Preisproblematik für Auditing

Die LRH-Referenz bzgl. Preisfindung in Scientology ist im OEC-Volume 2 auf Seite 202 zu finden:

HCO PL 23. Sept. 1964 "Policies: Dissemination and Programs"

Die Auditorenausbildung soll demnach in Kursen von knapp einem Monat Dauer geliefert werden, die ein Durchschnittsgehalt kosten sollen. Stattdessen kosten diese Kurse heute über 6.000 DM !

Früher unter Ron war der normale Weg der, dass sich die Auditorstudenten gegenseitig die Brücke hoch auditierten, so dass außer den Kurskosten keine weiteren Kosten fällig waren.

Es gibt keine andere Referenz, die dem widerspricht.

Ein Div-6-Service darf billig bis gar nichts kosten.

Ein Div-4-Service darf nicht billig, aber muß billiger als vergleichbare Dienste des Fachgebietes (spirituelle oder therapeutische Dienste) sein.

Deutsche Preisentwicklung nach dem stat. Bundesamt in Wiesbaden

Veröffentlicht. Statistische Berichte über Entwicklung der Bruttomonatsverdienste.

Juli 97.

Im Statistischen Landesamt zu finden.

Lebenshaltungskosten-Entwicklung in Bayern von 1948 bis 1992.

1997 fand Felix heraus: Demnach muß der Preis 4.000 DM für ein Intensiv von 25 Std. sein, das entspräche DM 160/Std.

Felix hat es vor 1 1/2 Jahren an RTC Reports Officer reportet und in 9 Monatsabständen genudged: Antwort: "es wird überprüft".

Wir sollen billiger als die Psychs sein:

90-150 DM/h Therapeuten

120-190 DM/h Psychologen & Psychiater

 

Hi Felix,
zum Thema Preise fand ich im Internet ein interessantes Datum, was Dir
vielleicht weiterhelfen kann:

The major point of critique against Scientology throughout the world is
about the exorbitant "donations" for their training and processing
services.

a. How does this correlate with one of the most important Scientology
concepts, A-R-C (Affinity-Reality-Communication)? Is this not a constant
break in "R", the reality of the average church member's daily life?

b. Hubbard has given the calculation of prices into the hands of the local
orgs, per policy "Promotional Actions of an Organization", OEC-Vol.0,
paragraph 165: "As Financial Planning, sees that pricing of everything sold
is not too high to discourage the public and not too low to make the org
insolvent." Which other, newer Hubbard policy makes this into a
responsibility of International Management?

c. If no such policy exists, why is it on-policy for International
Management to prevent the executives of local organizations from applying
this policy? Per Hubbard, it would be a high crime to prevent somebody from
applying valid, not-cancelled policy issued by Hubbard.

d. Was Hubbard in error to make the price calculation a responsibility of
local orgs? If yes, why is the paragraph 165 still in the newest issue of
the OEC, the Organizational Executive Course (remark: the "green volumes"
0-7 plus Management Series 1-3 plus an index volume)?

Vielleicht hilft es Euch?
mfg
Andreas

John Taylor schrieb in COS-Investigations am 6.8.00:
Inflation is a wrong why for the price increases of the late 70s.

The best way to look at CoS prices over the years is to look at the
hourly charge for auditing. Comparing other services gets tricky
because there's no way to compare the contents of a current SHSBC
($28000) to the professional course offered at the Elizabeth HDRF
($500). The earliest data I have on this is in Tech Vol II (old
set), p. 262, which says to charge by the hour at $10.00 per hour.
Publication date is September 1955. By 1965, that had gone up to
$20 an hour, purchased in 25 hour intensives. (HCO PL 22 Mar 65,
Saint Hill Services, Prices, & Discounts). The special auditing
given as part of OT VII is listed in Advance 26 as 5 hours for $150,
$30 per hour. By 1976, I believe the price of an intensive was at
least $40 per hour, but I can't document this.

