Scientology pages index  |  Contact

(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help me with my research? <<  Consult my want list here !

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

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 them. I may be should have given this page the ‘inaccurate’ title “Everything you always wanted to know about Scientology references”. I am sure that you readers really have been waiting to find out about all that! The irony ... , still the information that I provide fold out some vital basics. Here you have the story from someone who has been closely involved in the Mimeo Section at Flag (Clearwater, Florida).
 
Index:

	Basic information about issues and in particular HCO PL's:
		What are HCO PL's & HCOB's, who writes them & some historical background
			Includes:  HCO PL's & HCOB's explained;  Who writes them?;  1974-1979: ‘Board Policy Letter’ (BPL) & ‘Board Technical Bulletin’ (BTB) & Prelude (1961);  1982-1988: ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ (SPD) cancelling HCO PL's & BPL's;  1991-1993: ‘HCO Admin Letters’ (HCO Administrative Letter) cancelling HCO PL's & HCOB's;  HCO PL issue-type format reserved for L. Ron Hubbard?
		What are ‘original mimeo print-offs’ and its relation to the Qual Library     (Includes ‘Qual Library’ and ‘A change in practice (1991)’)
		Information about revising, about distribution & initials found at the end of references
		What does it mean when an issue is cancelled
	Changes and questionable practices observed, with proposals to solution:
		Understanding the importance of having different issue-types and what it means!
			- LRH ED's  vs  HCO PL's
			- Orders of the Day (OOD's)  vs  HCO PL's/HCOB's
			- An inconsistency: ‘Ability article turns HCOB’  (HCOB 5 Nov 67 “Critics of Scientology”)
		Inconsequency regarding writer/compiler/typist initials during the late 80's
		Changes incorporated since 1991 in original publication dates of issues
			- Change in approach of (re)dating issues 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 PL's & HCOB's

What are HCO PL's & HCOB's, who writes them & some historical background

• HCO PL's & HCOB's explained
• Who writes them?
• 1974-1979:  ‘Board Policy Letter’ (BPL)  &  ‘Board Technical Bulletin’ (BTB)  &  Prelude (1961)
• 1982-1988:  ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ (SPD) cancelling HCO PL's & BPL's
• 1991-1993:  ‘HCO Admin Letters’ (HCO Administrative Letter) cancelling HCO PL's & HCOB's
• HCO PL issue-type format reserved for L. Ron Hubbard?

 
HCO PL's & HCOB's explained

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 PL's and administrative references), also referred to as the ‘green volumes’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ (assembles all HCOB's and technical references), also referred to as the ‘red volumes’.

 
Who writes them?

Please keep in mind that at one time not all HCO PL's & HCOB's were written solely by L. Ron Hubbard.  In present time these particular HCO PL's & HCOB's are either cancelled or reissued into another issue-type. It used to be as follows:

As a rule those HCO PL's 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’.

“HCO PLs and HCOBs require passing by LRH or the full authority of International Board members as well as the Authority and Verification Unit.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

 
1974-1979:  ‘Board Policy Letter’ (BPL)  &  ‘Board Technical Bulletin’ (BTB)  &  Prelude (1961)

In 1974 it was found that these issue-types (HCO PL & HCOB) were to be reserved solely for L. Ron Hubbard writings. To accomplish this 2 new issue-types were created:

BTB's and BPL's that listed all the HCOB's respectively HCO PL's that were being cancelled/replaced in this 1974-75 revolution  (link will open as a pop-up window)

Prelude (1961)

It seems that the idea of reserving the HCO PL and the HCOB issue-type solely for L. Ron Hubbard writings was in theory already established by him in 1961. However for some reason it was not being followed up on back then. Reason for this may have been that no new issue-types were available nor created to realize this in a practical manner, as non-LRH policy and non-LRH technical issues demanded an additional issue-type to have them written on. Finally in 1974 then this was realized with the establishment of the BPL & BTB issue-types.

