scouts-l Mail Archive for August of 2000: Re: limiting troop membership
Neil Lupton (NeilLup@AOL.COM
Thu Aug 31 2000 - 09:35:41 CDT
In a message dated 8/31/00 2:28:35 AM, rhaar@HOME.COM writes:
<< However, I suggest that you think about splitting into 2 or even 3 troops.
Ninety+ is a VERY large troop. >>
I strongly agree with this suggestion by Robert. Not that you can't run a
90 boy Troop, but then you are concentrating on running a 90 boy Troop
rather than just running a Boy Scout Troop. Logistics becomes very
challenging and there is the requirement that leaders, both boy and adult, be
exceedingly efficient and organized and, I suspect, there is less opportunity
to smell the flowers and relax.
As a boy in Maryland, I was SPL and then JASM of a Troop which hit 150 boys.
As a young SM in California, I had a 35 boy Troop. We were one of four
parts from an original Troop of about 160 boys.
To paraphrase Pearl Bailey ("I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is
better.") I've been in huge Troops and in normal size Troops. In my
opinion, normal size is better.
HOWEVER, tiny is not better. After about 6 years, the 4 Troops of our
California organization became 3 Troops. The odds are than after some period
of time, you will put your split units back together. The reason why you
are getting so many boys interested is your current leadership. When that
is no longer your leadership, you will likely have many fewer boys.