Discussion around this proposal considered the following issues:

1. What previous travel grants were provided and why they were discontinued?
2. The need for recipients to provide some type of report to CLAG after their research activity, possibly submitting a report to the CLAG Board or field notes to be published in JLAG.
3. It was suggested that amount of award and the number provided should start small, because CLAG is going through some reorganization that may impact revenue. It was decided that an ad hoc committee be formed to investigate previous travel/research grants, and come up with a proposal to provide to the board at the AAG meeting in Chicago.

Discussion around this proposal considered the following issues:

1. Concern was raised regarding the difficulty and cost of upkeep of website and copying of all documents.
2. Another issue concerned copyrights, and the possible conflict with publishing articles stemming from dissertation/thesis work published on the website.
3. It was suggested that an alternative might be to provide titles, names, and contact information for all masters and doctoral graduates.
4. Across the board there was consensus regarding the need of CLAG, and Geography more generally, to increase their exposure, and that publicizing in some form this work may be of use.

It was decided that an ad hoc committee be formed to investigate the infrastructure and cost related to the proposed online archive, and the potential problems. Brian Godfrey, Margaret Wilder, and Joe Scarpaci agreed to serve on the committee, and will report to the board at the AAG meeting in Chicago.

1. Number of institutional subscriptions, which currently are low because Universities can get JLAG as part of Project Muse.
2. The demand (number of hits on Project Muse) and degree of widespread appeal across the disciplines.

David provided a list of issues that the board must consider before an informed decision could be made, including the following:

1. Need to decide on a purchase price. How to measure the value? It would be a one-time payment, so what would be the opportunity cost from the loss of long-run revenue from Project Muse? What have other journals been paid (i.e., Historical Geography)?
2. Loss of editorial control? The publisher would appoint editorial board for 5 years.
3. What will be the rate for CLAG members? Latin American subscribers? Students. For how long will the rates hold?
4. In what languages will articles be accepted for publication (Spanish, Portuguese, French)?
5. What is CLAG's legal commitment with Project Muse?

Overall, there was support for the proposal. In particular, turning over JLAG to the publisher will make the process more efficient, professionalize the journal, and enable publications to be counted in the citation index, which is very important for junior faculty in the tenure process. In addition, although CLAG may lose revenue stream from Project Muse, the costs will be greatly reduced.

If we do not make a transfer, back issues of the conference of Latin Americanist geographers will be digitized and put on project MUSE. It was also suggested, that if we do turn over JLAG, alternatives for other publications or outlets for CLAG work may be a Yearbook like publication or the publication of proceedings from CLAG conferences.

It was decided that David Robinson and Ines will try to find out the circumstances regarding the legal contract CLAG has with Project Muse and JLAG and get together with the board members to discuss the issue further.

1. Increase exposure?
2. Demonstrate the value-added for joining CLAG, and not just LASG.
3. Suggestions made involved: (1) the need to reach out to the Latin American community of Geographers, (2) the creation of a logo and brochure outlining what CLAG has to offer, (3) the need to visit Latin American institutions to promote CLAG.

1. Expand the CLAG meetings to include individuals from other disciplines (Anthropology, history, etc..).
2. Come up with a theme for the meetings.
3. Invite distinguished speakers from Latin America, who will after go back and encourage participation in CLAG.
4. Work with PAIGH (PanAmerican Institute of Geography and History) to increase CLAG exposure, especially with the Latin American members. Cynthia Simmons will send out an e-mail to the CLAG board soliciting input on key issues to American Geographers, which she will report at the Consultative Meeting of PAIGH in Venezuela in November.

1. Concern was raised regarding the institutional arrangements of CLAG groups submitting proposals. CLAG is nonprofit, and does not have the infrastructure to administer grants.
2. Would it be a matter of encouraging and promoting funded research of CLAG member, which in turn would reflect well on CLAG?
3. Consideration needs to be given to the logistics of such an endeavor.

CLAG 2007. Eric Perramond offered to organize the meetings at the Colorado University, Colorado Springs. He discussed the opportunities and institutional benefits of the location in terms of logistics and supporting infrastructure.

Suggestions were made regarding:

1. The creation of an oral history, similar to the Geographers on Film series done by the AAG. Antoinette agreed to chair this ad hoc committee.
2. The creation of a map that interactively links where CLAG members past and present worked, and what they researched. Such an endeavor would require the collection of data with names, keywords, and e-mail addresses of researchers.
3. David agreed to put it on the website.
4. But who is going to collect the data and create the map?? This issue was dropped.
5. Both the history and mapping project sounds like something that NSF or another institution may fund for an institution-building grant. Maybe resources could be solicited from PAIGH? They are really interested in institution building across geographers in Latin America.