LRH ED 'Solution to Inflation' started 5% increases on October 31, 1976.
This ED stated that the change was necessary because org prices had been
unchanged for 26 years while the cost of living had gone up 9X. The
first part of this claim, as shown above, is false. Prices tripled
for auditing from 1955 to 1976.The US consumer price index is available at
the web site http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/surveymost.
The actual change shown in the Index from 9/55 to 10/76 is an increase
of about 115%. From May 1950 to 10/76 is about 145%. So prices had
actually kept up with, and actually exceeded, US inflation *prior*
to the institution of 5% a month hikes. From May 1950 to June, 1998,
the last month listed, the increase is 600%, and inflation in the last
two years has been very mild, as we know. The most recent Advance I
have prices NOTS auditing at just over $510 per hour, 25% more without
IAS lifetime membership. So the increase is afout 600% after accounting
for inflation.
________________________________________________________________________
In der neuen MSN-Community zu Scn gibt es die folgende Diskussion:

Church Pricing

Started by: Croesus1234 Sent: 1/24/2000 3:03 PM

16 Replies

The actions of "preventing a withdrawal from something bad" or "preventing a reach to something good" are both suppressive. Many Concentration camp victims were PTS to bard wire fences, which prevented the escape of their tormentors, just as much as the prison walls were to prisoners overlooking the Sultan's harem.

It is a suppressive act to offer the freedom of Scientology and then price it outside the means of the vast majority of people. It is also suppressive to offer it at price that causes a person to financially destroy him or herself trying to reach to it. It is also a violation of the "exchange of the dynamics" as the third dynamic draws down too heavily on the first and second.

To justify high prices by saying Scientology is for the able or that "soon you'll be able to earn top dollars" is a degradation. It equates spiritual freedom and spiritual ability with WOG standards of wealth. It is saying that Michelangelo (he was poor) couldn't and wasn't entitled to freedom while the Mafia chieftain (he is rich) can at least try. Its no different than the medieval catholic church selling indulgences (forgiveness) to the wealthy while the poor presumably had to "do good deeds".

Fair prices should be both high enough to keep the orgs functioning and expanding and low enough for the vast majority of good people out there to receive services without also destroying themselves financially. Too high of prices are suppressive (as noted above). Too low of prices are also suppressive to the ORGS as they would become overwhelmed and wouldn't have the finances to expand.

Here is one way to determine the band for ideal pricing. Take the period of the most rapid growth in Scientology which also didn't overwhelm the ORGS and duplicate those prices (allowing for inflation). The most rapid growth was from1967 to 1975. The cost of auditing in that period was $25 per hour. The inflation adjusted equivalent today would be about $115 today. The inflation adjusted clearing course would be about $3500. When you do this you also find that thes eprices parallell are close to what the 1960 policies were about pricing. Prices today are four to eight times above the ideal price.

I believe that prices set to these levels would be close to the ideal price to cause a new Scientology expansion. If these prices caused a boom or at least didn’t stop one back in the 1970s, why wouldn’t they work now? Its obvious the current price levels aren't doing it.

Of course, it is possible that the expansion of Scientology might not be the current church management's primary goal. They may be trying to prevent growth to solve their personal problems of being overwhelmed trying to run and implement Scientology. Maybe by having to deal with only a few, select, wealthy people, they have fewer lawsuits and fewer moments of "people overwhelm" like occurred in the 1970s.

The church will blame the decline in Scientology to the action of suppressives. They fail to realize that it is their own actions that have also contributed to the problem. Maybe some church officials went PTS and became overwhelmed under the onslaught of suppressives and decided to lighten their load by simplifying – by reducing the number of people in it. Obviously if they can have 500 multi millionaires as clients they will have nice income stats and very few people problems. It makes their life easier.

If this is true they might also hope that fewer and fewer people will be around who remember those boom days. If so, the current members will think the present small number of active Scientologist is not the small number it is but is the norm. Why would they think otherwise? But old timers know the truth. Anyone here remember the days when the Riverside Mission had hundreds of students and PCs? And that was a mission! I remember when Seaton Thomas in 1968 packed the introductory lecture course at the LA Org three times a week with over 75 people a night. What are the numbers today?

Pricing Scientology outside the reach of the vast majority of society and then using copyright law to prevent its instruction and application by people borders on the suppressive.

I believe lowering prices to the levels of the boom years will lower the number of lawsuits, increase church support and get Scientology back on track to the goal of expanding. It might even solve some real personal problems for some management by stopping them from committing the continual overt act of preventing Scientology expansion.

I want to add to the above because certain church officials might come back and say that the most rapid expansion of Scientology was between 1978 to 1982, when financial stats may have been highest. But this is very incorrect.

This was the era of the monthly price rise of 5% per month that took the prices over a four year period from the ideal to their current absurd levels.

There was a period in there when they stopped the 5% increases and income stats collapsed (but students on course didn't). Seeing the collapsing income stat, management paniced and started the price rise again. But only an idiot couldn't understand what was happening and its eventual outcome.

