Query on HCO PL "Field Auditing Fees"
Telse & Andreas M. Grosz
Field Auditor & FSMs
This was addressed to RTC reports
Query on HCO PL "Field Auditing Fees"
I applied HCO PL 9. Febr. 1979R II "How to defeat verbal tech checklist" on the above named HCO PL, read it, clarified it, cleared all the MU's and now apply step 6, 7 and 8: "Query it", "Has it been altered from the original?" and "Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, on-policy, in-tech order."
Thats what this query is about: "Hammering out of existence incorrect technology" (KSW #1, point seven).
I doubt, that Ron really wrote or accepted this issue and would like to have a look at the original in a new unit of time.
A. The name of issuer and the exact order.
Issued per OEC-Volume 6, page 734 by
"L. Ron Hubbard, Founder
Assisted by Div 6 Internal Executive International"
HCO PL 29. April 1982 Issue II "Field Auditor Fees"
"A field auditor, professionally auditing or hanging out his shingle, is required to pay 10 percent of the fees collected for auditing to I HELP (International Hubbard Ecclesiastical Leage of Pastors), which is the central organization in charge of field auditors."
B. The reason it would result in loss or destruction if put into effect.
I doubt, that Ron really wrote or accepted this issue because of the following outpoints:
It violates several LRH-references:
No licensing of Bk-1
1. in DMSMH pg 184f Ron states, that Dianetics will never be subject of any licensing, which I-Help tries to do:
"It (Dianetics) belongs to man and it is doubtful if anyone could manage to gain a corner on it for it does not fall within any legislation of any kind in any place and if Dianetics were legislated into a licensed profession, then it is to be feared that listening to stories and jokes and personal experience would also have to be legislated into a profession. Such laws would put all men of good will who lend a sympathetic ear to a friend's troubles inside the barbed wire. ... It is a science of mind and needs about as much licensing and regulation as the application of the science of physics. Those things which are legislated against are a matter of law because they may in some way injure individuals or society. ... Dianetics is not in any way covered by legislation anywhere, for no law can prevent one man sitting down and telling another man his troubles and if anyone wants a monopoly on Dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which have to do not with Dianetics but with profit."
2. In HCO PL 9. May 1965RA Issue I "Field Auditors become staff" LRH tells us, in which organization Field Auditors shall become a teammember: "All field auditors of the level of HBA and above are appointed herewith FIELD STAFF MEMBERS of their nearest Scientology organization."
Ron also established with LRH ED 120 Int in 27 Aug 1970 the AUDITORS ASSOCIATION PROJECT IN YOUR AREA: The membership is free!!!
But the questioned "HCO PL" gives the field auditors another "central organization". This is a contradiction. The questioned reference puts a cross-line on to the field auditors and so creates a confusion.
The Tech is free!
3. LRH 1951 "teaching" per Technical Bulletins, Vol. I, page 170 item 10:
"Stress the right of the individual to select only what he desires to know, to use any knowledge as he wishes, that he himself owns what he has learned."
Contraryly per I-Help he has to pay 10 % for using it and so he owns not what he has learned.
LRH always said, that he made the tech a present to the world and did not take money for it, why should anyone else like I-Help get any royalty. For which exchange?
In the whole world royalties are taken?
The CO-I-Help EU justified the fees, that everywhere in the world are taken royalties for every kind of product. This is not true: If you look at Mc Donalds, this is a franchise: They deliver a big management with a lot of marketing, qualification and other functions for the licensee.
If you look at royalties for books or music: The text of the author or the tune of the composer itself is the product, which may be reproduced by a publisher so he has to pay to the artist. But if I as a computer engineer develope Software with my skills, I don't have to pay a penny to my university for the tech I am applying and once learned there.
Or per the former quote: "It (Dianetics) is a science of mind and needs about as much licensing and regulation as the application of the science of physics."
It is a difference, whether one uses a work of the author LRH and publishes this somehow or he just uses what he learned from LRH and applies the tech to deliver his own product: a VWD-Auditing-Session.
Even if I use computer software (a compiler like Clipper or other) to develope other software and sell that, I don't have to pay anything to the owner of Clipper. Even more: A lot of software-companies of developing-tools just take once money from the software-developer (me, their customer) and grant me the rights to give parts of their software away to my customers, as long as they are not able to develop new software with it but just use it for the software I developed for them.
Per LRH tithes are always paid for a service, which a management org gives to the licensee not for the tech itself:
Regarding the war with the IRS Ron made clear, that he took no money from the churches. This although he could have taken royalties for his tech, but he refused. Why should an organisation like I-Help take any royalty for using the tech? I-Help did not create the tech. Ron did and refused royalties.
The percentages the orgs pay to Int Management are another matter: They pay for the service, which is delivered to the orgs. And of course this can not be decided by the orgs on themselfes, whether they want the management or not: Because the orgs are part of an international structure and management and RTC has to work hard to keep Scientology working and expanding. Without this management Scientology would have fallen into the hands of the enemy, per my experience here in Hamburg.
