ParkMan

56 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

We don't get in to such details.  A Scout may work on the requirements for things at any time.

Again, I am only pointing out the policy, as written, is ridiculously worded.

I've never heard of anyone suggesting that you cannot work on advancements outside of a Scouting activity.  This is a very conservative reading of the text in the G2SS.  Yes, the G2SS could be clearer, but it is not as stringent as is being suggested.

If two Scouts who are friends get together and work on a requirement together, no-one is going to tell them to stop or that the activity doesn't count.  The problem is that if two scouts who are friends get together and something happens, a lawyer is going to try to pull the BSA into the lawsuit.

Feels to me that we need some sort of better tort guidelines on what constitutes negligence in volunteer youth activities.  Perhaps something that says that the BSA has some responsibility for safety, but so too do the parents.  A parent who blindly trusts the BSA and it's volunteers without doing parental oversight is themselves negligent.   

1 hour ago, David CO said:

It's still that way.  The cool kids don't join scouting.  They have better things to do.  Out of 170 students, I may have one or two scouts.  Not very many.  

We're conflating different issues here.

- Scouting is a good program that many kids benefit from - regardless of "cool" status

- Scouting can certainly do a better job of marketing to youth.  That doesn't make Scouting bad - it's just the reality.

Executive salary doesn't define the BSA.  It's simply a measure of what the national committee feels is needed to retain the senior national employees.  In my decade in Scouting, I've now see several CSE.  I do appreciate that there is always frustration with executive compensation - be it companies or non-profits.  In my time with the BSA the compensation of the national leaders has had just about zero impact on what I see happen day in and day out.  Scouting is defined day in and day out by the thousands of volunteers and professionals who are working to put on strong programs.

The BSA isn't a perfect organization, but it is far from being a bad organization.  Day in and day out, the professionals I know are trying to do the right things for the kids in the program.  They are all trying to help our packs and troops grow.  They are trying to start new units.  They are trying to encourage more and stronger programming.  They are trying to raise money to keep costs as low as possible.  The volunteers are spending countless hours of volunteer time to build strong local units and deliver programming. 

So while I think it's conceivable for Scouting to exist without the council structure or national BSA, I still don't think it's best for Scouting.  Could council and national function better?  Sure.  But they far from being fundamentally broken or corrupt.  

If our council, our camps, and our support staff go away - I'll mourn that.  I'll pick up the pieces and keep it going, but will be sad if it happens.

12 minutes ago, David CO said:

I disagree.  Local scouting can continue on its own without all of that national and council infrastructure.  We don't need them.  17 council employees is 17 too many.

That's certainly one approach - sure.  Get rid of councils as we know it, big summer camps, and paid professionals.  Districts & OA already are 95% volunteer - so there would be enough infrastructure to make things work.  I'm not going to advocate it, but it it happens I'm not opposed to rolling the dice on that one.  

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about what we're talking about here.

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

I have been following this discussion and the news coverage very closely on this issue. I feel that the victims should be compensated fairly.  $50-60,000 should be a minimum. If it takes total liquidation of the BSA so be it.

The BSA has become more about high priced execs sitting behind a desk and less about kids doing scouting activities over the past few decades. 

It has been next to impossible to get camp maintenance done when the first priority is staff salaries. There are so many camps out there falling into disrepair when councils spend millions on staff salaries. 

Why does a medium sized local council need 40 full time employees? I do not see the value here.

For what it's worth.  Our larger than medium sized council has 17 employees:

• 1 Scout Executive
• 3 people who do administrative support
• 2 people who raise the bulk of the council's funding
• 3 people who work on programming, summer camp, and other events
• 1 council registrar
• 1 camp ranger
• 6 district executives who support our units

Could you cut a few - sure.  But I don't think this is terribly out of whack.

If national liquidates, it just about pays for the pension obligations that they have.  You have to liquidate councils too to get to more money.  No more packs or troops, no more summer camp, no more local Scouting.  That's what we're all talking about when we say liquidation. 

58 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

No, because it is a giant difference. The Catholic Church is NOT identical or parallel to BSA for a host of reasons.

