references not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard would now indicate that it was done “for L. Ron Hubbard” following the name of the actual writer, sometimes it also said “authorized by L. Ron Hubbard” or “by order of L. Ron Hubbard”.

 
A prelude? (1961)

At some point in time the L. Ron Hubbard issue line appears set up as follows:

	“My prioriy line here is an HCO Bulletin. That means TECHNICAL. If originated by me only it is on white paper with red ink. ...
	HCO Policy Letters are now my administrative policy line. They are received done in green ink on white paper. ...
	An HCO Information Letter is now to be issued by me only and is blue ink on white paper. ...
	These three are the total of just my mimeograph line to HCOs, Central Orgs and Franchise Holders and the public as indicated. ...
	COMPLETE LIST OF MIMEOS
	Here is a complete list of all types of HCO issues, their appearance, authorship and their handling.
	HCO Bulletin. ... By LRH. ...
	Red ink on White paper. ...
	HCO Policy Letter. ... By LRH. ...
	Green ink on White paper. ...
	HCO Information Letter. ... By LRH. Blue ink on White paper. ...
	...
	HOW TO IDENTIFY BY PAPER
	LRH personally written issues are on WHITE paper, rough texture, good quality. WITH COLOURED INK.”          LRH (from HCO PL 4 Feb 61 “Types of Letters Established”)

This appears however not complied with. We find any of the above issue-types written also by other persons than L. Ron Hubbard. This at least as early as 1962. There may have been a plan to create additional issue-types for these matters written by some other person than L. Ron Hubbard. It just appears that this was not realized at that time. It may have been found impractical to implement this. This was still all in fairly early stages, time would tell what would turn out the best workable solution. In any case if this reference was not strictly acted upon regarding references written by L. Ron Hubbard then had it been overruled by another reference? I did not find any such thing listed or named in ‘The Organization Executive Course: HCO Division 1’ (1970).

The rules applied were still these as they previously had been instructed by HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”.

	“A ‘policy letter’ is one which contains one or more policies and their explanation and application.
	It is issued by the Hubbard Communications Office, is written by L. Ron Hubbard or written (more rarely) for him, has the agreement of the International Board and is basic organizational law in organizations.
	A ‘policy letter’ is not Scientology org policy unless written or authorized by L. Ron Hubbard and passed as a resolution or covered by blanket resolution of the International Board and issued or published by an HCO. It is not policy if any of those steps are missing.”          LRH (from HCO PL 5 Mar 65 “Policy, Source of”)

Which confirms and acknowledges that HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs” was being followed and not HCO PL 4 Feb 61 “Types of Letters Established”.

It would appear that the reference that outruled or overruled the policy letter from 1961 regarding signatures of L. Ron Hubbard in this matter got lost some place. These things happened in these early stages. It will have been extant in the mimeo area and amongst staff, but it didn't make it to get included in ‘The Organization Executive Course: HCO Division 1’ (1970).

 
HCO PLs & HCOBs explained (1970)

These are the 2 most important issue-types within the Church of Scientology. They are assembled in large volumes, ‘The Organization Executive Course’ (assembles all HCO PLs and administrative references), also referred to as the ‘green volumes’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ (assembles all HCOBs and technical references), also referred to as the ‘red volumes’.

	“HCO PL – Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter. This is a permanently valid issue of all third dynamic*, org* and administrative technology. These regardless of date or age, form the know-how in running an org or group or company. The bulk of hat* material is made up from HCO PLs. They are printed in green ink on white paper. They are filed by consecutive date. More than one issued on the same date are marked Issue I, II, III, etc. Every org must have a full master and bulk files of these or it won't be able to make up hats or hat packs* for staff or know what it's doing and will fail. It took 20 years to find out how to run orgs.
	HCOBs – Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. They are red ink on white paper, consecutive by date.”          LRH (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”)

In January 1974 it was then decided to to reserve these issue-types for L. Ron Hubbard alone (see next section for details). To that effect HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of” was revised reissued on 23 Jun 1975, adding the text “Written by LRH only.” for each of these issue-types. This is still what it says in the present version in use of this policy letter.