The income stat rose not because of demand for Scientology but because so many students and PCs had been brought in during the boom years and were trying to contribute before prices went out of their reach(shades again of suppressive actions)

The outcome was inevitable. When prices eventually had to stop going up, the number of new people able to afford the bridge would fall away. The high levels of membership at that time would slowly receive their prepaid services and/or simply fall away. Then slowly, over time, both the number of new people and the income stat would have to go into a long slow decline to the levels of today. A very sad fate when it was something that was so predictable.

Now, long forgotten, the cause of the decline of Scientology is again put at the feet of the SPs. It isn't. The decline sits, for the most part, in the facts and concepts I've put into these two posts.

I wrote this for the true Scientologists here and hopefully for the current membership who work hard everyday trying to struggle against declining stats with the best of intentions and maybe not knowing the true reason they are failing. What is most disturbing are the lower conditions they have to endure because of a vital factor far out of their control.

By the way, implementing "an ideal pricing plan" does present some problems:

What do you tell the older members who paid top dollar for their services? Solution - give them a shit load of free services and lifetime exemptions.

How do we get a long on lower income during the period after prices are dropped while you’re waiting for higher prices to bring in new people?

With regard pricing policies the church has a choice of going two ways. This is important because the situation in the church is becoming critical and is ready to get much worse unless something is done.

If it keeps to its current pricing policies it will continue to shrink as normal attrition exceeds the number of new people who can afford the bridge and reach for it. Also, the number of people attacking the church will continue to increase as more and more people drop away convinced they can't finance the bridge at current prices. They will strike back at their tormentors who offer them freedom then, with unreachable prices, effectively say, "you can't have it". With a rising wave of enemies and fewer and fewer people supporting it, the church will defend itself by turning inward. It will, in effect, collapse blaming it all on a wave of out of control SPs. This is already happening and it will continue unless something is done.

If nothing is done sometime soon there is a long-term risk. It is difficult to quantify this risk but it is there. If the church continues to shrink and attacks on it escalate, someone (a real SP) might force the church into receivership and, as payment, buy up the copyrights. With these owned they then make LRH completely unavailable. They will not let anyone use or buy the material. They will say it is the work of the devil or something and best buried. You think not? Believe me I’ve seen a number of people on the Internet who want to do just that.

The other way is for the church to go outward and create a boom now. A mandatory action to achieve this, however, is to lower prices close to the levels of the boom years (1967 to 1975). If this scares people running the church you better inspect you true motives.

It's almost impossible to stop the expansion of Scientology; it tends to go on its own. I remember back in the sixties and seventies where it expanded very easily on its own. A friend took the comm course, did the TRS and told a friend. Membership exploded. The courses were all within financial reach. They were at a price level where you could live and also go up the line. ORGs were making top auditors and happy PCs by the bucket load. Expansion occurred on its own. You hardly had to work at it. To stop something like this you have to really f*** up. Outside suppression won't do it; it has to be internal. It starts with the pricing levels. This is so obvious that it's a wonder nobody focuses on it and really makes a ruckus about it.

Expansion begins with a price reduction to correct boom levels and the eventual start of a new boom.

   

From: Croesus1234 Sent: 1/25/2000 1:20 PM  
Sorry for the omission. I failed to completely copy-block all the text from the word file so the paste was incomplete. Here is what I intended to say.

How does the church get along on lower income during the period after drop prices are dropped while waiting for higher prices to bring in new people?

Remember that if prices are reduced 5x it will take 5x more pcs and 5x more students just to bring income stats back to current levels!! It will take time to get this turnaround to occur. Other things have to occur with it like a complete general anmnesty etc. But let me point out something; won't it be nice to see the 5 times more people filling the course rooms?

To help finance this the curch must live off the one billion dollars of financial reserves and investable assets (I don't know what the number is but from commnets of former "high ups" an amount of this size is not impossible). These financial reserve should produce income of around100 million a year (10%). Much of this is currently being drawn down in legal fees and defense etc. But I think this can be managed.

This is exactly what financial reserves are for and why LRH wanted large reserve numbers. For periods just like this!! Use them in a positive way to get the Church of Scientology back on track.

By the way, I truly beleive the following:

That Ron orchestrated this money squeeze (the 5% monthly rise) and he did it for a specific purpose. Some people might say that he did it for the money but that is silly. If he wanted to live the good life he would have done it at age 50 or 55 not 70 when his life was over. To think he wouldn't know the effect of such an action is also silly since he refers to a price squeeze and what it does in much earlier Policy letters.