1) First Amendment protections

2) Churches as corporations sole

3) The physical churches as being held in trust

4) CLEAR lines that parishes and churches are under the direct command and control of the diocese/bishop (vs. BSA where National is/is not controlling Councils)

5) Churches (the physical things) are an essential element of religious activities and therefore more protected

6) Religious Freedom Restoration Act grants additional protections to the Catholic Church that BSA does not have

Etc.

Thus, while diocese had to sell OTHER properties, the actual churches themselves to my knowledge were NOT sold/liquidated to appease creditors.

Thanks!

I was thinking of an analogy between churches and scout camps - and whether there is any sort of parallel.  Having a place to camp seems a part of the Scouting experience.  I wasn't sure if perhaps dioceses had to reduce a certain number of churches or go through some mergers.  I wouldn't be surprised for example to see a third of camps sold based on utilization or some such thing.  I didn't know if perhaps there was some precedent that might already be in the minds of the judge here.

I'm going to gather these three are the most likely:

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Scenario 1 - Liquidate National: claimants get $0 since the pension programs would, by law, have to be secured/paid out first to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and they already put in a $1.1 BILLION dollar claim. Total to each claimant: $0

Scenario 3 - $1 Billion in Settlement from BSA + LCs, ALL Abuse Claimants:  Same as scenario 2, but BSA and the LCs pay out to all 87,000 claimants. Total to each claimant: $11,494

Scenario 4 - $525 Million in Settlement from BSA + LCs, ALL Abuse Claimants: Pretty much the current plan: BSA National puts in $225 million, LCs $300 million. 87,000 claimants. Total to each claimant: $6,034

Scenarios two and five seem like variations base on whomever is in the pool.

So at this point it's all a question of how much the court can force the BSA to cut before it really is no longer viable as an entity.

How much did the court force the catholic dioceses to liquidate during their bankruptcies?  Did they have to sell many churches?  It strikes me that this is the parallel to look at.

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

That's interesting. To me though this means the BSA structure is organized around the wrong customer, because of course it has to be the scout. For example, Little League isn't structured around meeting the needs of local ball clubs, it's structured around meeting the needs of the players. It's rules are the rules, and the local clubs follow them. If a ball club has a hard time finding umpires or doesn't like using them, it doesn't get to still run accredited games just because they want to run their own program. Little League enforces its rules in order to provide a comparable experience for all players in the League no matter where they are. 

 

I want to be careful not to generalize the concept too much be expanding to other organizations.  This is part of the history of Scouting - the whole CO concept.  If you look through some of the materials around Scouting, you'll see the concept of the inverted pyramid too - that the council is here to support the units.

However - in the case of little league...  When you agree to use their product (baseball in the little league system) you agree to the terms of the agreement such as using their umps and following their rules.

Similarly - to your point of following rules.  By the Scouting units adopting the program, they agree to follow the rules.  When a unit breaks a rule, the council can let them know.  But, the council needs to be very deliberate in how it works with units.  Less boss and more consultant.

2 hours ago, MattR said:

I agree completely. This idea would require a big change in culture that would only happen if it was driven from the very top. The volunteers can not patch up the existing culture. I don't think there needs to be much change in the rules, but the mindset of councils and units needs to fundamentally change. The main goal of councils and districts  has to be developing stronger units.  The mindset of units has to be subordinate and trusting of council.

I've seen companies turn themselves around and it always starts with someone at the top seeing how it should be and pushing hard for it. The only way I see this happening is if national becomes weak enough that some councils figure this out on their own. Unfortunately, most councils are broke and all they see is money. That seems to be the root of all the problems.

I think we have to start by recognizing a basic truth that few in councils want to recognize.  The councils work for the units - not the other way around.

The BSA is a company that provides a product (Scouting) that units can utilize to run their own Scouting program.  CORs and their units are effectively little companies that buy the Scouting program from the BSA (through a local council) and then go off run their own program.  Youth are not the customers of the BSA - the CORs and their units are.  

These little companies (aka Scouting units) agree to certain rules when they operate the program.  These rules include things like YPT.  The BSA has two "hammers".  The first hammer is pulling the ability for a unit to use the program.  The second hammer is the ability for a person to be involved with any unit utilizing the program.

Councils get into trouble because they forget this.  Councils make the mistake of assuming that because they are the only supplier they can force units to do things.  But they forget who the supplier is and who the customer is.