 
1974-80:  ‘Board Policy Letter’ (BPL), ‘Board Technical Bulletin’ (BTB)

	“BOARD POLICY LETTERS, 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 those 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. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I) Abbr. BPL.”
	“BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETINS, color flash—red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from those HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed red on white for technical bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These board issues are valid as tech. The purpose of this distinction is to keep LRH's comm lines pure and to clearly distinguish between source material and other issues and so that any conflict and/or confusion on source can easily be resolved. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I) Abbr. BTB.”
	(from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’* (released 1976))

BTBs and BPLs that listed all the HCOBs respectively HCO PLs that were being cancelled/replaced in this 1974-75 revolution  (pop-up window)

 
1982-88:  ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ (SPD) cancelling HCO PLs & BPLs

(More background information about SPDs you will find here, separate window)

	“HCO Policy Letters (Green on White), and HCO Bulletins (Red on White) are issues reserved for the writings of L. Ron Hubbard Founder. ...
	HCO PLs which do not fit under the rule above which are currently in existence are under review for full cancellation or reissue as Scientology Policy Directives if warranted. Any which are cancelled will be cancelled or reissued as Scientology Policy Directives as they should never have been issued as HCO Pls in the first place and to issue their cancellation in HCO PL would just perpetuate issuing non-LRH PLs.”          D/WDC* Chairman (from ‘SPD 4’, 2 May 82 “HCO PLs & HCOBs, Who Writes Them”)

So now we have SPDs cancelling/replacing HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard, and BPLs. Indeed we find a variety of SPDs being issued during 1982-88 that did exactly that (see list of these in link little further below).

Complete list of Scientology Policy Directives that are either cancelling or are being cancelled given in chronological order  (pop-up window)

 
1991-93:  ‘HCO Administrative Letters’ cancelling HCO PLs & HCOBs

 
(1) The irony of directions found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”  (or  HCO PLs and HCOBs are written by anyone again, but are attributed to L Ron Hubbard regardless)

We do find some rather contradictorily directions in this HCOB in regards to signatories on references. It has been said that this HCOB was written by L. Ron Hubbard, having himself involved with to “spent seven months spotting areas where there has been trouble or failures, evaluating them and discovering the alter-is of original materials and issues.”. By examining the validity however of all these 24 listed corrections (“A:” to “X:”) the authorship of this reference may not be all that evident (see my extensive analysis about that here, separate window).

 
(2) HCO PL & HCOB issue-type formats reserved for L. Ron Hubbard?

One could wonder why in particular HCO PLs still were being issued written or compiled by others as a variety of references explicitly have pointed out that these are to be reserved solely for L. Ron Hubbard writings? L. Ron Hubbard gave us already an indication for this in HCO PL 4 Feb 61 “Types of Letters Established” which was written by him. It was however not being followed up on back then. This may have been so as no issue-type was available or created for the non-LRH material. Later it was initially followed up on when the issue-types Board Policy Letter (BPL) & Board Technical Bulletin (BTB) were established in 1974. Then in particular during the early ’80s we find again many HCO PLs written and/or compiled by for example ‘Executive Director International’ (ED Int), or some ‘Board of Directors’, and other such designations. Later again these were cancelled because the issue-type format HCO PL was to be reserved for L. Ron Hubbard once again. It is a lot of going forth and back about this! Then in 1988 we see for example the issuance of HCO PL 13 Sept 88 “The Positioning Era” which was due to that “LRH advised in 1979 that it be issued as a Policy Letter” (these publication notices are only found on the original mimeo print-off, you will not find in the version as printed in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes).

Another angle of this is the practice of issuing references that in fact were compiled or written by others, and to reissue them and then attribute them to L. Ron Hubbard (discussed in detail on my page ‘Non-LRH turns into LRH?’, consult here, separate window).

We simply have to conclude that the rule was not consequently being enforced. So do not be surprised to encounter various of these incidences on this and my other pages.

What are ‘original mimeo print-offs’ and its relation to the Qual Library

Qual Library

Two copies of each of these issues are filed in the Qual Library of the organization (excepted are only confidential or limited distribution issues). One is marked as MASTER COPY, and may not ever leave the files or the Qual Library area. The second copy may be used to make xerox or additional mimeograph copies. These issues in the Qual Library are free for consultation by students of Scientology or its members.

	“When a fair copy is sent to an org from Flag, copies are run off for their staff, and for the staffs of their nearby orgs and for their students as they wish. They keep the stencil on file for additional copies as needed. They file copies in their Master and general files in each org including the receiving org.
	The orgs receiving fair copies have considerable discretion in how many copies they run off, how many they send to smaller orgs (but they must ensure 1 copy for each staff member in the local org of Remimeo issues), and whether they issue to students or not. But they must keep the stencil for reuse and file it in their own Master files along with a copy clearly stamped MASTER COPY.” (from BPL 14 APR 69R “Bulletin and Policy Letter Distribution”)
	(‘fair copy’: A copy of a document made after final correction. - World Book Dictionary)

A change in practice (1991)

Information about revising, about distribution & initials found at the end of references

• How revisions are indicated and recognized
• Distribution & initials found at the end of references

 
How revisions are indicated and recognized

An effective way to find out in what manner HCO PLs and other issue-types within the Church of Scientology are revised and how changes are incorporated is by studying and comparing various releases of particular issues which have been subjected to such revisions. Most references however are seldom or never revised. Are there some specific rules how to establish if changes have been made? How do I recognize these changes? Well, there are some practical rules, yes. And you do recognize these changes.

