Suppressive Person Defense League

You are here: Home / Archives for Executives

Executives

by Leave a Comment

HCOPL: Ethics and Executives

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 MAY 1972RA1
Revised 7 September 2000

Remimeo
Executive Hats

IMPORTANT

Executive Series 12

ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES

Any person holding an executive post (head of department or above) is deemed an EXECUTIVE.

Evaluation has revealed that the breakdown in many orgs is a failure on the part of executives to wear their ethics and justice hats.

It has been found that below administrative Whys there is usually an ethics situation as well, which, unhandled, causes the administrative Why not to function or raise stats.

In an area which is downstat, it is the duty of an executive to investigate and find any out-ethics situation and get it corrected.

Ethics is a personal thing in relation to a group. Unethical people are those who do not have ethics in on themselves personally.

It is the responsibility of the executive to see to it that persons under his control and in his area get their personal ethics in and keep them in.

Dishonesty, false reports, an out-ethics personal life, should be looked for and, by persuasion, should be corrected.

When an executive sees such things, he or she must do all he can to get the person to get his own ethics in.

When an area is downstat, the executive must at once suspect an out-ethics scene with one or more of the personnel and must investigate and persuade the person to be more honest and ethical and correct the out-ethics condition found.

If this does not correct and if the person or area remains downstat, the executive must declare the person or area in Danger and apply HCO PL 9 Apr. 72, CORRECT DANGER CONDITION HANDLING.

The situation, if it does not correct, thereafter becomes a matter of full group justice with courts and Comm Evs. Persons whose ethics have remained out must be replaced.

The seniors of an executive are bound to enforce this policy and to use it on any executives whose personal ethics are out and who fail to apply it. It will be found that those who do not apply this policy letter have themselves certain dishonesties or out-ethics situations.

IT IS VITAL TO ANY ORGANIZATION, TO BE STRONG AND EFFECTIVE, TO BE ETHICAL.

THE MOST IMPORTANT ZONE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT IN AN ORGANIZATION IS AT OR NEAR THE TOP.

Ethical failure, at the top or just below it, can destroy an organization and make it downstat.

Historical examples are many.

THEREFORE, IT IS POLICY THAT AN EXECUTIVE MUST KEEP ETHICS IN ON HIMSELF AND THOSE BELOW HIM OR BE DISCIPLINED OR COMM EVED AND REMOVED FROM ANY POST OF AUTHORITY AND SOMEONE FOUND WHO IS HIMSELF ETHICAL AND CAN KEEP ETHICS IN ON THOSE UNDER HIS AUTHORITY.

The charge in any such case for a staff member or executive is FAILURE TO UPHOLD OR SET AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS.

Such offenses are composed of:

1. DISHONESTY,

2. Use of false statements to cover up a situation,

3. Representing a scene to be different than it actually is to cover up crimes and escape discipline,

4. Irregular 2D connections and practices,

5. Drug or alcoholic addiction,

6. Encouraging out-ethics,

7. Condoning or failing to effectively handle an out-ethics situation in self or others as an in-charge, officer or executive.

TECHNICAL

People with out-ethics withholds cannot see. This is proven by the brilliant return of perception of the environment in people audited effectively and at length on such processes.

Such people also seek to place a false environment there and actually see a false environment.

People whose ethics are low will enturbulate and upset a group as they are seeking to justify their harmful acts against the group. And this leads to more harmful acts.

Out-ethics people go rapidly into Treason against the group.

A person whose ethics have been out over a long period goes “out of valence.”

They are “not themselves.”

Happiness is only attained by those who are HONEST with themselves and others.

A group prospers only when each member in it has his own personal ethics in.

Even in a PTS (potential trouble source) person there must have been outethics conduct toward the suppressive personality he or she is connected with for the person to have become PTS in the first place.

People who are physically ill are PTS and are out-ethics toward the person or thing they are PTS to!

Thus a group to be happy and well, and for the group to prosper and endure, its individual members must have their own ethics in.

It is up to the executive or officer to see that this is the case and to DO the actions necessary to make it come about and the group an ethical group.

EXEC OR OFFICER’S STEPS FOR GETTING IN ETHICS ON A STAFF MEMBER

STEP 1

Inform the person personally he is in Danger condition by reason of acts or omissions, down stats, false reports or absence or 2D or whatever the circumstances are.

He is in fact IN Danger because somebody is going to act sooner or later to hit him.

He may be involved already in some other assignment of condition.

But this is between you and him.

HE IS IN DANGER BECAUSE YOU ARE HAVING TO BYPASS HIM TO GET HIS ETHICS IN, A THING HE SHOULD DO HIMSELF.

If he cooperates and completes this rundown and it comes out all right, you will help him.

If he doesn’t cooperate, you will have to use group justice procedures.

This is his chance to get ethics in on himself with your help before he really crashes.

When he accepts this fact, Step 1 is done. Go to Step 2.

STEP 2

Ethics is gotten in by definition on the person.

