P_242.doc

Like high enrollment-low income, high  letters  out,  low  enrollment  weeks
later.

    It is  safe  enough  at  first  to  simply  assign  moderate  conditions
(Emergency, Normal, Affluence) by the current ups and downs of  the  graphs.
This should result in expansion.

    EXPANSION (product increase) is  THE  WHOLE  REASON  you  are  assigning
conditions in the first place, so you expect reasonably that if  you  assign
conditions by graph .you will get expansion.

    Now, after a while (weeks or months) you see you are  getting  expansion
so you go on assigning conditions by graph. An Exec Sec would  also  inspect
the physical areas of Dangers and Affluences as a matter of course.

    BUT let us take the reverse case. You assign conditions  by  graph  (and
inspections of Danger and Affluence) and what you are  assigning  conditions
to DOESN'T expand!

    Well, now we get to work. There is something wrong.

    The first thing that can  be  wrong  is  that  what  you  are  assigning
conditions to really doesn't exist. The Director of Comm  does  not  have  a
Department of Comm. He has  only  a  messenger-telex  operator,  no  way  to
handle his other departmental functions and answers the phone himself.

    So, finding no Department REGARDLESS OF OTHER REASONS ("can't get staff"
"income too low" "no quarters") you  bang  him  with  a  Condition  of  Non-
Existence. Because he obviously doesn't exist as a Dir Comm, having no  Comm
Dept. (Non-Existence is also assigned for NO USE and NO FUNCTION.)

    Now, if this assignment to the Dir Comm of Non-Existence-with no further
help from you, mind-does not result in a Comm Dept in a reasonable time  you
assume he doesn't want one to  be  there  and  you  assign  a  Condition  of
Liability.

    You don't explain it all away. That's what he's  doing  so  why  imitate
him?

    You don't say, "He's just overwhelmed-new-needs a  review-natter  natter
figure figure." You simply ASSIGN!

    He STILL doesn't get a Comm Dept there.

    You inspect. You find the Ethics Officer isn't enforcing  the  Liability
penalty ("Pete is my pal and I . . ."). So you assign the Ethics  Officer  a
Condition of Liability as he gets, naturally, what he failed to enforce.

    Now they mutiny and you assign a Condition of  Treason,  shoot  both  of
them from guns and fill the posts.

    The new incumbents you tell, "The boys before you aren't  here  now  and
aren't likely to be trained or processed until we get  around  to  the  last
dregs so we hope you do better. You begin  in  Non-Existence.  I  trust  you
will work your way out of it at least into Danger before the  week  is  out.
As you are just on post, the penalties do not apply for  Non-Existence.  But
they will after 30 days.  So  let's  get  a  Dept  of  Comm  and  an  Ethics
Section."

    Now of course, if the E/O had to be shot from guns, Dir I & R is at once
assigned a DANGER CONDITION complete with penalties as that section  was  in
his/her Dept.

    If there's no HCO (Div 7, 1, 2) part of the Org the LRH Comm of that org
yells for the next senior org to act. And if there's no LRH  Comm  the  next
senior org should see that  it's  gone  by  lack  of  stats  or  reports  or
expansion and act anyway.

    Now you say, "But that's ruthless! No staff would . . . . . ."

    Well, such a statement reasoning is contrary to the facts.

    The only time (by actual experience and data) you lose staff and have an
unstaffed org is when you let low stat people in. Low  stat  personnel  gets
rid of good staff members. An org that can't be staffed has an SP in it!

    Orgs where Ethics is tight and savage grow in numbers!