 
Distribution & initials found at the end of references

Now if a new issue has gone through the approval lines and when it is finally printed. It will be send to any and all as indicated on the routing on that particular issue. This is always found on the upper left corner of the first page. HCO PLs for example if it would say ‘All orgs’ it will then be send to all Scientology organizations around the world. This is then received by the LRH Communicator* of that local organization, who then makes sure it will end up in their library, where Scientology public may freely consult it. These issues are the original mimeo print-offs you may say. These had also information on them such as the originator of that issue, who may have approved its publication, who typed it out (initials only) and the copyright notices. This is always found at the end of any reference.

“When I have knowledge of or have okayed a bulletin, policy letter or Sec ED but have not actually written it, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (the name of the actual writer) for L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.”          LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)

‘The Organization Executive Course: An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’ volumes were first released during 1970-74. All the references found in these volumes were basically exact duplicates of the original mimeo print-offs. This was changed in 1991 release of these same volumes that now had taken away part of the publication information. The revisions were not any more printed in script, deletions were not indicated with ellipses. Additional info about revision notes worthwhile knowing is almost always removed. Also the copyright notices at the end of the references are gone, as are the writer/compiler/typist initials. Sometimes even the R, RA indications have been removed, in that case you will not be able to establish that once a revision had been made on that particular issue.

Then basically since early 1977 disputable practices got introduced and implemented in regards to signatures found on references (especially those attributed to L. Ron Hubbard). See for details my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order or Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after”, chapter “Introduction to this page”.

What does it mean when a reference is cancelled

When an update of some issue is released it will say on that issue that the previous version of that issue is cancelled (this is always noted with exact issue-type and date). That means that the new issue is in fact replacing the older issue. The old issue is simply not in use anymore, it can not be referred to and it can not be enforced by anyone. It has no value as being a policy whatsoever. Still this old issue would be filed in the Qual Library* of the organization but this is for reference only. This now cancelled issue would receive a stamp saying: “CANCELLED”, it also should note what issue cancelled it or is replaced by it. In this way you can always find out how things were before and why it had changed, and exactly when it had changed. In addition you can easily establish if at any time an error had been made and even reverse all this as you would have all the data right there.

“HCO Policy Letters do not expire until cancelled or changed by later HCO Policy letters.”          LRH (from HCO PL 5 Mar 65 II “Policy: Source of”)

Understanding the importance of having different issue-types and what it means!  (LRH EDs/OODs/‘Ability’  vs  HCO PLs)

• LRH EDs  vs  HCO PLs
• Orders of the Day (OODs)  vs  HCO PLs/HCOBs
• An inconsistency: ‘Ability’ article turns HCOB  (HCOB 5 Nov 67 “Critics of Scientology”)

There exist some confusion regarding this. Frequently I encounter individuals that have seriously mis-understood why we are having different issue-types! Any kind of issue-type has a certain purpose and value. They have been created at one time or another to fulfill some intent or purpose. More importantly they also have a certain authority. Certain issue-types have a senior authority. That means that these have the final word about something of how one is to go about things. Also some issue-types are only valid for a certain period of time. Now, I find that frequently people are mixing up these issue-types and ignore their actual authority and also their actual validity.

 
LRH EDs  vs  HCO PLs

It appears that various persons think that Executive Directives (EDs), and especially LRH EDs (those EDs written by L. Ron Hubbard) have the same or a similar authority and validity as HCO Policy Letters.

	“HCO PL – Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter. Written by LRH only. This is a permanently valid issue of all third dynamic, org and administrative technology. These, regardless of date or age, form the know-how in running an org or group or company. ... They are printed in green ink on white paper. ...
	LRH EDs – L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directives, earlier called SEC 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 blue ink on white paper with a special heading.”          LRH (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70R (Revised 23 Jun 75) “Issues – Types of”)

The gross error made here is in fact that any ED (including LRH EDs), basically have only a 12-month validity (or when fully complied with) after which time they simply expire! They do “... carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions.” To be once more in force they have to be reinstated or reinforced prior to be valid for another 12-month period. EDs are issued under a number, a reissue would receive ‘-1’ following this number, another reissue ‘-2’. They can also be cancelled prior to expiring after 12 months. This can be done by issuing a ‘-#’ which often adjusts the previous release, and/or informs us about that which is still in force.

