Present: Gary Dunbar, Mike Bannon, Paul Walker, Lisa Baker, Audrey Seasholtz, Peter Cobbett, Verne Hulce, Amy Goodwin, Kristi Haik-Creguer, Keith Lookingland, Verne Hulce,

Absent: Sean Donevan, Kalpana Merchant, Laura Smale

1. Membership List
Discussions of a mechanism to update the Chapter membership list.  Maintaining this list is a recurrent problem based on fluctuations of active membership by faculty/senior scientists and mobility of students and postdocs.  It was agreed to put the membership list on the Chapter website - barring potential ethical/legal barriers to such action (to be examined by Dunbar and Haik-Creguer).

2. Treasurer’s Report.
Lookingland reported that the current (10/99) balance for the Chapter’s account is $5,748.  He stated that the balance was considerably increased compared to the situation at the same time in 1998.  He indicated that the major reason for the increase in Chapter funds was that the Annual Meeting (May 1999, Kalamazoo) made a profit.  He thanked Lisa Baker, meeting organizer, and her organization for her efforts.

Lookingland and Baker requested that a donation ($100) be made to the Western Michigan Cancer Fund by the Chapter in the name of Montford Piercey.  Approved by all.

3. Annual Meeting 2000
The meeting is scheduled for 5 May 2000 at the Corporate Center in Ypsilanti.  Parke-Davis is the host institution and is expected to make a generous financial contribution towards the cost of the meeting.  Sean Donevan of Parke-Davis is meeting organizer - he will be working with faculty from Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti.

 Two major proposals were made and discussed concerning the format of the meeting.  First, that the keynote address be held in the morning session (with a shift of some events, including the poster session,  previously held in the morning session to the afternoon session): this altered schedule should allow attendees to be fresh for the keynote address and for the keynote speaker to be more familiar and more approachable for poster presenters.  Thus interactions between the attendees and the keynote speaker would be increased.  This proposal was approved.  Second, that the keynote address session be composed of a presentation by two or three speakers on a common theme, i.e. a “minisymposium”, rather than of a presentation by a single speaker.  The idea of “minisymposium” was well received and the proposal approved.  It was noted that both proposals may not be put into action until the meeting of 2001: the status of potential 2000 keynote addresses and space availability for the 2000 meeting was unknown (Donevan absent from the Council meeting).

5. Meeting Registration.
Discussion of the potential for registration (and payment of membership dues) through the web.  It was apparent that this idea has its benefits but that it also has some problems.  To be discussed again in the future.

6. Membership.
Discussion was focussed on two main areas.  First, retention of faculty/senior scientist members.  Individual membership is somewhat discontinuous - dependent on site of the annual meeting and (poster/oral presentation) participation at the meeting by members of the member’s laboratory.  Although several ideas were discussed to make individual membership more continuous, it was agreed that the best way to promote membership by faculty/senior scientists is to encourage their participation at every annual meeting.  Second, recruitment of new members from previously untapped pools of scientists with interests in neuroscience. These individuals include neurologists and scientists at smaller Michigan colleges.  It was agreed that Cobbett attempt to identify such individuals and invite them to become members of the Chapter.

7. Brain Awareness Week
BAW in 2000 is scheduled for 13-19 March.  It was agreed that space would be made available at the annual meeting for each institution to demonstrate activities (photographs or live!!)  At the next Council meeting (early 2000), BAW plans will be discussed further: individual institutions will present plans of activities.

8. Renaming of Chapter Award/New Award for Students.
Discussion of the suggestion that the Chapter give a student award to be named “The Montford F. Piercey Award”.  This award could be a new award (perhaps, given funding by Pharmacia and Upjohn).  Alternatively “The Chapter Award” could be renamed “The Montford F. Piercey Award”.  The idea was well received but no action taken until further discussion.  This discussion will be made based on two questions: Will the award by funded by the Chapter? Is there a “downside” to renaming the Chapter Award rather than funding a new award?

9. Meeting Adjournment.