 
1982-1988:  ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ (SPD) cancelling HCO PL's & BPL's

(More background information about SPD's you will find on my page: “LRH vs A New Order (2)”, chapter “The arrival of new information (2) - A closer look at ‘Scientology Policy Directives’”. Consult here, link will open in a separate window)

So now we have SPD's cancelling/replacing HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard, and BPL's. Indeed we find a variety of SPD's 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  (link will open as a pop-up window)

 
1991-1993:  ‘HCO Admin Letters’ (HCO Administrative Letter) cancelling HCO PL's & HCOB's

The issue-type HCO Administrative Letter (usually referred to as HCO Admin Letter) was created for to “Contain checklist of issues, admin data of an informative nature.” and they “do not contain policy or orders.” Practically this amongst other meant that once at the end of each month such an issue was released and it listed any and all issues of any issue-type that were released during that very month. Copies were send to the various organizations around the world as a checklist for all Qual Librarians, with this list they could find out what was missing in their files and arrange it being send to them. HCO Admin Letters was not an issue-type of any particular authority, but one time during 1975 they had in fact been replacing (cancelling) various HCO PL's. All these were directly relating to “admin data of an informative nature.” (see list of these in link below). This appears to have been a matter of to reissue these on the correct issue-type. During 1991-93 however they were now cancelling a whole arsenal of HCO PL's and HCOB's dealing with any kind of subject for the sole reason that they had not been written or approved by L. Ron Hubbard to be issued as such (see summary list of these in link below) .

 
HCO PL issue-type format reserved for L. Ron Hubbard?

One could wonder why still HCO PL's 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 80's we find again many HCO PL's written and/or compiled by for example ‘Executive Director International’ (ED Int), or some ‘Board of Directors’, and various. 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 OEC 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?’, see Scientology index page).

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

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.

A change in practice (1991)

More data about Qual Libraries is found on page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2) or About ‘Information’, Primary Rundown, and Qual Library”, chapter “The importance of the Qual Library”. Consult here (link will open in separate window).

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 PL's 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 PL's 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.

The first release of the Organization Executive Course volumes (these contain the administrative issues) was published during 1970-74. All the issues in these volumes were basically exact duplicates of the original mimeo print-offs. However the 1991 release of these volumes have taken away part of this information. The revisions are not any more printed in script, deletions are 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 (2) or About ‘Information’, Primary Rundown, and Qual Library”, chapter “Introduction to this page”.

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.

Understanding the importance of having different issue-types and what it means!

• LRH ED's  vs  HCO PL's
• Orders of the Day (OOD's)  vs  HCO PL's/HCOB's
• An inconsistency: ‘Ability article turns HCOB’  (HCOB 5 Nov 67 “Critics of Scientology”)

There exist some confusion regarding this. I have met various 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 do encounter frequently that people mix up these issue-types and ignore their actual authority and also their actual validity.

 
LRH ED's  vs  HCO PL's

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

The gross error made here is in fact that any ED (including LRH ED's), 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. ED's 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 ED's 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 ED's in for example the OEC 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 ED's 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 ED's 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 October 13, '72 and became HCO PL 13 Oct 72 “Freeloaders”.

So, please do keep LRH ED's and HCO PL's  s•e•p•a•r•a•t•e•d!!

 
Orders of the Day (OOD's)  vs  HCO PL's/HCOB's

• OOD's turn HCO PL's/HCOB's - Overview
• OOD's turn HCO PL's/HCOB's - (1) Cancellations
• OOD's turn HCO PL's/HCOB's - (2) And 2 reinstated

 
OOD's turn HCO PL's/HCOB's - Overview

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

Especially worthy of notice is that it says ‘edited’. Appropriate portions were picked from these original Orders of the Day. Sometimes they even got mixed in with various paragraphs taken from Orders of the Day from another date.

One should also realize that these Orders of the Day were directions for Sea Org members and forwarded the purpose that they had. The Sea Organization in fact is a senior echelon within the Scientology organization. Then by issuing these as HCO PL's you may very well be addressing the wrong target. In fact various of these OOD's were also issued as Flag Orders by the same Sherry Anderson. Flag Orders may be considered policy within the Sea Organization. The OOD's as they were reissued in the Flag Orders were called ‘OODs Series’ and they were numbered. Directly foregoing the title of these was printed: ‘*Y*A*C*H*T* *A*P*O*L*L*O*’. 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.

With the above you can recompile what is published in the Flag Order by adding it to the HCO PL version (it is found in the 1991 release of the OEC vols as HCO PL 14 Jan 69 II “same title”). And then you have to make up your own mind about what group and forwarding whom's purpose. And if in fact it is proper to simply remove the SO referencing and then make it policy for all.