We can say that LRH EDs have a temporary policy validity, it is policy till it gets superseded, cancelled, reinforced or till it expires.

Now, why do we find some of these original LRH EDs in for example ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes expired or not? This has made some people believe that they are permanently valid policy of some sort, and have to be followed! Well, this is incorrect, the only authority that expired EDs have is as being an advice and really nothing more. And an advice is by far not policy! So in the case of LRH 284 & LRH ED 339R the original versions may work as an advice or can even function as an example for the ‘-1’, ‘-2’ & ‘-3’ or other that followed.

Various examples are known from LRH EDs that received a permanent policy validity and then consequently turned into an HCO PL. This happened for example with ‘LRH ED 44 Int’, 2 Dec 69 “Freeloaders” that turned into permanent policy on 13 Oct ’72 and became HCO PL 13 Oct 72 “Freeloaders”.

So, please do keep LRH EDs and HCO PLs  s•e•p•a•r•a•t•e•d!!

 
Orders of the Day (OODs)  vs  HCO PLs/HCOBs

• OODs turn HCO PLs/HCOBs - Overview
• OODs turn HCO PLs/HCOBs - (1) Cancellations
• OODs turn HCO PLs/HCOBs - (2) And 2 reinstated

 
OODs turn HCO PLs/HCOBs - Overview

The 73 HCO PL OODs were issued by Sherry Anderson who during that time was performing as a CMO Compilations Missionaire.  (CMO: ‘Commodore Messenger Org’. Senior Scientology organization)

Now, the very first one to appear in this series was ‘FO 3793’, 14 Sept 80 “Spectatorism”. This one appears also as HCO PL 13 Sept 80 “Spectatorism”, although with one difference. Namely the FO version has 4 additional paragraphs. They are quite revealing as to their target, which are Sea Org members.

	“You belong to the SO or you don't. If you do you're at cause over the various situations.
	So we define an SO member the way you do an OT - At cause over Life, Thought, Matter, Energy, Space, Time, and Form.”          LRH

	“You are actually insulting yourself to insist that I personally make whatever advances are made on vital actions of the group.
	If what you are trying to do doesn't happen it's a poor comment on your OTism.”          LRH

In the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes this HCO PL is found as HCO PL 14 Jan 69 II “Spectatorism”. And then you have to make up your own mind about for what group and forwarding whose purpose. And if in fact it is proper to simply remove the Sea Org referencing and then make it policy for all Scientology staff.

Well, this issuing OODs as HCO PLs/HCOBs. We have no confirmation whatsoever that L. Ron Hubbard had decided upon such a thing. They were “Accepted and approved” by some “BOARDS OF DIRECTORS”. Other persons than L. Ron Hubbard were responsible for that and had decided to reissue them like that. The question that has to be asked here is: “On which grounds were these reissued under the HCO PL and the HCOB issue-type format, which have a ‘senior authority’, and such a long time ‘after’ they had been originally written?”  The point is that if L. Ron Hubbard has not seen any necessity to do that during his days, then why would someone enforce that in our days, and after he had gone off the lines!

Realize that all these policy letters as found in these book volume releases have been re-typed prior to inclusion into this book. Accordingly you always find an additional set of typing initials. For example all the ones in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986) added ‘gm’. So, this explains the second set of typing-initials. Then we see also that ‘SA’ seems to have turned into ‘sa’. HCO PL 13 Sept 80 (Corrected and Reissued 3 Oct 5) “Spectatorism” and HCO PL 27 Oct 80 (Corrected and Reissued 4 Oct 85) “Power Change Violation Repair Formula” even say in their revision notes: “(Corrects signature ...)”. And this basically seems to indicate that Sherry Anderson who was actively involved in carrying out this project and was in fact editing and reissuing these OODs was demoted to being a simple typist. And the original typist ‘dr’ was demoted to someone who had re-typed it. Obviously this correction incorporated did not state the facts anymore as they actually were! We are also lacking any referrals to Sherry Anderson In these versions as found in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986). All of them only say the following:

Early 1991 all these OODs HCOB/PL releases were reissued and they exist today as an HCO PL and/or HCOB carrying the date of the original OODs (for example: HCO PL 28 Aug 80 I “Cause” (OODs from 17 May 71) became: HCO PL 17 May 71 “same title”), except for 5 of them which today remain cancelled .We also find that none of these later 1991 reissues make any mention either of the involvement of Sherry Anderson.