The reason has to be found elsewhere.

I beleive he did it for two probable reasons.

One - he wanted to lay down a sizable money stash for himself to help implement his next life mission. This you and I will never know much about. If this is true then we were being squeezed to assist LRH in the next phase of this whole operation. Each person has to decide whether they think this is OK.

Second - he was reorganizing the church and wanted to stock the cash reserves to better handle the future attacks he knew would happen once he was gone. In those days he knew that that day was coming soon.

However, I also believe he intended for these prices to eventually drop back once these two goals were achieved. When they didn't, the long slow decline of Scientology was assured.<!--mini Search Newsgroups box w/ title -->

From: Croesus1234 Sent: 2/14/2000 2:45 PM  
I was a little disappointed that this post got no response except for a clarifying query. I think it is a very important issue in the expansion of Scientology and correcting some of the things that are wrong with the church. Does anyone agree? Disagree?
From: Safe Sent: 2/14/2000 7:58 PM  
The root of the problem, the OUT-POINT is that scientology is enslaved in a MONOPOLY.

If free competition existed in the delivery of scientology, the free market would set the prices fairly. The beautiful part of free enterprise is that the person who delivers the best product and prices usually wins. THAT is how it should be.

Scientology is supposed to set an example of FREEDOM to the world. It being enslaved in a monopoly does give a very good demonstration of the concept of freedom.

Two things need to happen for rapid expansion of scientology;

1) DE-monopolize the subject. (Actually adhere to, without hypocrisy, the "freedom of religion" and the church creed.)

2) Put LRH works in the public domain

Safe

From: Croesus1234 Sent: 2/19/2000 5:26 PM  
I don’t know if that is the right solution. The end product of doing what you say would have to be evaluated against just taking the current organization and modifying it to somewhat achieve the same ends. Let me explain my thinking.

There are benefits to a rigid disciplined method of training. That's true in any subject. Rigid disciplined training is like bad tasting medicine, bad while your going through it but good later on. And there are also certain points in KSW that are very true. One thing I personally know is true; everyone puts his or her own slant or understanding to Scientology. Everyone adds a little bit to it. I don’t know of any independent in the field or off shoot enterprise like AAC, Ralph Hilton, Alan Walter or anyone earlier who didn’t alter or add LRH in some way. Then people trained by them put their slant on things and add to it and away you go. Fifty years latter you have fifty different versions of the subject. That I can guarantee you.

But as far as auditing is concerned I agree 100% with your idea. I think after a person has been trained to nay level they should be allowed to freely apply what they have learned. Period.

But here are certain problems here too. Suppose the person is really way off base on the subject? There are a lot of trained people who really don’t have a clue about it.

So I think that the following is a more practical course. Let the church be the sole instructor of the information. Let them have a monopoly on training. This seems OK to me. I do think that a very rigid disciplined training method is the best. But once training is over and application begins there should be total individual freedom in its application. If the church wants to monitor what the person is doing let them and if it meets their standards let them give an authentication stamp. Others should still be able to freely apply what they know but should not be allowed to call it "authorized" Scientology; it must be called "their opinion of LRH technology" or something. Then we have freedom of practising religeon that also solves some of the pitfalls of being a very exacting discipline. Other religeons don't have this problem to the same degree because they don't do much. They primarilly just worship, hope and believe. And there are thousands of acceptable ways to do that.

By the way this is all so the public can have some judgment of who they are dealing with. I know I would like something like that in place in the freezone. If a person can’t get results let them go back for retraining but let that training be 100% Hubbard, very rigid and tough.

So I think I’m saying "Yes" with the action of letting people apply all the information in Scientology with complete freedom but "No" on the area of training people in the theory and practice of it.

But again I think many of these problems can be resolved if the church simply reduced the price. I think your solution stems a little bit from the burden of too high of price and the extreme restrictions the church imposes on Scientology application. But your solution I think has some negatives too. Maybe just reducing the prices and freeing up the application would be a "better" solution – one with fewer negatives.

From: Croesus1234 Sent: 5/23/2000 2:00 PM  
Since the post on Super power brought up the subject of pricing I thought this earlier post may be of interest. I stated and still think that one of the reasons for the shrinkage of Scientology membership is because the cost of services is too high. I stated the reason in the first post. Any comments?
From: Ginny Sent: 5/23/2000 3:14 PM  
I totally agree that the prices are too high. I am a new member and I have found that there are several courses I can never even consider as they are out of my price range. Furthermore, I was asked to join staff because they thought "I was very bright". Truth was they wanted me to give up my $15 an hour week job (which supports me and my partially disabled husband) in order to work practically for free for the org. If they are pulling in so much dough, why don't they pay their staff a living wage?