But this is different with the field auditors: Ron did not intend to control them:
LRH ED 43 INT "Org Services" "Field auditors and missions should be informed: YOU CAN AUDIT ANY PROCESS FOR WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED. That means ever certified."
"The point of standard tech and standard Dianetics is so our orgs can guarantee their services. Thus WE in the orgs are shure of results." - So per LRH there is no need to inforce the standard tech into the field: So why any I-Help-Licence?
This is also stated by HCO B 28. May 1968 II "Dianetics and results - Dianetic counselling groups" where he said: "The official position of orgs is that they cannot take responsibility for the results obtained by single practitioners." And no public would really expect this.
No further mention of I-Help by LRH
I talked to the CO I-Help EU a few weeks ago and asked him for further LRH-references regarding I-Help. He answered that there are none! I-Help would work on projects issued by LRH for HASI in the fifties and I-Help would be the successor of HASI.
This seems to be very peculiar: If you take a look at the ideal szene, that around an org are 10 missions and about 1000 Field auditors. And these 1000 Field auditors would pay 10 % of their income through auditing to I-Help, then I-Help would collect more money than the GI of all the orgs together world wide. This would be the most powerful part in Scientology, and Ron does not mention this org anywhere else?
No product nor purpose defined?
I know of no important post or org, of which LRH did not state its product or purpose. Except I-Help. This would be an out-of-exchange-situation: I-Help takes a lot of money without being bind to deliver a valuable product for it.
I know of another Ron than this one in this questioned HCO PL: If LRH really would change the patter after more than three decades of free field auditors and ask them to pay any fees to I-Help, he would first make an eval and publish what he had found: The field auditors need the following support by a new organization: .... This cost a lot of money, so everyone has to pay 10 % and all will be flourishing and prospering. - That would be his Policy on any Field-Auditor-Fees! Starting with a sit to be resolved, a bright idea and new product to solve the sit, terminals (I-Help) to produce the product and a financial solution (Fees).
On a similar subject to delivering dianetic auditing, Ron wrote in HCO PL 5. Oct 1968R about "Dianetics Courses, Wildcat". He made clear, what for he insisted on the copyrights and the materials and their enforcement: "As we are only insisting they get the straight data, it should be easy to make such arrangements as we are very reasonable and only wish to help." He stressed, that even Wildcat-Auditors will send students to our orgs. Therefore he does not ask for any money from these Dianetic-Courses in the field!
Additionally the "solution" in above questioned HCO PL takes 10 % of the GI of every field auditor:
This policy keeps the expansion down
The GI compared to the costs of such a Field-office - i.e. with Dianetics-Auditors - shows often, that a Field Auditor can be lucky, if he earns 10 % as his profit. If he has to pay these 10 % as an additional cost for I-Help-Fee, than not so many field auditors will survive.
In the fifties there was a big Dianetic-boom in the states. And when auditing occurs in the field, the orgs will boom too. What once was the cause of a boom, will be able to cause it again. But in the fifties, sixties and seventies there was no Field-Auditor-Fees to be paid. These Fees stops the Dianetics boom more than it helps. Especially here in Germany it is hard enough to "make ones living with Scientology". There are just a hand full in the field, who struggle and try this. These fees take them the profit they need for expansion and for their own bridge. So it seems for the other publics, that it is more successfull to be in the real estate business. Here are too few examples for "making ones living with Scientology". That also stopps the expansions of the orgs.
Savety for the marks & copyrights
The CO I-Help EU argued, that the rights on DMSMH already have been lost 1951 to 1955 and could won back only with a lot of work. So Ron wanted the marks and rights to be secured. I can see, that this is really important. But for this a simple licensing of only Scientologists in good standing by the Auditors Association would be enough. It is not necessary to take 10 % of the GI for it.
Another argument by CO I-Help EU was, that I would violate HCO PL 23. Dec 1965RB "suppressive acts...", by "Unauthorized use of the materials of Dianetics and Scientology". His argumentation: Without permission of I-Help I could not deliver any auditing in the field. But field auditors got these rights already directly from LRH: HCO PL 28. April 1982 "The rights of the field auditor": "The field auditor has a right: ... 9. To have and to hold his certificates without cancellation by anyone forever.
10. To communicate Scientology and to bring about a civilization for mankind."
I can not see, that auditing is an "unauthorized use of materials". A skill is a theta value, no material, it is no MEST!
Who is the author?
"Assisted by Div 6 Internal Exec Int". - What does this mean? Was the HCO PL not originated by LRH? In KSW #1 he wrote about this:
"On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable "technology". By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it."
C. A recommendation resolving the problem the order sought to solve.
Just lets find out, whether the questioned HCO PL is really one by LRH and valid or whether it is not.
The licencing of field auditors can be done by the orgs "Auditors Association" (are you in good standing or not) and should be without fees per LRH ED 120 Int.
This query was "answered" by RTC letter of the 13. January 1998