 
OODs turn HCO PLs/HCOBs - (1) Cancellations

The first ones to be cancelled were 4 of these original OODs that had been made part of the Data Series. This was done by HCO PL 14 Nov 90 “Cancellation of Data Series”.

“HCO PL 3 Sept. 80 I Data Series 50 OUT OF SEQUENCE   HCO PL 2 Sept. 80 Data Series 51 PERPETUATING AN ORDER   HCO PL 23 Sept. 80 II Data Series 52 FACTS   HCO PL 6 Oct. 80 IV Data Series 53 OUTNESSES”

It informed us that: “The above HCO PLs were issued by another without the approval of LRH and were not intended by him to be issued as policy letters. These issues repeated material already covered in the Data Series.”  This was written and issued by “CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL”.

And HCO PL 22 Sept 80 “Activity” got cancelled by HCO Admin Letter 21 Sept 91 I “Cancellation of Issues” together with 119 other references.

HCO PL 2 Oct 80 II “Distractions and Production” is assumed to have been cancelled as it does not appear in the later 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes, and no original mimeo print-off of any reissue has been found.

So, at least 5 of them were noted to have been cancelled due to that it was “issued by another”, “without the approval of LRH”, and were “not intended by him to be issued as an HCO PL”. Now what about all the other OODs items issued as HCO PLs/HCOBs by Sherry Anderson? There exist in fact an additional 68 of those! Seems to me that the same goes up for all these as well. Then was this “data/material ... already covered” somewhere else? May be, may be not, but does it actually matter? They are still “issued by another”, “without the approval of LRH”, and were “not intended by him to be issued as an HCO PL”. See, we have no information nor any reason to think that these other still valid 68 reissued HCO PLs/HCOBs would have received a different treatment or arrangement.

 
OODs turn HCO PLs/HCOBs - (2) And 2 reinstated

The story does not end here. Namely we do not find this HCO PL 11 Apr 72 II (Reissued 13 Jan 91) “Ethics Change” in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. And that is because it was cancelled by HCO Admin Letter 21 Sept 91 I “Cancellation of Issues”, and accordingly it was not included in these volumes. The story goes on... Then on 21 Aug 2000 it was reinstated. The revision notes say: “(... This policy letter was erroneously cancelled in 1991 and is hereby reinstated)”. One notable difference however is that now it does not note anywhere anymore that this was originally an OODs item!

	“I've heard it said that as ‘source’ I should handle something way outside my general activity.
	This is a confusion between SOURCE and CAUSE.
	You are CAUSE over your area. Results are the effect of your own efforts.”          LRH

	“I've heard it said that as ‘source’ I should handle something way outside my general activity.
	This is a confusion between SOURCE and CAUSE.
	Whereas I am source of data, overall coordination and planning, you are CAUSE over your area. Results are the effect of your own efforts.”          LRH

 
An inconsistency: ‘Ability’ article turns HCOB  (HCOB 5 Nov 67 “Critics of Scientology”)

In the periodical ‘Ability 199’, 5 Nov 67 we find an article entitled “Critics of Scientology”. This article is also published as an HCOB in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume VIII, 1966-1969’. We should be aware of that the article is not even included in the 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes, not as an HCOB and also not even as an Ability article! But we do find a variety of other articles from the Ability magazine in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes, in both the 1976-80 release and also the 1991 release. The inconsistency here is why did it turn right away into the HCOB issue-type format, when it was skipped to even appear as an Ability article in these 1976-80 volumes? Why do we have this steep gradient? Was the article missed by those compiling these volumes? Much research was done compiling these volumes (see article in The Auditor (separate window)). It is to be well understood that the HCOB issue-type format has a senior authority in regards to technical issues, whereas an article is just an article that gives us some information! The HCOB had been given the release date of the original Ability article, but it had not been an HCOB until 27 Aug 1987. The HCOB says in its notices: “(Originally issued as an article in Ability 199 on 5 Nov. 67. Issued as an HCOB on 27 Aug. 87.)”. Nonetheless because of the date of the HCOB it has given the false impression to various persons of having been an HCOB since 1967, when in fact it was not. I have frequently encountered persons that were factually mislead by the date of a reference.

An another angle is who authorized it being turned into an HCOB? Was it L. Ron Hubbard? Then it was done 18 months after his passing. Or did he leave some notes about that this should be done? You have to figure out for yourself what is plausible and what not.

