Another contradiction: Staff Auditing

[NeXTep]

It's a simple equation: Auditing is for upstats.

Staff or public who give money are upstat.

Public who do not give money do not get auditing. They are downstats.

Staff who are downstats do not get auditing.

Staffs who achieve upstats without auditing have proven they don't need auditing. This fact becomes part of their weekly conditions write-ups and normal operating basis.

There is a caveat: A senior management person can, by a wave of the hand, decide at any time that a staff member is an upstat. That person can receive auditing. This grace is usually reserved for registrars.

So, now you know how the system works.

Plus staffers are terrible PCs, they usually are overworked, underfed and/or underslept. Plus as statistics go, one week you're upstat and the next you're downstat, so you have to take a break with auditing. It is terrible for the auditor to have a staffer as PC.

 

[RogerB]

The Scene Changed Over Time

The Scene Obviously Changed Over Time.

When I was on staff in Melbourne 1962-3 we staff members were expected to deliver and get 20 hours of co-auditing done each week.

We knew it worked (then) and we benefited from it.

Indeed, anyone failing to deliver and get his or her 20 hours got roasted.

But then, Scn was booming, and staff earned a living wage and didn't work all God's hours of the day for "stats" like today . . . except for the stat of a paycheck that is a missing, no-stat!

Rog

 

[angel]

"After you are fully hatted"

We were always told to hurry and get fully hatted then you can co-audit up the bridge.

I think I have started three different hats never being more then mini-hatted on my posts.

The last I worked on was for course supervisor. I spent a year on the hat only to learn that the completion was not permenant and I would have to do the full hat within one year. I thought I did do the full hat.

Once while on staff I purchased a couple of intensives. My auditor wanted to continue auditing me after I ran out of hours. He would meet me everyday during dinner. I had redtagged because of my severe back pain, and the same night my senior yelled at me for down stats and said no more auditing! I blew. I decided I needed to go public.

Jen

 

[Kha Khan]

The Scene Obviously Changed Over Time.

When I was on staff in Melbourne 1962-3 we staff members were expected to deliver and get 20 hours of co-auditing done each week.

We knew it worked (then) and we benefited from it.

Indeed, anyone failing to deliver and get his or her 20 hours got roasted.

But then, Scn was booming, and staff earned a living wage and didn't work all God's hours of the day for "stats" like today . . . except for the stat of a paycheck that is a missing, no-stat!

I was on staff in London 1979-82, and there was an excellent system in place whereby foundation auditors could audit day staff when not on post and vice versa. The rate charged was four pound an hour. Also at around this time there were about 8 internes, and I was one, and we'd audit staff to help complete our interneships.

I joined the SO at AOSHUK in 1972. In the 70s there were lots of students and interns and they needed pcs, and many AOSHUK staff got audited. The FOLOUK staff a few hundred feet away mostly didn't get any auditing.

Up until 1979, when I got onto solo, I probably had 400-500 hours, a couple hundred on pre-NED Dianetics, a couple hundred on quad expanded grades, a few intensives of objectives, Happiness RD, DCSI. No sec-checking to speak of at that time, very little repair needed, it was 95% grade chart all the way. Then I did up to OT3 and started on OT4. I moved to LA and it was a completely different ball game, and getting in session for major actions was like pulling teeth.

At the time I thought I was moving so slowly as other staff members were getting a lot more done than I was. It was only when I later discovered how little staff auditing was normal that I realized I had managed to get on well.

In the early '70s in Cape Town staff auditing was greatly encouraged. Students all got practice auditing on staff, staff auditors co-audited. You got what you got - I did the S A Lists three times through simply because that was what was needed from the student auditor side, and I never got grades 2 through 4, but I got hundreds of hours of other auditing. Probably close on a thousand hours. Other staff members too got lots and lots. On;y later in about 79 or 80 did arbitrary bullshit come down about LRH "forbidding staff auditing until the atats were up" and crap like that.

What I gather from these posts is that in the "old days" -- perhaps prior to 1979 or 1980 -- a priority was placed on Staff auditing, and sufficient time and resources were devoted to the auditing of staff.

It appears that after 1979 or 1980 this changed, and neither sufficient time nor sufficient resources were were devoted to the auditing of staff.

There is a possible explanation for this change in behavior that may, or may not, be valid.

The explanation would be that after years and years of investing time and resources in the auditing of staff -- of, as I put it earlier, eating their own dog food -- the "powers that be" (Int., Exec. Strata, etc.) learned that it was not cost effective. That they learned, after long experience, that auditing staff was not worth the time, effort and investment involved.

That they learned, after long experience, that auditing did not create superior beings -- or at least beings who were sufficiently superior to mere "wogs" to justify even allowing staff to co-audit, or even allow staff to serve as pcs for student auditors.

When the choice came down to having a staff member say, stuff envelopes, versus co-auditing or serving as a pc for a student auditor, the decision was made that it was more economically beneficial to have the staff member stuff envelopes.

In other words, the "powers that be" (Int., Exec. Strata, etc.) learned after long experience that auditing was not worth much, really, at all.