• BSA & local councils - supplier
• local units - customers

When  you have a supplier (the BSA) with a complex product (Scouting), you deploy a team of field consultants who work hand in hand with the customers (the units).  

When you have a business model like this, you teach your field consultants how to partner with customers to make them more effective.  Few field consultants would ever show up at a customer and start making demands.  Field consultants build relationships with their customers, help them to solve problems, and demonstrate the potential in the product.  In short good field consultants build trust with their customers.  Yep, sometimes a customer so abuses the product that you have to tell them to stop using it - but it's rare.

The way you fix this really isn't that hard.  I'd start by simply having our field consultants (DEs & Commissioners) focus on maximizing the benefit the units get from Scouting.  It's not the job of units to trust the council.  It's the job of the council to build trust in the units - their customer base.

I think if the BSA simply started by orienting itself correctly, this would all work a lot better.

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here's the problem: I WISH it were heads on pikes. We don't even have THAT. Instead, YPT is thrown out there and (fingers crossed) adhered to. There's no effort whatsoever at followup, follow-through, or anything.

Heads on pikes at least has the benefit of being a clear public message: we are NOT going to tolerate non-compliance and units deciding to interpret YPT into nothingness.

Some constructive ideas:

1. Have a DE do a drop in visit on every unit once a year.  A DE has something like 50 units they are responsible for.  That would mean that they could visit each unit once a year and get a sense of what is going on.

2. A Unit Commissioner should have a monthly contact with the unit.  At least once a quarter, that ought to be a unit meeting visit.  While it's not defined as a compliance check, it also is pretty easy to see if the unit is following basic YPT rules list two deep.

3. The BSA should focus on parents.  The best quality control for the BSA is the parents.  If you train parents on what to look for and provide them a discrete way to raise concerns, then you create another whole set of eyes on the problem.

The BSA needs to show it is serious here, but the BSA also needs to be careful about making the council/unit relationship even more adversarial.  Units that are distrustful of council wall themselves off and make it difficult for others to understand what is going on.  The BSA has a long history of imposing rules and regulations.  Yes, some things should be non-negotiable (such as following YPT rules), but the way we increase engagement on YPT isn't always more hammers and pikes.

46 minutes ago, MattR said:

Second, if there is a better approach that comes out of this argument then I say use it. Heads on pikes seems to be the only way the BSA knows how to encourage change. Even JTE is a one way street. You fill out the form and you get a grade back. That's it. The motivation is completely external. It's not how quality improvement really happens.

Rather than heads on pikes how about a relationship between the commissioner and the unit key 3 along the lines of how the relationship between the SM and the SPL is, or the SPL and the PL's? Servant leadership would be a great idea. It seems odd that the BSA claims teaching leadership, but doesn't really use it.

But I do agree that this would be a hard push. I don't see it happening and it's mostly just my wishful thinking while I watch the BSA in a proverbial flat spin.

 

You absolutely could have a conversation between the commissioner staff and unit key 3.  District volunteers just have to listen and then explain the goal.

Of course this would have to start by having professionals and council volunteers actually talk to the unit commissioners.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Yup. Reading you 5 by 5. 

I think what I'm failing to communicate is that 59,837 men probably should never have been offered an opportunity to file unless there were caveats. I can only really speak for myself, of course. I'm an inadequate Demosthenese warning of the depth of pain that may be coming for many, if turned away or sent away with a token. I understand that may seem out of reach and/or exaggerated. I am just unable to articulate it without getting extremely morose and graphic.

The insurers are coming for every one of those time-barred claims, regardless 60,000, 6000 or 600. That's what I'm saying. I should've known better. Will I take $6100 if that's offered as my "equitable compensation"? I'd be lying if I said I'm going to shred the check. Will it feel like a pat on the head and your aptly dubbed, "I'm sorry" get out of jail card? Yes. In the meantime, am I twisting on a spit? You guys can fill in that answer at this point. 

Oops. Another reference. That was historic, though, so doesn't break my vow. 

Oh - I see now.  You're in the category of people who will not receive insurance payments because you are outside of the SOL window.

You are frustrated because the BSA raised your expectations by saying you should file a claim as part of this bankruptcy process anyways.  If the BSA had not said you should file a claim, you would not have been able to sue and so wouldn't have entered into this otherwise.  I follow now.