Who gets all the money? Why not lower the prices and up the wages and you would see people like me clamouring to be on staff, but I can't work for paper route money at age 43. They said they had a program that will help me with obligations that prevent me from joining staff (like selling your house etc.) I explained that my family is my obligation. Then they asked me to volunteer part time in addition to working full time. I said that is something I could look at down the road, but for now I want to take the classes I can afford (the ones for $200 and lower) and work them as best I can on a part time schedule. Someone had called me and asked me to meet with this Staff leader who seemed disapointed that I could not chuck everything and run.

From: ralph Sent: 5/26/2000 6:38 PM  
Orgs that operate fully on policy have a problem with prices as there are a number of admin posts that have to be filled. Getting good results in a small org or field practice needs a lot of skill. The prices are high for HGC auditing but I think it was LRH's intention that people could train and co-audit. Training offers a much less expensive route and, in my opinion, a far more rewarding one.
From: Grailer Sent: 6/6/2000 4:20 AM  
Hi,

I greatly enjoyed reading the thread that starts off this discussion. Extremely well reasoned and also contains a great deal of History that is valuable to in reguard to price structure. On the whole I agree with it completely.

There is nothing like belonging to a world wide community that mutually supports it's members and furthers their interest. It would seem that when this was happening the church was booming. It has allways been a pleasure to read about those times via Pilot and others and who among us would not like to see there return. Is this a cry to bring back the good old days? You bet it is.

I would also like to observe that with the dawn of the internet how far one can up the bridge is actually back in the hands of the individual and cannot easily be controled by anyone. I never really did care who was selling indulgences, I am not buying, you see. I'm not driven, though I like driving.

From: jim Sent: 8/17/2000 8:05 PM  
I read through these messages briefly, and man you guys are a bunch of nattery people regarding church pricing.

It is possible you don't know that you can get auditing and training for free as a staff member, or that you know nothing of the field staff member program, where you can get cut rate on any service depending on who you bring back or introduce to the subject.

Compared to other pricing of other "betterment" groups, you're getting a deal. Have you actually compared pricing, or are you just motivating from a bad registration cycle? I suspect the latter.

As for field auditing, you should be charging at the church rate, not below it because it's "out reality". Give me a break. = jjm

From: jim Sent: 8/19/2000 8:11 AM  
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Apparently you're sticking with yours, too.

Later, jjm

From: Squirrel Sent: 8/27/2000 11:11 PM  
The Church is in the business of making the affluent more able.

Perhaps one day in the future a financial equation can be worked out that will permit starting to clear the Planet.

Squirrel

From: po. Sent: 8/28/2000 2:27 AM  
That is an interesting point, and one I hear quite often. Scientology is for the able.

That might be acceptable if Scientology stuck to what it did well and just provided services to the able. But it also seems to place so much effort on broadcasting larger goals that relate to us all as well as working very hard to keep anyone else from delivering a similer service.

From: Dann Sent: 10/23/2000 11:34 PM  
Something interesting to add to all this...

The original piece on the price of auditing should probably be clarified. Depending on the type of auditing a person wishes to recieve, then the price falls FAR below the 3500 dollar adjusted 1960 price. An example: Dianetics auditing: 200 per intensive. Introductory Scientology auditing: 250 per intensive. Each intensive being 12.5 hours.

As far as I know, the price for Class V auditing (without having a price guide in front of me) is approximately 4000 per intensive, which is about one-third more than the adjusted 1960s price, not the "four to eight times" higher as previously stated.

It does get a little better. With two people training, then all the auditing up to the level being trained is free to the co-auditing team.

In addition, prices decrease dramatically as a person shows a true willingness to better him/herself.

Example: I have seen several situations where the price of the Student Hat course is free if enrolling on an Academy course.

Sometimes, by enrolling on course full-time, a person can get a substantial reduction in price (up to half-off), just by training full-time.

Those who join staff, of course, get training and processing free.

Many orgs run specials where purchasing more than one service gets you a substantial price reduction on the package.

There are also in some orgs, free student auditing available for those who may not be able to afford auditing. Depends on the org, area, etc.

All this basically means that if there is a true desire for the tech, there will be some affordable way of making it happen.

The easiest way to find out is just to call the local org and talk to a reg. They should be able to help you work something out.