Well, this issuing OOD's as HCO PL's/HCOB's. 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 OEC Volume 0 (1986 release) 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 October 1985) “Spectatorism” and HCO PL 27 Oct 80 (Corrected and Reissued 4 October 1985) “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 OOD's 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 this OEC Volume 0 (1986 release). All of them only say the following:

Early 1991 all these OOD's HCO PL/HCOB releases were reissued and they exist today as an HCO PL/HCOB carrying the date of the original OOD's (for example: HCO PL 28 Aug 80 I “Cause” (OOD's 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.

 
OOD's turn HCO PL's/HCOB's - (1) Cancellations

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 new OEC vols (1991 release), 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 OOD's items issued as HCO PL's/HCOB's 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 PL's/HCOB's would have received a different treatment or arrangement.

 
OOD's turn HCO PL's/HCOB's - (2) And 2 reinstated

The story does not end here. Namely we do not find this HCO PL 11 Apr 72 II (Reissued 13 January 1991) “Ethics Change” in the 1991 release of the OEC 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 August 21, 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 OOD's item!

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

In the periodical ‘Ability 199’, 5 November 1967 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 release of these red 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 these red volumes, in both the 1976 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 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 (link will open in 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 August 27, 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 of having been an HCOB since 1967, when in fact it was not. I have encountered various who were mislead by the date of the HCOB.
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?”.

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 release of the Technical Bulletins 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 70's. 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!

Changes incorporated since 1991 in original publication dates of issues

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

 
Change in approach of (re)dating issues 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 Dec 2, 1970 until Oct 13, 1972. 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 various should reflect exactly when it turned into policy or a technical issue to be reckoned with!

 
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 HCOB's dated 1985-1991. L. Ron Hubbard passed away on January 24, '86, this automatically means that he can not have written the HCOB's as found on pages 121-582 on the date they were released (25 July 1987 to 1 May 1991).

Consideration and various proposals to solution

• Changing the issue authority of old information
• Changing dates on HCO PL's & HCOB's

 
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 evalutation, a telex message, an OOD's, an ‘Ability’ or ‘Certainty’ magazine article or any other communication from L. Ron Hubbard (mostly dating back to the 60's and 70's), 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 PL's or HCOB's 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 evalutations, OOD's 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 OOD's that tell something interesting, compile them and issue them (as they were), and give it the title ‘Compilation of LRH OOD's from the *A*P*O*L*L*O*’ (or something). Magazines articles and such as they appeared in for example ‘Certainty’, ‘Ability’ and various could be reissued as they appear presently in the Technical 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 pendrawings 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 PL's & HCOB's

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, OOD's 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 November 2001) “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 adviced 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’.)”.


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:

     70RA, 70R:
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’. The date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R stands for 'Revision' and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first issued. If it is revised a 2nd time it says RA, a 3rd time RB etc..
     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’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for policy letters not written by L. Ron Hubbard.
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for technical matters not written by L. Ron Hubbard.
     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' or 'Executive Director'.
     green volume(s):
Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’, this is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any administrative references. These references are mostly printed green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have green bindings. The ‘old green volumes’ refers to the 1974 release, ‘new green volumes’ refers to the 1991 release.
     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 in front of the ‘hat pack’.
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’: issue-type since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address technical issues, having to do with auditing procedures and courses. 
      HCO PL (Pol Ltr, P/L or PL):
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’: since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues. 
     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 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 HCO PL).
     OEC:
‘Organization Executive Course’. Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’, this is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any administrative references. These references are mostly printed green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have green bindings. Also referred to as the ‘green volumes’.
     org, orgs:
Abbreviation 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 (link will open in a separate window).
     Qual Library:
‘Qualification Library’: Located in Division 5 (Qualification Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction). The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run.
     red volume(s):
Refers to ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’, this is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any technical references. These references are mostly printed red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have red bindings. The ‘old red volumes’ refers to the 1976 release, ‘new red volumes’ refers to the 1991 release.
     Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary:
This is the publication ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (first released 1976). Usually referred to as simply Admin Dictionary. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     Sec ED:
‘Secretarial Executive Directive’. Later these were referred to as LRH ED. An ‘Executive Directive’ issued by ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     SP:
A usual abbreviation for Suppressive Person.
     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’.