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It means registered leader who have not even taken YPT.

Take a look at the December 2020 Key Performance Indicators.

2018 = 67.1%

2019 = 87.1%

2020 = 99.9%

In other words, as recently as 3 years ago. 33% of registered adults in all BSA programs hadn't even taken YP training.

So, yea, it is an issue. You can tout BSA's youth protection all day long, but if leaders were not actually REQUIRED to take it and if that requirement wasn't actually ENFORCED, they the YP isn't all its cracked up to be.

For example as Roman Catholic catechist, I literally wasn't allowed to SPEAK in my position as a catechist until I had a copy of my Virtus training in my hand and turned it into my parish.

BSA didn't take YPT seriously if it was OK with 33% of registered adult leaders not being YP trained (the absolute bare minimum for compliance).

Maybe this was the case - but it cannot be the case today.  You cannot register in the BSA without YPT.  You cannot recharter in the BSA with expired YPT.

Yet - YPT has an expiration date.  My council regularly reports YPT compliance numbers.  In those numbers if you have expired YPT, it decreases our percentage.  I don't know the current number, but expect this is true:

• 100% of leaders were YPT compliant in the last year.  You cannot be a currently registered leader if this was not true.
• 80% of leaders are YPT compliant today

People are going to point to the 80% and say YPT is failing.  But is it really? That's my engineer question.

41 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I can "get money" standing on the corner with a sign. As with other issues, you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this one. Eye to elbow, maybe [he said completely in jest]. Again, "equitably compensate all victims of past abuse in Scouting." Come and get it. $6100 ain't equitable. Add to it, 59,837 claims are on the block marked "SOL." We block heads aren't going to vote for this Plan, a manicured modification of it or for getting vertically reduced by 13". End game? Liquidation. End result? Zippo. 

We're not as far apart as you probably think.  I worry both about the victims of abuse and also the future of the program.  So I'm going to look for a solution that allows both to occur. 

You and I have been down the money path before - I appreciate that you don't like the amount.  Your definition of equitable is your definition.  I'm happy for the BSA to find you more money, but we just have to keep the program alive.  If that means we sell Summit & Northern Tier, that's fine by me.  Similarly if we combine smaller councils together and sell some camps along the way - that's fine too.  

I just want to see each side willing to come to the table.  We don't need this to be legal equivalent of mutually assured destruction.

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I don't know how the YPT started down this direction, but I guess the engineer in me wants to see the data that would drive the discussion down this path. 

Barry

Lol.   The engineer in me wants to understand what 20% of leaders not being compliant really means and if it really is an issue. 

14 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Yeah...it's a dog's breakfast having regional take it on. 

But if SM's are removed, all it will do is kill units...

Putting down my crayons for now on this one

Likewise....

But before I do, I just keep wondering what it really is that we are trying to fix.  Are units that non-compliant and if they are, what are the kinds of things they are letting happen.  I'm wondering if instead of adding more enforcement we look at this from a different perspective.

30 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yes, amen, praise the Lord and pass the biscuits. (Again, to be clear, the only reason I'm here is I responded to the public invitations and inducement from the BSA. The impetus wasn't self generated and didn't come from an attorney ad, therapist, family member, CHILD USA, person of influence or otherwise. I am a freewill agent and used that agency to take up hope and respond  by filing a claim. My bad.)

And you'll get money here.  They said they had some money to pay claimants with and invited all those who wanted a part to come forward.  I don't see how any of this is false hope from the BSA. 

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Two problems.

1) My district hasn't had a DC in years, much less a unit commissioner. Not everywhere has commissioners coming out of the ears.

2) The entire idea of the commissioner corp is they are there to assist where they are welcome. Granting them (a volunteer) authority over a unit is fundamentally altering the deal. They already have a bad reputation as Council's spies and enforcers. This would codify it.

That said, district executive or other paid professional might take this on but it creates a conflict there as well. But it may be better than trying to overhaul commissioners into enforcers.

Yes - the Commissioner service is the red-headed stepchild of Scouting volunteer positions.

They are there to help units, to serve as trusted advisors, and to enable leaders to have a stronger program.  I doubt that most would be able to navigate being both advisor and compliance officer all at once.  I suspect it would kill the commissioner program.