From: SyberChick Sent: 10/24/2000 8:57 PM  
Yes, I've recently found out that quite a few of the auditing services at the orgs are reasonably priced. Some of them fall under the category of 'free services'. I inquired into Assist auditing and found out that a person can buy an package for something like $12/hr. However there is still far too much evidence of people ruining their lives financially over getting up the bridge. That is NOT a good thing.

Do any of you know the details of the 'training route'? For example, how many work hours must a person put in / week to get auditing. How does it work?

From: Dann Sent: 10/25/2000 4:57 AM  
The training route works kind of like this:

It isn't set by the number of hours put in. The thing that makes it work is that two people do it. As they train for each one of their Academy Levels, then they can audit each other for free as much as they want.

For example, you and a friend do Academy Level 0 together. When you have completed the level, you can audit each other as much as you want on the materials of that level. When you have done that, then you will each be Class 0 (training) AND Grade 0 (processing).

The beautiful thing about this is that ALL your basic auditing is free. Totally.

You have to pay only for the training. All your auditing is free. As a side benefit, you could also be a field auditor and audit people for pay. not a bad profession.

The other side of teh coin is that all the highest level in Scientology are Solo-Audited. This means that you must get trained anyway, so the least expensive way is to get trained now, co-audit all your Grades, NED, through Clear.

Doing it this way instead of paying for auditing and THEN getting trained can save an ENORMOUS amount of money.

 

Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote on 11. Mrz 2001 13:50

[COSinvestigations] Short Solution to Pricing:

There is a very short [ = BASIC BASIC] solution to pricing
in the CoS (and everywhere else).

It is contained in the LRH-policy "Promotional Actions of an
Organization", which should have been STARRATED by everybody
who has a staff status II (it is in the SS II pack).

It says (nearly verbatim): "Pricing of everything sold is not
too low to render the org insolvent and not too high to discourage
the public."

PERIOD. This paragraph wordcleared word by word and then applied
word by word, and you have removed the whole immense and incredible
mess with ARC-breaks in the press and people who can't continue
their bridge, with all the endless secondary problems.

You probably also have removed the whole current church management,
as they will not (I repeat: THEY WILL NOT) allow an org to apply
this policy. Which is a suppressive act (to keep an org or staff
from applying policy) and therefore throwing them out of SCN would
be the on policy solution.

Not too high to discourage the public. Hah!!!

Claudia Kasch <ClaudiaKasch@nikocity.de> answered on 11. Mrz 2001 16:19

Re: [COSinvestigations] Short Solution to Pricing

Hi Heidrun,

you are right! A very important referenz to this.

And I can give another one. In one of the financial planning HCO PLs it is written, what the tasks of the FP-meeting of every org is:

One of the points is as decision about the prices of the services of the org.

This has been misapplicated by Int-management in bypassing the orgs and running them on the orders, that THEY (the int management) are deciding which prices. I am sure, the local orgs would decide for more pro survival prices.

Claudia

 

17. Mrz 2001 07:52

lrngr2447@netzero.net wrote under

[COSinvestigations] Re: Pricing - was: What is wrong with the CoS

Claudia wrote:
> you will find it in new Vol. 2, pg 202: HCO PL 23 Sept 1964 This is
>the reference about how to decide the prices for auditing, training
>and Div 6. There is no other reference in contradiction to this.

There is mention in the XDN issues that it should be charged for at
twice the regular price of auditing. An eval on this stuff in the
early 80's (in the "field") which included this data. The average
income (per a call to the Labor Board) used in the formula in the PL
found that auditing should have been $60 an hour - and since XDN was
dropped when NOTs came out (and originally was done after Cl4 or OT3,
like NED and NED for OTs) that would make NOTs $120 hour. But CoX
at the same time was charging over $300/hr as I recall. One of the
outpoints in the pricing was that somehow an intensive was 25 hours in
64, and 12.5 hrs when the prices started going up, so "per intensive"
had a double meaning. (The then ED Int answered a letter about this
during the research on the eval in which he stated that an intensive
was 12.5 hours.)

Little aside about that ED - Kerry Gleason. After he finished OT3 in
69, a friend took him to the movies. He fell asleep during the
Daffy/Porky cartoon and didn't wake up til after the movie, mumbling
something about how restimulative cartoons were. LOL

I kinda liked that $60/hr price. $1 a minute is real easy math (or
$2/min for OT auditing) for those pore lil badly edumacated American
auditors. lol