An example of an Ability article that turned policy letter is HCO PL 5 Oct 87 “Lonesome?”. Revision notes tell: “Originally published in Ability magazine, circa July 1957, Issued 5 October 1987 as an HCO PL.”. At present this policy letter is in use as HCO PL 5 Jul 57 “Lonesome?”.

Inconsequency regarding writer/compiler/typist initials during the late ’80s

We can see that the 1987 HCOB release has 5 sets of typing initials (small characters indicate typists), meaning would 5 persons one after the other have typed this out? If you look at the first 2 sets of the typing initials it says: ‘bw.rg’. We also find these initials in the 1974 BTB version, but as capitals: ‘BW:RG’. Alright, the 1987 HCOB version reverts back to the version as it was prior to the BTB version, meaning we can skip ‘AL:MH’ as these persons were only involved with the BTB release. The following set of initials is ‘BW’ (the compiler of the HCOB), and ‘RG’ (responsible for the illustrations). Then ‘mh’ was the typist (verified) for the original mimeo print-off release, and ‘jh’ was the typist (verified) for the version included in the 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. We are still seeing these 5 sets of typing initials in that 1987 HCOB release. Is it possible that ‘BW:RG’ for some reason (mistake or other) were transferred into ‘bw.rg’? Then we are still left with 3 sets of typing initials, which seems odd as the text involved in this reference only exists of a couple of pretty short sentences and words. Another gross illogic here is that the typing initials ‘mh:jh’ are not found in the 1987 HCOB release, and they in fact should have been included, as they are previous typists of this very reference. Instead we see the initials of a later typist indicated as ‘nt’, this could be Nancy Tidman although she was primarily active during the ’70s. Anyhow, we are basically facing here an avalanche of illogics.

I would not be surprised at all if indeed various ‘mistakes’ like this had been made here. Various of such projects were taken care of by persons who were lacking the know-how of the task to perform. As I very well recall many areas within the organization always seem to be undermanned. Then if some area was to work on some additional project (added to their existing work overload), then it could result in that little to nothing was actually done till some specific release date approaches. And then all of a sudden the order comes down about to get it done. Very quickly then some all-hands could be assembled to get it done and quick, and well, don't expect that all was carried out correctly if this happens. Something like this happened with the translations projects, it is promoted as if these are done by translation experts or something, well they are not always!

Original publication dates of references are interfered with since 1991

• Change in approach of (re)dating references since 1991
• Examples of changes
• The restoring to original dates is not being done consequently

 
Change in approach of (re)dating references since 1991

It appears that the rules about how to date certain references were also not entirely set up yet. At least not in 1989, which the following example will show:

We can see that the above releases are only 2 years apart.

 
Examples of changes

We see the intention of Scientology management to actually restore original release dates and/or when the text was actually written/compiled. Here follow 3 examples:

1. HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” is presently in use as HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”.
   The HCO PL notices tell us: “Reissued 4 Nov 2001 to correct the date of the issue. This PL was originally issued 7 March 65. When revised in December 1965, the mimeo typist originally altered the date of the PL to the revision date of ‘23 December 1965’.”
    
2. HCO PL 13 Oct 72R “Freeloaders” is presently in use as HCO PL 2 Dec 69R “Freeloaders”.
   The HCO PL notices tell us: “LRH ED 44 Int of 2 Dec. 69 reissued as policy.”. This change was incorporated in 1991.
    
3. HCOB 25 Mar 89 “Mistakes and PTSness” is presently in use as HCOB 19 Oct 73 “Mistakes and PTSness”.
   The HCOB notices tell us: “Originally written by LRH for the Apollo OODs of 19 Oct. 73. Issued as an HCOB on 25 Mar. 89.”. This change was also incorporated in 1991.

Note on example 2: If you look for HCO PL 13 Oct 72R “Freeloaders” in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Volumes’ you are being referred to HCO PL 2 Dec 69R “Freeloaders”. The original LRH ED release date had been adopted as the new date for the HCO PL. In this version we are not anymore being informed about exactly when it turned into a policy letter. Also take notice that this strictly taken was not policy during 2 Dec ’70 until 13 Oct ’72. Changing the original HCO PL issue date is simply altering actual sequence of happenings. In addition, this and quite a few other issues are known by its release date, to change the original date of the HCO PL is only adding to the confusion! To fully understand the significance of this you need to have been intern in the organization, this issue as an example then would have been known as ‘HCO PL 13 Oct 72’. So during 19 years this issue was known as that, and then we are going to change that date? Also in the mimeo filing area, qual library packs, compilation packs (course packs excluded) and yearbooks these are all filed by date. It is obvious that changing these original release dates of such issues is not the smartest thing to do.