11 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

What about those people employed at the regional level... what do they fill their days with???  And could they be tasked to do Unit Compliance visits (inspections) every two to three years? 

There will be one or two territory employees per 15 councils.  Let's say a council averages 200 units - that's one or two employees per 3,000 units.  If they are always on the road and do three a week - that's 20 years to visit everyone...

What is it that we actually want them to check?  

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

In this case, we see not only the runaway train of legal fees, enhancing the wealth of the attorneys, but the residual damage and revisited trauma for survivors who came out of hiding to file claims. Like me, they were promised "equitable compensation." Vague as that is, it was a tremendous banner of hope, and will soon end up with precious little for their genuine grief. False hope, I'm afraid. I'm only in this position, in this case and on this forum because I was invited by misters Mosby and Turley.

I think you got sold a false bill of goods.

1) I don't doubt that a some lawyers & activists are in this for the cause.  However, like anyone who is fighting for a cause the people who get enlisted to the cause often are second to the cause itself.

2) Law is a business like any other.  Like any business I'm sure that the lawyers believe in their product (getting you money for your suffering).  But it's still a business.

3) Messrs Mosby & Turley I'm sure were doing their job too.  I am sure they believed in getting you equitable compensation for your suffering.  When this started, I have to imagine that they looked at trends in SOL legislation and thought that we will all have lawsuit after lawsuit for the next 30 years.  They knew the BSA made mistakes in it's past and that the activists and lawyers would never stop.  To me it seemed a prudent goal to look for a way to settle this once and for all and to pay reparations for what had happened in the past.  I would have to imagine that Messrs Mosby & Turley never imagined this number of claims.

You are caught in the middle.  

48 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

That is National policy to have valid YPT at recharter.

I expect that every council does this.  The issue is when councils measure YPT compliance later and discover it have gone from 100% at recharter to 75% 6 months later.

The question becomes - what is the right thing for the BSA to do here:

1. work to get everyone to 100% compliance all the time.  Requires 100% for recharter and then put plans in place to proactively make people take YPT once it lapses.
2. create a rule that requires YPT be valid for the entire year, but require the course annually
3. create a rule that requites YPT be valid for the entire year, but lengthen the YPT certification to all for taking the course bi-annually.
4. don't track YPT compliance during the year for existing leaders recognizing that 100% compliance at recharter is sufficient.

Which of the above is the right approach?  In my mind, #2 provides the most trained volunteer force.  #3 & #4 results is trained volunteers but refreshed slightly less often.

#1 is what we do today.  I would argue that it's the least effective of the four and requires the most bandwidth and resources for volunteer leaders and the BSA professionals to accomplish.  It's also going to show the worst YPT percentages of the four.

13 minutes ago, yknot said:

I'm confused. Maybe it's just our council, but we cannot recharter unless everyone on the charter has a current YPT through the coming year. It will get kicked back. At the unit level, we further require every parent to have YPT or we will not accept registration.

I would not hold us up as any great example though. There is a disturbing history of leadership not taking YPT or G2SS all that seriously. But at least everyone has been through the training. Parents have to take the training in order for them to understand the rules. 

In our council only a currently valid YPT is needed to recharter.  Your YPT could lapse a month after recharter and the rules would allow it.  Of course, once it lapses you are supposed to not volunteer again until you become current.

I see most people in our council and amongst our leaders taking YPT seriously.  Most of our YPT non-compliance is because leaders simply lapse along the way and then don't retake it until they have to recharter.

There was a move at one point to require it be valid for the entire yet.  But, when that started volunteers realized that it meant everyone was taking YPT every 12 months.  Given the length of the training and the fact that national said it was valid for two years, not one - people complained.  It appeared that this experiment stopped.  They then tried to recruit district level volunteers who would remind unit volunteers when they went out of compliance.

In my mind - this is one of those places where simply aligning the national & council rules would make it easier and would result in better compliance.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Sorta. What needs to start happening is enforcement. That means when volunteers don't do what they are suppose to, they should be reported up and out. What's going to mean that some parents and registered adult leaders are going to be put on report. It is also going to mean some heads rolling.

[...]

