Re: Growth Requirements
Monte Kalisch (montek@MONTEKCS.COM)
Sun, 24 Nov 1996 16:19:04 -0700
At 11:49 AM 11/19/96 EST, Murphy Peter wrote:
>HOWEVER, I feel BSA is sometimes too focused on numbers.
Well, I think Murphy is right on here. I *KNOW* the BSA is too focused on
numbers. The higher up you go, the more that numbers are the driving
factor. That's the reason I don't want to be involved at those levels (DE,
etc.). The whole number thing has really bothered for a long time.
Numbers, alone, say very little about QUALITY. And I think that when you
make it a requirement for quality that you make quality a little more
ambiguous (did the troop grow in size because they're good or because they
>When increasing membership becomes the GOAL rather than the
>RESULT of a quality program, then all kinds of weird stuff can
>happen. We need to be careful about what behavior we reward
>because that's the kind of behavior we'll cultivate.
Well said. There's very little latitude for a troop to adjust their sizes
now. Some troops are just too big IMHO. I am not interested in joining a
troop where I can't learn each Scout's name and something about him, but
that's just my nature.
Where does this stop, if ever? Can a troop get so big that National will
waive their growth requirement? It doesn't take too many years with this
as a requirement that the numbers can get unmanageable? I would rather see
a QUALITY Scout award (I guess that's Eagle, huh?).
Is bigger always better?
Ben Delatour Scout Ranch (http://www.montekcs.com/www/bdsr)
ASM Troop 191, Ft. Collins, CO
~ I'll always be an Eagle Scout! ~
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City