HANDLING WITH AUDITING - HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JANUARY 1970

[auditor]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Remimeo
Registrar’s Hat
Ltr Reg Hat
OES Hat
Tech Sec Hat
Qual Sec Hat
Dir Success Hat
Dn C/S Checksheet HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JANUARY 1970
Issue II

HANDLING WITH AUDITING

There is no reason or excuse not to actually HANDLE a pc’s desire or complaint with auditing.
By handle is meant finish off, complete, end cycle on.
To give you an idea of the reverse – in admin we sometimes find terminals that refer despatches to others, let them drift, give excuses why not. This all adds up to NOT HANDLING. This is the basic reason for DEV T (Developed, meaning excessive, traffic). Like the stationery company writes somebody in the org to please specify the number of sheets wanted. So whoever’s hat it is refers it to somebody else who refers it to another who fails to answer. In this way, the org can look industrious while accomplishing nothing. Nobody HANDLES it.
You can get a similar situation going with pcs. Nobody HANDLES the pc. And if you keep this up, your whole area fills up with unhandled pcs, the org’s repute goes down and stats eventually crash.
The org is being paid to HANDLE pcs. It is not being paid to put them off or explain or let them drift away.
Here is an example from the early 1960s. An org had it going that anybody who was feeling bad and demanding help got a review. The review consisted of a Green Form to F/N. While this would clean up an ARC Brk or PTP or a poor prior session, it sure wasn’t about to remedy a feeling of nausea. So a pc would come in with a feeling of nausea. He would be sent to Review, get a Green Form and F/N on an ARC Break. Then Review would shrug off the fact that the pc was still nauseated by saying all it could do was a GF! In short, it wouldn’t handle the pc.
Another recent case – pc with migraine headaches. Got some (evidently poor) Dianetic Auditing. No change. When the pc’s friend complained, he was told it was ”the illegal life she was living” and no action was taken. So the pc went to another org and there they refused au-diting due to painkillers (instead of waiting 2 or 3 days until it wore off).
These are cases of NOT HANDLING.
The idea of non-handling can also go into fees. A pc once paid a Franchise for auditing to be done in an org. The Franchise did not forward the fee so the org sent the pc back home.
Service and HANDLING are the same thing. When you give service you handle.
There are thousands of ways of not handling. Letting backlogs occur in Tech and Qual is probably the most serious to org income and to field repute. Also if a person is goofed up in Tech he probably is suffering and to be put off in Qual for any reason at all is a severe blow to the org. A 3 hour Qual backlog is too long.
So, part of HANDLING cases is HANDLE N–O–W!
I recall a Qual backlog I once found of 10 pcs. They were of all varieties – but the main fault was just nobody had the idea except the pcs that they should be handled NOW. And HANDLED. I sat down and did four of them in the next four hours and grabbed off auditors from Admin and Exec areas and handled the rest. Within 6 hours of finding this backlog, they were all HANDLED, happily, finally and wholly satisfied.
What was required was (a) a determination to handle cases, (b) a surety they could be handled and (c) the actual handling. All three points are needful.
Only two things prevent the above. When the help factor is low in the org or its audi-tors, there is no real determination to handle cases. A commercialism enters where the payment of the money is more interesting than the delivery of the service. This is self-defeative. One has to have the money but one won’t continue to get money unless one is vitally interested in actu-ally delivering service – which means actually handling the cases.
The certainty that one can handle cases depends in the main upon good training and ex-act application of the technology. There can be an awful lot of tech to apply but the point is to apply the tech that is applied with exactness. ”Squirreling” is not really different processes – it is careless, incomplete, messed up auditing procedure. An auditor auditing a process that reads with excellent TRs to an F/N with good indicators seldom has any loses. But even given good procedure, one occasionally gets a lose. This tends to reduce one’s certainty that he can get a result on a pc. Usually it isn’t one’s own pcs that cause this – it’s hearing about some pc who didn’t get a result, but not hearing the whole story.
If one’s command of the subject of auditing is poor he doesn’t recognize why there was a lose. A pc lies about having eaten or slept or is being audited on someone else’s determination or some such thing and because of these, the pc gets a lose. This causes the auditor to have a lose.
Some auditors can get 20 wins and 1 lose and then mourn only about the 1 lose.
What is missed here – with pc loses – is that it is almost always a short-term lose. They lost in this one but nobody thinks to KEEP AT IT WITH DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY UNTIL IT’S A WIN.
I’ve seen somebody audited for years before he finally and forever lost his chronic trouble. He would get better and then relapse, never quite so bad. And finally he recovered totally.
So there must be some idea extant amongst auditors that all ”wins” in auditing must be fast, total and appreciated volubly. This isn’t always the case. In fact, it is in the minority.
So an auditor’s and an org’s certainty should depend only on being certain of eventual permanent result and to be very extra happy when it is fast, total and appreciated.
To handle a case one keeps at it. So the pc got an intensive. So the pc wasn’t handled in that intensive. Well, one doesn’t just dust it off and say that’s it forever. The Case Supervisor looks harder and gets the Registrar to get more auditing bought.
If Dianetics didn’t handle, Scientology will. If this process didn’t handle completely, that process may.
This is the winning attitude. I know one case that’s still goofed up after a decade. The medics put a steel pipe in his leg bone. He won’t get it taken out and insists on auditing only. So every few months somebody tries again. Sooner or later this case will be handled. The point is to keep trying to handle, not dream up reasons it can’t be.
Auditors brought up with the idea that 5 hours of auditing should always resurrect a decayed corpse haven’t been brought up right. Some SP around them has been making de-mands of the subject and auditing that BUILD IN LOSES.
Girl with migraine, 15 hours of Dianetics, still has migraine. Okay. So we don’t brush her off. We get her to buy a good long Scientology intensive and do a full ”GF 40”. Still has migraine. So we now do another Dianetic Intensive.
We don’t mislead her. We say, ”Okay, you want to get rid of your migraine. So we’ll stay with you if you’ll work along with us as long as it takes. It might happen fast, it might happen slow. You might have to go all the way to OT Grades. But we’ll try all the way.”
A Registrar that promises instant miracles is cutting the Tech Sec’s throat and the GI as well!
The condition can be handled. The whole point is, for the good of the pc and the org it eventually must be handled.
There are literally thousands of processes and approaches available for use.
The pc expects the condition to be handled. So one way or another one gets the pc han-dled. To do otherwise is to court disaster for the org.
Now and then a pc gets away, nearly always because of errors that get the pc upset with the subject of auditing, never when the org wasn’t still trying to handle. A session was goofed and not repaired, somebody in the org inferred the condition couldn’t be handled, that’s the sort of thing that loses pcs.
Keep on trying to handle and you will succeed.
Auditing is remarkable enough already not to cripple it by leading pcs to expect instant results every time.
But the main point is, you audit a pc with Dianetics and Scientology until the pc’s case is handled.
And sooner or later, it will be.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH:jz.rd