What it is going to take is a dozen registered adults (I keep picking on SMs here, but CMs, ASMs, Den Leaders, whatever) being told their registration has been revoked for failure to comply with YPT.

There is a simple solution to YPT training compliance - make it mandatory for all your leaders to have current YPT when you recharter the unit.  I would encourage a simple solution to get to 100%.

1. When a unit recharters, make it mandatory for every member of the unit to have YPT valid for the entire recharter year of the unit.
2. Extend the length YPT training is good for to 30 months.  We need to extend this a bit or else everyone will be taking the same YPT training every year due to point #1.

We have to focus on is shifting the conversation of YPT from a council or nationally mandated "thing you have to do", to a Scouter embraced cultural goal.  

The real point of YPT is to create a culture in the unit where other people notice suspicious behavior by a predator and stop it.  I'd submit that YPT isn't particularly onerous or difficult to follow.  It's mostly just some common place best practices coupled with some awareness of what to look for.

Make the rules unambiguous and also make the rules easier to follow.

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Not a downer, at all.  I'm sure we all wish the program would be better implemented at the unit level.  Can you imagine how many youth would want to be Scouts if it were so?

The sticking point is, how do you do this?  What is the forcing function?  As I had posited before, I believe this was supposed to be the vision for the function of the Commissioners Corps, but we ain't there...locally or nationally...

Here's a radical thought...pay the Scoutmasters!!

I think it would have to start with a shift at the council/district level.  

The Commissioner corp can be the right group to lead the charge, but we need to stop ignoring and abusing the commissioners.  I would start with a few things:

1. Make the Council Commissioner the top volunteer in a council.  Same for a district.  Today we place a business person in the role of Council President/District Chair.  That means the top volunteer is going to focus on what they know - membership, money, and growth.  If you made the top volunteer a tenured, uniformed volunteer who had primary responsibility for unit service, that would change a lot.  

2. Really focus on the unit support role for commissioners.  A Unit Commissioners success is defined by the success of the unit.  Unit service is about building relationships with unit.  This is not a skill that most Scouters inherently understand.

3. Create a growth path from Scoutmaster/CC to Commissioner.  Set the expectation that good Scoutmasters & Committee Chairs become Unit Commissioners.  Stop the expectation that unit key 3 members should not be recruited for district service.  My understanding is that in the UK senior unit leaders are expected to also have district responsibilities.

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

This is the mirror image of an Asset Protection Trust, with the same result. I contend they are, in fact, asset shielding creatures of the state to protect them from creditors masked as maintenance and funding shells. The lease-back and closely held board control, by essentially the same principals of the related lessee entity, are identical.

"Arrow WV Inc., in fact, owns the Summit Bechtel Reserve and leases it to the Boy Scouts, according to bankruptcy filings. It was incorporated in Fayette County in June 2009, according to the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office. Texas equity investor Jack D. Furst, who led the Boy Scouts task force chosen to identify a permanent National Jamboree site, is listed as president; current Scouts President and CEO Roger Mosby, vice president; and Charleston attorney and current Scouts general counsel Steve McGowan, secretary."

If the claimants want the Summit I think most Scouters would be happy to give it up to settle this.  How about:

• claimants get: the Summit and Northern Tier
• scouts keep: Philmont and Sea Base.

It strikes me that when the CC starts overruling specific decisions like this, we're getting into micromanagement territory.  Can the CC - probably yes - the CC leads the Committee which the SM reports to.  Should the CC overrule the SM - probably not unless the CC wants to embarrass the SM.

Much like my earlier comments, I would think the CC/SM conversation is one of general vision and approach.  What kind of troop are we trying to have?  What kind of culture do we want to see?   This seems like a good example vehicle for the CC/SM to discuss - not so much about whether the SM made the right specific decision - but instead why was this a choice in the first place?  

As CC, in key three meeting I would bring up two questions:

1. Did the patrol method fail?  Why did the PLC not discuss the problem and come up with a solution on their own?

Getting Scouts to help at a ECOH seems like a very adult solution to the problem.  Really, this should never have even involved the Scoutmaster at all - let alone bending BSA advancement rules to allow it.  

2. Why are we bribing Scouts to help in the troop?  That suggests that the Troop is doing something unpopular with the Scouts - why is that?