The dates of policy letters and other issue types should reflect exactly when it turned into policy or a technical issue to be reckoned with! If you do not, you will be obscuring the events when they were occurring.

 
The restoring to original dates is not being done consequently

For example:

Another example is:

And a third example:

And a fourth example:

And an interesting fifth example:

And even as late as 2001 (a last but not least example):

There are more of such instances found. In any case, even if all these would be adjusted as in my above examples, there would be some confusion as they are then going around under 2 different dates.

Also Volume XIII of the 1991 release of “The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology” witness of such inconsequencies. Volume XIII contains the HCOBs dated 1985-91. L. Ron Hubbard passed away on 24 Jan 1986, this automatically means that he can not have written the HCOBs as found on pages 121-582 on the date they were released (25 Jul 1987 to 1 May 1991).

Consideration and various proposals to solution

• Changing the issue authority of old information
• Changing dates on HCO PLs & HCOBs
          (Includes:  Questionable practices in the early ’80s)

 
Changing the issue authority of old information

Policy letters were in fact written at a certain time and developed in accordance to some problem or situation that existed at that time. Then if it be an evaluation, a telex message, an OODs, an ‘Ability’ or ‘Certainty’ magazine article or any other communication from L. Ron Hubbard (mostly dating back to the ’60s and ’70s), then what is the relevance of reissuing this under a senior authority issue-type today? Sure, it may be interesting information, but is it proper to issue it as an HCO PL or HCOB? It could be that some person goes through some material, and then comes across what he thinks is a real treasure, and he may think: “Wow, this is great, let's issue that as an HCO PL!”. But you see, doing such a thing is changing the authority of the information! In addition it is also in fact obscuring the information that already is available in these book volumes (getting thicker and thicker, added information). So, once again, if L. Ron Hubbard did not issue them as HCO PLs or HCOBs in his time, then why is this being done these last 2 decennia's by others in our time?

It could be proposed though to create another kind of issue-type. And you may as well call this issue-type “LRH Advices” (something), which you could use for evaluations, OODs and similar. You would then give them the date they were originally issued (including the reissue date), you tell what they are, and you give the background information needed to interpret them correctly. Or you may collect any of these OODs that tell something interesting, compile them and issue them (as they were), and give it the title ‘Compilation of LRH OODs from the *A*P*O*L*L*O*’ (or something). Magazine articles as they appeared in for example ‘Certainty’, ‘Ability’ could be reissued in the way as they appear presently in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. You should however add that this is a reissue from a later date. Or you may as well do a reissue of all of these magazine articles, and take the complete arsenal of the particular magazine (including the non-LRH material, and publish them as ‘Complete collection of the Certainty magazine’, the same could be done with the ‘Ability’ magazine, and the ‘Professional Auditor Bulletins’ (PAB's). These PAB's for example had very distinctive pen drawings on the cover of each issue. Especially from a historical point of view ‘The Auditor’ is quite interesting. And indeed it may have some use to republish all these things in such a way, but changing the actual authority, and ignoring how policy letters in the early years actually came about... Well, that is most definitely not something that I recommend ...!

 
Changing dates on HCO PLs & HCOBs
(Includes:  Questionable practices in the early ’80s)

An additional point is to not confuse persons with ‘restoring’ original dates of when something actually was written. If some data was issued at a later date as an HCOB or HCO PL, then give that HCOB or HCO PL the date it actually turned into an HCOB or HCO PL! Why? Because if you don't it historically will mix up things, and it has! As soon as some data is issued under some senior issue-type, then that is the date we have to deal with it as it actually being some senior data, and not prior to that! Naturally you would note that it was taken from some earlier evaluation, OODs or other, originally published or written date so and so. This is how it was always done within Scientology, but this has been changed since 1990, apparently at a whim. One should not do these things, and change procedures of how things were done since 40 years (1950-90).

There is also the matter of changing the date of such issues a long time after they in error had been given another issue date. A good example is HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”. It was reissued in 2001 with a new date. The revision notes of that version said: “(Reissued 4 Nov 2001 to correct the date of the issue. This PL was originally issued 7 March 65. When revised in December 1965, the mimeo typist originally altered the date of the PL to the revision date of ‘23 December 1965’.)”. Accordingly it had become HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB (Reissued 4 Nov 01) “same title”. The question if this is such a good idea to change this back 35 years later. In the interim this issue had become known as HCO PL 23 Dec 65, it was identified with that particular date for so very long! It should have been corrected back then, now it is too late. In my opinion it is adv iced to leave the 23 December date as it was, you just note in the revision notes: “(This PL was originally issued 7 March 65. When revised in December 1965, the mimeo typist originally altered the date of the PL to the revision date of ‘23 December 1965’.)”.