GET THE DEFINITIONS FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

The following words must be Method 4 word cleared on all the words and the words in their definitions on the person being handled.

“ETHICS: the study of the general nature of morals (morals [plural] [noun]: The principles of right and wrong conduct) and of the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others.”

“The rules or standards governing the conduct of the members of a profession.”

“JUSTICE: (1) moral rightness; equity. (2) honor, fairness. (3) good reason. (4) fair handling: due reward or treatment. (5) the administration and procedure of the law.”

“FALSE: contrary to fact or truth; without grounds; incorrect. Without meaning or sincerity; deceiving. Not keeping faith; treacherous. Resembling and being identified as a similar or related entity.”

“DISHONEST: disposed to lie, cheat, defraud or deceive.”

“PRETENSE: a false reason or excuse. A mere show without reality.”

“BETRAY: to be disloyal or faithless to.”

“OUT-ETHICS: an action or situation in which an individual is involved contrary to the ideals and best interests of his group. An act or situation or relationship contrary to the ethics standards, codes or ideals of the group or other members of the group. An act of omission or commission by an individual that could or has reduced the general effectiveness of a group or its other members. An individual act of omission or commission which impedes the general well-being of a group or impedes it in achieving its goals.”

Do not go to Step 3 of this until all the above words are cleared by Method 4 Word Clearing.

STEP 3

Ask the person what out-ethics situation he or she is involved in.

It may take the person some time to think of it or he may suppress it and be afraid to say it for fear of consequences. Reassure him that you are only trying to help him.

He may have brought it up in a session but did not apply it as out-ethics.

Coax him through this.

If his conduct and actions are poor or downstat, he for sure will be able to come up with an out-ethics personal scene.

Sometimes the person is secretly PTS and is connected to a suppressive or antagonistic person or group or thing. In such an instance he will roller-coaster as a case or on post or have accidents or be ill frequently. (See PTS tech for material on this and for future handling. HCO PL 9 Apr. 72R, CORRECT DANGER CONDITION HANDLING, but go on handling with these steps.)

Sometimes the person just uses PR (brags it up and won’t come clean). In this case, an auditing session is required.

If the person gets involved in self-listing, get him audited on HCOB 20 Apr. 72 II, C/S Series 78, PRODUCT PURPOSE AND WHY AND W/C ERROR CORRECTION, which gives the auditing session procedure. A person can become very upset over a wrong item. It is easily repaired, but it must be repaired if this happens.

By your own 2WC or whatever means or repair get this Step 3 to a clear-cut out-ethics situation, clearly stated. Do not forget to go on with this eventually if there is a delay in completing it. GIs will be in if correct.

STEP 4

Have the person work out how the out-ethics situation in which he or she is involved would be a betrayal of the group or make them false to the group or its ideals.

Do not make the person guilty. Just get them to see it themselves.

When they have seen this clearly and have cognited on it completely, go to next step.

STEP 5

The person is now ready to apply the FIRST DYNAMIC DANGER FORMULA to himself.

Give him this formula and explain it to him.

FIRST DYNAMIC FORMULA

The formula is converted for the first dynamic to:

1st 1: Bypass habits or normal routines.

1st 2: Handle the situation and any danger in it.

1st 3: Assign self a Danger condition.

1st 4: Get in your own personal ethics by finding what you are doing that is out-ethics and use self-discipline to correct it and get honest and straight.

1st 5: Reorganize your life so that the dangerous situation is not continually happening to you.

1st 6: Formulate and adopt firm policy that will hereafter detect and prevent the same situation from continuing to occur.

Now, usually the person is already involved in another group situation of down stats or overt products or bad appearance or low conditions, courts, Comm Evs, for something.

It does not matter what other condition he was in. From you he is in Danger.

So 1st 1 and 1st 2 above apply to the group situation he finds himself in.

He has to assign himself a Danger condition as he recognizes now he has been in danger from himself.

1st 4 has been begun by this rundown.

It is up to him or her to finish off 1st 4 by applying the material in Steps 2 and 3. He or she has to use self-discipline to correct his own out-ethics scene and get it honest and straight, with himself and the group.

1st 5 is obvious. If he doesn’t, he will just crash again.

1st 6, in formulating and adopting firm policy, he must be sure it aligns with the group endeavor.

When he has worked all this out AND DEMONSTRATED IT IN LIFE, he has completed the personal Danger Rundown.

He can then assign himself Emergency and follow the Emergency Formula (HCO PL 23 Sept. 67, Vol 0 OEC, EMERGENCY).

STEP 6

Review the person and his stats and appearance and personal life.

Satisfy yourself that the steps above and the out-ethics found were all of it.

That no wrong item has been found. That the person is not PTS.

Handle what you find. But if you find that the person did not improve and gave it all a brushoff, you must now take the group’s point of view and administer group justice.

Your protection of the person is at end because he had his chance and is apparently one of those people who depend on others to keep his ethics in for him and can’t keep them in himself. So use group justice procedures thereafter.