But at the same time the "powers that be" (Int., Exec. Strata, etc.) continued to tell the public that auditing was so beneficial that people should max out their credit cards, mortgage their homes, and take time off from their jobs to go to Flag.

Seriously, how can the Church of Scientology, indeed how can anyone, assert that auditing makes people more effective, and more than pays for itself in the long run, when it is not worth time away from stuffing envelopes, doing call in, or standing in front of an OCA table?

 

[Ted]

What I gather from these posts is that in the "old days" -- perhaps prior to 1979 or 1980 -- a priority was placed on Staff auditing, and sufficient time and resources were devoted to the auditing of staff.

It appears that after 1979 or 1980 this changed, and neither sufficient time nor sufficient resources were were devoted to the auditing of staff.

There is a possible explanation for this change in behavior that may, or may not, be valid.

The explanation would be that after years and years of investing time and resources in the auditing of staff -- of, as I put it earlier, eating their own dog food -- the "powers that be" (Int., Exec. Strata, etc.) learned that it was not cost effective. That they learned, after long experience, that auditing staff was not worth the time, effort and investment involved.

That they learned, after long experience, that auditing did not create superior beings -- or at least beings who were sufficiently superior to mere "wogs" to justify even allowing staff to co-audit, or even allow staff to serve as pcs for student auditors.

When the choice came down to having a staff member say, stuff envelopes, versus co-auditing or serving as a pc for a student auditor, the decision was made that it was more economically beneficial to have the staff member stuff envelopes.

In other words, the "powers that be" (Int., Exec. Strata, etc.) learned after long experience that auditing was not worth much, really, at all.

But at the same time the "powers that be" (Int., Exec. Strata, etc.) continued to tell the public that auditing was so beneficial that people should max out their credit cards, mortgage their homes, and take time off from their jobs to go to Flag.

Seriously, how can the Church of Scientology, indeed how can anyone, assert that auditing makes people more effective, and more than pays for itself in the long run, when it is not worth time away from stuffing envelopes, doing call in, or standing in front of an OCA table?

I believe there are people in Management who think that auditing is a fraud and people who get auditing are weaklings. It's just a belief I have.

Now, I can't speak to times before 1973 as I was not around Scientology then.

As to later, that's another story.

Two of the most effective processing rundowns to come on the scene were the Survival Rundown, then not long after that, the Happiness Rundown. Co-audits were encouraged on each.

I was very excited when the Survival Rundown came out as it gave me a way for my staff to get trained and audited at the same time. Most were slow students before the rundown. True to established form, it seems they took forever to get through the TRs section of the course.

But, once they were co-auditing objectives momentum really picked up. They were no longer studying; they were actually doing something towards clearing. There was a period when I saw smiling faces and Floating TA's at exams day after day. I can only imagine that other missions and orgs were seeing similar results.

The Happiness Rundown further opened people's eyes. Most did fantastically well on the rundown. The bottom line is that these rundowns worked too well. Some people cognized they did not belong on staff, others that they were on the wrong post.

In a sense, staff with eyes wide open are troublemakers to Management, always querying orders, writing knowledge reports and job endangerment chits, doing the verbal data checklist, and so on.

Management is never afraid that staff who get auditing will find out it doesn't work. Management has experienced the effectiveness of auditing on staffs, it knows it works, and it is afraid it will lose control.

 

[Iknowtoomuch]

We were always told to hurry and get fully hatted then you can co-audit up the bridge.

I think I have started three different hats never being more then mini-hatted on my posts.

The last I worked on was for course supervisor. I spent a year on the hat only to learn that the completion was not permenant and I would have to do the full hat within one year. I thought I did do the full hat.

Once while on staff I purchased a couple of intensives. My auditor wanted to continue auditing me after I ran out of hours. He would meet me everyday during dinner. I had redtagged because of my severe back pain, and the same night my senior yelled at me for down stats and said no more auditing! I blew. I decided I needed to go public.

Jen

And I'd like to point out that 80% or so of posts don't even have a full hat. You had to put something together yourself if you wanted to be fully hatted.

 

[ThisFenceHurts]

I believe there are people in Management who think that auditing is a fraud and people who get auditing are weaklings. It's just a belief I have.

Now, I can't speak to times before 1973 as I was not around Scientology then.

As to later, that's another story.

Two of the most effective processing rundowns to come on the scene were the Survival Rundown, then not long after that, the Happiness Rundown. Co-audits were encouraged on each.

I was very excited when the Survival Rundown came out as it gave me a way for my staff to get trained and audited at the same time. Most were slow students before the rundown. True to established form, it seems they took forever to get through the TRs section of the course.

But, once they were co-auditing objectives momentum really picked up. They were no longer studying; they were actually doing something towards clearing. There was a period when I saw smiling faces and Floating TA's at exams day after day. I can only imagine that other missions and orgs were seeing similar results.

The Happiness Rundown further opened people's eyes. Most did fantastically well on the rundown. The bottom line is that these rundowns worked too well. Some people cognized they did not belong on staff, others that they were on the wrong post.

