HCOPL: Knowledge Reports (1982)

 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 JULY 1982

LRH Comms
Ethics Officer Hat
All Staff
Boards of Review
Hats

-IMPORTANT-
KNOWLEDGE REPORTS¹; ²

Refs:
HCO PL 1 May 65 STAFF MEMBER REPORTS
HCO PL 15 Aug. 65 THINGS THAT SHOULDN’T BE
HCO PL 1 July 65 ETHICS CHITS
HCO PL 31 Oct. 66R II Rev. 5 Mar. 68 AKH Series 3R JOB ENDANGERMENT CHITS
BTB 7 Nov. 72R V Auditor Admin Series 20R MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS
HCO PL 7 Apr. 82 OUT-ETHICS INDICATORS
HCO PL 10 Mar. 82 CONFESSIONALS – ETHICS REPORTS REQUIRED
HCO PL 24 Feb. 69 JUSTICE
HCO PL 23 Feb. 78 BOARD OF REVIEW
HCO PL 5 Aug. 66R II Rev. 1.10.81 CHAPLAIN’S COURT CIVIL HEARINGS

We live in an era of “civilization” where it has become general not to care what is going on.

The first dynamic “nothing to do with me” attitude is the product of drugs, TV and the psychiatrists and psychologists who have perverted education and produced a criminal society wherein the individual is supposed to be the effect of everything, incapable of handling his environment.

Although we are changing this society, it is, nevertheless, a constant challenge to one’s own ability to keep things going right.

Factually, to succeed in this “civilization” or any society, crude or sophisticated, one has to act continually to keep one’s own environment under some control. To do otherwise results in a lingering or sudden and always painful death. It does matter what goes on around one. The only thing which does not care is a corpse.

It is a rather simple thing-not heroic. If one can’t control a coffee cup, he is likely to get scalded! If one can’t control a car, he is a statistic.

Extend this to one’s fellows slightly and it is plain to see that total permissiveness  (as loudly advocated by the psychs) is suicide. Standing with a bland look while Joe sticks pins in someone or something is not good manners, it’s idiocy!

To live at all, one has to exert some control over his equals as well as his juniors and (believe it or not) his superiors.

When misconduct and out-ethics is occurring in a group, it is almost impossible for other members of the group not to know of it. At least some of them are aware of the outness.

When a group has down stats, it is not true that all of them are trying to fail. Only a few are dedicated to not doing their jobs.

The question one can ask of any group that is not doing well is this: Why did the other group members tolerate and ignore the loafers or out-ethics cats in it?

In analyzing countless numbers of groups with whom it has been my good fortune-or misfortune-to be associated, I finally isolated ONE factor which made an upstat group upstat and a downstat group downstat and a horror to be around.

The single most notable difference between an upstat, easy-to-live-and-work with group and a downstat, hard-to-live-and-work-with group is that the individual group members themselves enforce the action and mores of the group.

That is the difference-no other.

In an upstat group, at the first pinprick Joe would probably have a black eye!

In a downstat group Joe could go on and on with his pins, each group member watching and shrugging.

In a group where members have some concept of controlling their environment and their fellows, you don’t have loafers or out-ethics cats. Because the rest of the group, on an individual basis, just won’t tolerate it.

Those who would have a tendency to wreak havoc or loaf don’t dare. And the group becomes easy to live with and work with.

It is not whether the group individuals should be preselected or carefully made ethical by some process or inspired leadership or a separate police force. It is whether the group members themselves exert any control on each other.

One can say, “Oh well! If I reported the Reg violating policy, the ED would fire me-she is his wife!” One can say, “If I complain they won’t let me wear my hat, they’ll comm ev me for third party actions.” If such conditions prevail, the group has already lost the group ability to control the environment-and they will be downstate Their pay will be low-their working conditions rotten.

Do we have a mechanism to prevent this?

Yes, we do.

It is called Knowledge Reports. (See HCO PL 1 May 65, STAFF MEMBER REPORTS, and the additional issues referenced at the beginning of this policy letter.)

And with this PL, Knowledge Reports are enforced as follows:

1. Anyone who knew of a loafing or destructive or off-policy or out-ethics action and WHO DID NOT FILE A KNOWLEDGE REPORT becomes an ACCESSORY in any justice action taken thereafter.

2. Forbidding anyone to write a Knowledge Report makes the person forbidding it and the person accepting this illegal order both accessories to any later action taken.

3. Failing to write down a disclosed crime in a worksheet or a report makes the person failing to do so an ACCESSORY to the crime.

4. Failing to file a Knowledge Report written by another makes one an accessory to the contents.

5. Removing Knowledge Reports from files makes one an accessory to the contents.

6. Failing to advise the International Justice Chief of serious charges in Knowledge Reports makes one an accessory to the reported outness.

7. Knowingly false statements made in Knowledge Reports, when proven false beyond any reasonable doubt with intent to cause trouble, may become the subject of a Chaplain’s Court with damages awarded. (Ref: HCO PL 5 Aug. 66R II, CHAPLAIN’S COURT, CIVIL HEARINGS)

8. Any person who knew of an outness or crime and failed to report it and thus became an accessory receives the same penalty as the person disciplined as the actual offender.
With these policies, a person with knowledge of nonoptimum conduct by other group members cannot be stopped from writing and filing the report in the person’s ethics file and cannot even be stopped from going outside the org and informing, by whatever comm line, the International Justice Chief. And that does not mean this policy letter is to be used to withhold from anyone that he is writing a report.

BOARDS OF REVIEW
(Ref: HCO PL 23 Feb. 78, BOARD OF REVIEW)

It shall be part of every Board of Review action at any level to examine the status of Knowledge Reports as they relate to any case reviewed and to take any action indicated by these policies.

SUMMARY

This makes it a pretty rough group for a loafer or criminal to be around. UNLESS he or she decides to rise above the aberrations and get busy and go straight.

IT IS A FAILURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL GROUP MEMBERS TO CONTROL THEIR FELLOWS THAT MAKES A GROUP HARD FOR ALL TO LIVE AND WORK WITH.

If it is present, when that is cured, the group will become a joy to be with and work will become a breeze.

If the stats of a group, large or small, are down, try it.

And get a REAL group in return that, collectively, can control the environment and prosper because its group members individually help control each other.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Notes