Re: More Limiting Troop Size
Jon Dixon (dixonj@ROCOCO.COLORADO.EDU)
Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:50:13 -0500
Jim Sleezer wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:21:35 -0500 Anthony J. Mako said:
> >What concerns me is that several folks have
> >suggested immediately starting a new unit. This is certainly a valid
> >possibility in this situation, but it should hardly be the first
> thing we
> >think of.
> I really think this is an important consideration. The pros always seem
> to like new units, but two weak units may not be the proper answer.
As one who talked about splitting troops in this thread, I want to
clarify my point some.
What I was trying to say is that when a troop grows to be 40-50 strong,
especially if this has exceeded or is approaching the limits of space,
resources, etc., I would look at splitting the troop.
This results in 2 units each with 20-25 boys in them; that is still a
healthy troop by just about any measure. Now you are back to a level
that the facilities can accomidate, and are ready to grow again. An
analogy would be those types of flower bulbs that you dig up and divide
so that you have twice the number of flowers the next year (I remember
mom doing it, don't remember what the bulbs were) -- you have twice the
Also, consider that usually 20-boy troops are often more actively
looking at recruiting new boys than 50-boy troops. Those two new troops
may wind up serving a lot more boys than the original large one did.
It would not be my first thought on the matter; that would be looking
for a way to accomidate more boys within the existing structures. If
that isn't going to be possible, though, starting a new unit would
certainly be preferable to capping enrollment in my mind.
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City