In a sense, staff with eyes wide open are troublemakers to Management, always querying orders, writing knowledge reports and job endangerment chits, doing the verbal data checklist, and so on.

Management is never afraid that staff who get auditing will find out it doesn't work. Management has experienced the effectiveness of auditing on staffs, it knows it works, and it is afraid it will lose control.

Happiness Rundown is now a standard grade chart action, and is listed as such on the latest and greatest grade chart. I have heard accounts from about a dozen people, ranging from Objectives completions to OT7s that they were programmed for the Happiness Rundown before any other grade chart action if it hadn't been done previously.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Happiness Rundown is now a standard grade chart action, and is listed as such on the latest and greatest grade chart. I have heard accounts from about a dozen people, ranging from Objectives completions to OT7s that they were programmed for the Happiness Rundown before any other grade chart action if it hadn't been done previously.

How does the song go?......Happiness is a warm can.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Having been in charge (Ha, what a joke) of staff training and auditing progress in a major Sea Org org for about 8 years, I ran into this a lot.

LRH says to use Interns to audit the staff and get them up the Bridge. Well, CCI was a booming org and there were lots of Interns, in general. And I tried to use that. I tried to get staff in session and up the Bridge. It worked ok for a few months, until BAM! A flap: the interns were public and they were auditing CC staff. Guess what? CC staff had info on hush hush Celeb stuff. And sometimes they would say something in session that they really should not be talking about!

There went the staff auditing.

I was told to recruit and train my own people. What a joke. Having to supervise a courseroom 3/4 of the day, and only 2 1/2 hours to do the rest of my post - ridiculous.

I even tried to get some co-audit checksheets put together (kind of like the RPF style of training in the org). I sent them to Senior C/S Int office for approval and that was shot down.

Basically, I had to recruit and train auditors for the staff. Every time an auditor was named for staff, they ended up getting ripped off for public. So why bother?

Very frustrating, especially when you feel that what you are doing is for a good cause, so you never give up. What a trap.

 

[lkwdblds]

Great Point!!

One thing that always struck me as interesting, and odd, about the SO and Class V staff was how few of them had received much, if any auditing, and how little progress they had made up the Bridge.

Did anyone ever wonder why, while the COS could tell everyone else it was worth spending their children's college funds, maxing out their credit cards, mortgaging their homes, and entering into funky loans to pay for auditing on the grounds that it would make them more effective, and more than pay for itself in the long run, it wasn't worth it to the COS to give their own personnel sufficient time off, and devote sufficient resources to staff auditing, to make its own staff more effective? If auditing is so effective, and indeed such a force multiplier, wouldn't it make sense to have your own staff receive auditing, and indeed auditing to Clear and the OT levels, first?

If auditing was such a good investment -- and indeed such a good investment that public Scientologists should max out their credit cards, take out loans, and mortgage their homes to pay for it -- then why didn't the COS devote the time and resources necessary to make sure its own staff received the benefits of auditing?

It simply doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, the upper level decision makers in the Church always knew and believed that auditing was, if not completely ineffective, then a poor investment from the standpoint of cost benefit analysis. That delivering auditing to its staff was not worth the time of the auditors (who, during much of my time in, weren't doing shit anyways because there weren't near enough public PCs), or the value of the time of for their staff members. Staff members who were making, what?, 5 cents an our?

Ever hear of the management principle that an organization should eat its own dog food? Apparently the "dog food" of auditing was not worth the time and effort necessary to deliver to the Church of Scientology's own staff.

Yes, yes!! I noticed that point when I was in and I notice it now. The prime example is David Miscavige. I've read that his training level is Class IV, provisional, and his case level is correspondingly low. He has unlimited access to supposedly some of the finest auditors in the world yet he never seems to receive any auditing or take any steps to insure his "eternity".

In the Orgs, often the Senior Execs order that all staff must take study time, 2 1/2 hours a day and if they don't, they will be sent to Ethics. Meanwhile the top execs almost never take study themselves.

When I was Sea Org, I was posted to be a Program's Chief in the Flag Bureaux. My hat was to be the writing of "Evals". I had never done the Data Evaluators Course. I was ordered to route onto the course immediately by the "Man" himself, LRH, but already the "altered sequence" outpoint was present before I even got started. Somenone who had completed this course should have been assigned the post. I was told that I could not make the excuse that I was not hatted because the attitude is that a Sea Org member can do anything he is assigned to do. If LRH and his robotic core of underlings, who were my Seniors, really believed this absurd doctrine then it makes a joke out of the Course itself and the reason and methods used to study the materials.

In the bigger sense, using my experience only as a typical example, staff members are expected to accomplish titanic achievements on their posts against large opposition without proper food and sleep and with no enhancement given them such as the enhancement of receiving regular auditing on a regular basis and moving up the bridge. All of this, if you will pardon the expression, "shit" is part and parcel of what is called the Hubbard Management System which is promoted and sold as being light years of ahead of the business tech being taught in schools in the "WOG" world.
It would be funny that people still in the Church can't see the obvious except that people's lives are being ruined which takes it out of the realm of fun.
lkwdblds