If the person made it and didn’t fall on his head and is moving on up now AS SHOWN BY HONEST STATS AND CONDITION OF HIS POST, you have had a nice win and things will go much, much better.

And that’s a win for everybody.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

Notes

  1. Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOPL: Suppressives and the Administrator How to Detect SPs as an Administrator

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 OCTOBER 19671; 2

Remimeo

ETHICS

Admin Know-How Series 16

SUPPRESSIVES AND THE ADMINISTRATOR

HOW TO DETECT SPs AS AN ADMINISTRATOR

There are three areas of detection which an administrator can utilize in the detection of a suppressive person.

These are:

1. No ethics change,

2. No case change,

3. No admin change.

An SP (suppressive person) is unable to change because he cannot, himself, confront. He is badly “out of valence.”

Therefore, not being able to look at things directly, he is unable to erase them or even see what they are. Such people often have a curtain of pictures they look at instead of the universe around them.

They do not see a building. They see a picture of a building in front of the building. They are not at the point from which they view things.

Thus they are peculiar in that they can’t change.

The three principal zones in a Scientology org are:

1. Ethics,

2. Tech,

3. Admin.

We have the natural laws of these subjects, each one.

If you can get in ethics, you can get in Scientology technology. If you can get in Scientology technology, you can get in admin. If you can get all three in, you have an org and have expansion.

If you can’t get in tech, ethics is out. If you can’t get in admin, both tech and ethics are out.

The sequence of things that have to be “gotten in” to make an org is first ethics, second tech, third admin.

Where one of these goes out, the org contracts.

We have these three sciences. To really handle things, one has to be a master of all three, even to live a good personal life.

By “get in” we mean get it applied and effective.

We live in a very woggy world at this time. The wog is so out-ethics he is living in what amounts to a criminal society.

When we try to get tech in on the planet we run into the  out-ethics areas and this is the real source of our troubles where we have any. We are getting in tech before we get in ethics. It can be done (obviously, since we are doing it). But it is a heavy strain at best.

Just because we do not at once get ethics in on the planet does not mean we can’t get any tech in.

By handling small sectors, beginning with self and Scientology groups and orgs, we can continue to repeat the cycles of three—ethics, tech, admin. Gradually we enlarge the numbers we have and gradually our sphere of ethics-tech-admin expands. And we one day have ethics in on the planet, tech in on the planet, admin in on the planet.

The only stumbling block is the SP. This person (about 10 percent of the population) is unable to change. We can process them if we can get them to sit still.

But these are the hidden booby traps which make one’s life, one’s family, one’s org, one’s nation, one’s planet a rough-rough proposition.

Ninety percent of the people say, “Ethics great, tech great, admin great.” And away we go.

Ten percent say, “Horrible, horrible, horrible.” And cannot either see or change. They are the true psychotics no matter how “sane” they sound. The people in institutions are generally only their victims.

This 10 percent, one must be able to detect and weed out so they don’t contaminate areas we are bringing up in ethics, tech and admin.

Our policy is we don’t waste time on them. To cater to them is to betray 90 percent of the population. So we set them aside for another day.

We get them off lines, out of orgs and to one side.

The true character of these people is usually masked in many ways. They are expert only in deception and can take on any guise.

To listen to them one would suppose he was talking to his best friend sometimes.

Except the knife in one’s back is also driven in by them.

We have much tech to describe them.

But one does not have to be an auditor with a meter to find these people.

An administrator only needs to know the three things about them:

1. No change in ethics,

2. No change in case,

3. No change in admin.

These people have:

1. Thick ethics files,

2. Thick (or no) case files,

3. Thick, full (or no) comm baskets.

If you just dismissed anyone who had all three, you would have gotten rid of an SP.

It works this way. When you start to get in ethics, most people “learn the ropes” fast. They may have a few down conditions and chits or even Courts or Comm Evs but you see the frequency dwindles and eventually vanishes or nearly so.

When you start to get in tech on a person, it may be a hard haul for a while and then it begins to level out and get easier.

When you start to get in admin, the confusion around some person may be great but after a while the lines and policies straighten out.

None are good little angels. But 90 percent make progress in these three fields of ethics, tech and admin.

The SP does NOT make any consistent progress at all and lapses every time.

As only 10 percent of the people then are making nearly all the tough work in ethics, tech and admin, the thing to do then is to get them off the lines rather than betray 90 percent.

And the SP is detectable in ALL THREE AREAS. It needs no microscope to find out who on a staff has the seniors working so hard for so little gain.

Their ethics file is huge, their case file either doesn’t exist at all or is very fat, their comm lines are jammed, their policy is out and their stats are on the bottom eternally.

So as an administrator you can detect SPs. You better had. YOUR OWN STATS WILL BE DOWN TO THE DEGREE YOU FAIL TO DETECT THEM.

Just go to your files and look at the desks and sack whoever satisfies all three conditions above and you can’t miss and WILL be able to breathe.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

Notes