76 
SE Biology, Vol. 61, No. 1, January, 2014 
back five years later what do we do? The institutions have already been 
featured. Meeting space offered by institutions. Field trip of campus, 
symposia organized for on-campus. 
Most important: we (EC) have got to be the recipients of grief, rather then 
people like Scott. 
Suggested more contact with our Younger Sister: ANB. 
Don suggests: Two from local institution, one to be co-chair of AMAC, an 
academic to work contact with the institution/departments/ 
person. Also, someone from the EC to act as Liaison between 
AMAC and EC (3 year term). 
Tim: 1) which type participation do we want: a bio dept that is eager to 
participate or one that is told to participate. 
2) EC needs to step up and support/defend Scott, publicly. Send 
complaints to EC. 
Bill: suggested stationing an EC member at registration throughout 
meeting to deal with complaints. John suggests chair/co-chair 
fulfill duty. 
Scott: needs to hear about nuts and bolts of meeting, so that he can 
enhance improve meeting. Select few people who continue to 
berate Scott and Tim. Support needed from EC, we need a 
formalized response. PhD to PhD, to deal with certain behaviors. 
Bill: Motion to have John’s Full Report put into minutes of meeting. 
Added beginning on next page. 
Second: Don 
Discussion: Scott wants best for ASB, willing to not go to Charlotte. New 
faces at this meeting not privy to discussion of meeting places, important 
to keep doing the best for our members, we need to unify, put our 
energies together, and do the best for ASB regarding meeting location. 
Scott cares about ASB. Don: Scott has a degree in biology and 
understands biology. 
Zack has actively supported Scott regarding issues (what the 1% are 
saying, attacks on integrity). Tim: In the absence of a public statement 
from us, all the members hear is poison. 
Zack: EC should take action. To be discussed on agenda for later. 