Questionable practices in the early ’80s

Whereas there is still some integrity or goodwill involved in the above practice. It would appear that none of this was present when the official Scientology organization got itself involved with attributing disassociated issue-dates to references, something that was resorted to during the very early 80's on a fairly grand scale. What was the situation here? Why was this done? Well, basically the original written references (mostly they were HCO PLs) were not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard. But the information contained in them was considered valuable. And so during these early ’80s we see them reissued under another issue-date and partly rewritten and rephrased. The original compilers demoted to assistants and attributed as having being originated and/or written solely by L. Ron Hubbard.

A selection of examples of references subjected to this treatment can be found on my page ‘Non-LRH turns into LRH?’, consult here (separate window).

Changing the authority (actual authorship) of the reference was pretty much instructed to be done like this by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, see here (separate window). But even this reference it's authorship has been questioned!, and indeed there is a valid reason for that, well supported by a properly and thoroughly performed analysis on that reference from 1977 (consult here, separate window).


I may hope that Scientology International and LRH Technical Research & Compilations (RTRC) may reconsider that what I tell here. My message is that not everything that L. Ron Hubbard wrote or said is meant to be policy or a technical pursuit! Maintain the authority of the issues that was originally given to them, do not change this at a whim!

“Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can only assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable—only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

You may if you wish forward your views to:

Religious Technology Center International
1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90028 U.S.A.
Phone: (323) 663-3258
Fax: (323) 667-0960

Vocabulary:

     ..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.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     BPL:
‘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.
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red 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 Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs had been revoked.
     D/WDC Chairman:
Deputy/Watch Dog Committee Chairman: WDC is an upper management level within the Church. It is an inspection and police organization which inspects the actual management units of the Church and sees that they are established and functioning.
     ED:
‘Executive Directive’. Issued by any Executive Council and named for the area it applies to. Thus ED WW, meaning issued to Worldwide. They are valid for only one year. They contain various immediate orders, programs, etc. They are blue ink on blue paper. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R). Note that the rules for LRH EDs are slightly different, and these are blue ink on white paper with a special heading.
     hat, hat packs:
The duties of a post. It comes from the fact that jobs are often distinguished by a type of hat as fireman, policeman, conductor, etc. Hence the term ‘hat’. A ‘hat pack’ is a compilation of issues (HCO PL and any other) into a ‘pack’, this in the sequence as they appear on the course checksheet for that particular ‘hat’ (post or job). This course checksheet itself is placed at the front of the ‘hat pack’.
     HCOB:
‘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).
     HCO Secretary:
Today this is called the ‘HCO Area Secretary’. Usually referred to as ‘HAS’. The HAS is in charge of the HCO Division (Div. 1) of the organization. He has the function of establishing the organization.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH Communicator:
The person in a Scientology organization who represents and forwards the communications from L. Ron Hubbard and assures that his orders, dispatches, directives, policy letters and secretarials are issued and complied with.
     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)
     LRH HCO PL:
This is to stress that this HCO PL was in actual fact written by L. Ron Hubbard and not someone else. See further at ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary.
     ‘The Management Series’:
This is part of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volume series in where the references are instead categorized by subject in a numbered series of issues. See further at ‘The Organization Executive Course’ in vocabulary.
     ‘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).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here.
     Qual Library:
‘Qualifications Library’. Located in Division 5 (Qualifications Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction).  1. There is a Qual Librarian, whose duties are essentially those of a librarian, collecting up the materials, logging and storing them safely, making up cross reference files so that the material can be easily located. (BPL 21 Jan 73R, Use the Library to Restore Lost Technology)  2. Now that takes an interesting librarian because he's the Technical Information Center. (7109C05 SO, A Talk on a Basic Qual)  3. Qual is in the business of finding and restoring lost tech. (BPL 22 Nov 71R, Qual Org Officer/Esto)
     RTRC:
‘LRH Technical Research and Compilations’.
     Sec ED:
‘Secretarial Executive Directive’. A Sec ED is an early LRH ED. An Executive Directive that is written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard.  
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     third dynamic:
There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call dynamics. These are motives or motivations. The ‘third dynamic’ is the urge towards existence in groups or individuals. Also referred to as the ‘group dynamic’.