Jake Kimberley: Mayor clarifies city’s position on major projects

The following letter appeared in both The Herald and the Western News:

Once again I feel compelled to write a letter to clarify the process of the three major projects the city has had to deal with since I took office.

Transparency is good.

[... stuff about the South Okanagan Events Centre]

I was informed when I took office that the city was made aware in 2004 by the school district that the auditorium and gymnasium were not included in the overall site plan for the new high school and would be torn down. After I took office I was contacted by the chairperson of the school board and told the board needed a firm answer from the city on what their interest would be with the auditorium. This led to a meeting between the board, their staff, Barry Reid and myself in December 2006. We were reminded that the gymnasium was not part of the discussion and that the board needed an answer on the auditorium by June 1.

We understand that saving the buildings was not in the school board's original plan. But so what? We think the old plan is a bad one and are asking for a new plan—that is the whole point. The school board's primary mandate is to do what is best for the school (which apparently means routing school buses through a busy parking lot). However, school board members serve at the pleasure of taxpayers, and taxpayers take a broader view of their interests. Unfortunately, we have two elected bodies in deadlock—each pointing to the other as if the other were some type of omnipotent authority. School board members are not elected to make their own decisions; instead, they are there to represent the interests of local taxpayers. According to the city's own survey, 60% of Penticton residents think saving the two buildings is a good idea. You would think that democratically-elected officials would see survey result as relevant.

From there a complete review was undertaken by city staff and an outside consultant to determine the actual costs to bring both structures up to code and the cost of managing them and maintaining them until a new performing arts facility would be constructed. The cost estimates were $1.7 million for renovations plus $200,000 per year for management and maintenance.

As noted previously, according to the memo from Barry Reid, the estimates were $1.2M and $1.5M. I am not sure where $1.7M came from. Also, the $167K - $227K operating cost estimate includes (as Mr. Reid's memo makes clear) the salary for a full-time arts coordinator for the city (a position that the city will fill either way) and does not include any rental revenue the facilities might generate. On the other hand, the operating cost estimate does not include any fees payable to the school district for the use of the land occupied by the two buildings. I am not sure this is an issue. The school board seems to be insisting on "fair market value" for the land, but it is taxpayers' money either way. Any payment between the city and the school district would be interesting from a bookkeeping point of view, but have no impact on the taxpayers' net assets. Indeed, according to local folklore, it was not that long ago that the city simply gave the land on which Pen-Hi sits to the school district. It seems a bit rich for the school board to come back now and demand fair market value.

These costs were, in my opinion, too high for the short-term life span that these buildings would have, estimated to be five years.

In his June 29 letter, the mayor put the expected life of the Pen-Hi buildings at seven years. Now it is five? Several members of SONG with construction and building maintenance experience scoff at the seven year estimate (way too low).

I am sure the school board would not accept the necessary increase to the footprint of these buildings that would be needed to accommodate new washrooms and change rooms to meet building code requirements.

1. As noted above, the school board does not have a veto over city plans.
2. How big are these washrooms going to be?
3. Both the city and the school board are showing an appalling lack of creativity in addressing these problems. What happened to can-do spirit?

Also not included into the overall cost is what the school district would have to charge for the lease of these two buildings and for how long they would provide the lease for.

Again, this lease/fair market value issue is a red herring. Imagine the logical outcome:

1. City taxes go up to pay for the transfer of money to the school district.
2. The school district now has new funds with which to meet its operating budget.
3. School taxes go down to reflect the new revenue.

Residents of the city should see the decrease in school taxes exactly offset their increase in property taxes. People like me outside city limits would do slightly better, since we pay our property taxes to the RDOS, not the city and would receive an un-earned break on our school taxes. The logical solution is for the school to retain ownership of the land, charge a nominal lease (e.g., $1/year) and leave taxes where they are.

The additional cost of 200,000 tax dollars into operating these buildings would also conflict with the already subsidized operation of the Cleland Theatre, which is still not totally utilized. Does it make fiscal sense to have two city-owned theatres competing for the same market dollar?

Careful here. If it does not make sense to have two theatres, why are we investing significant city resources ($2.5M so far—see below) into a new performing arts facility. Either utilization is an issue, or it is not.

The solution to this issue is to have the school board to continue to operate these buildings.

Huh? I am not sure this follows. SD67 is getting a new gym for school use. They do not have any budget to operate the old buildings. Moreover, they have no mandate to operate them as community facilities—it is the city's responsibility to manage community facilities.

The interest in a building a brand new performing arts facility was initiated prior to December 2005 at which time the previous council committed $20,000 towards a study on whether such a facility was needed. This project was spearheaded by individuals who had a keen interest on developing more cultural activity in the city and bringing the city up to what both Vernon and Kelowna already have.

Which brings up a good point: Where is this feasibility analysis. Given that it was paid for with city money and donations (some large-ish donations actually came from SONG members), the feasibility analysis should be publicly available. I can't find it on the Internet.

According to Statscan, the Penticton area is home to roughly 43K people. Vernon has 55K and Kelowna has 162K. Maybe Vernon is still a good reference point, but comparing to Penticton to Kelowna is inappropriate—they are nearly four times our size.

The report confirmed that a new performing arts centre would be a benefit to the city and be well supported.

Confirmed? Really? Let's see the report.

In 2006 I first met with Don Grant, who had initiated the appeal to the previous council for funding of the study. He submitted three locations that his board felt would be appropriate for the building. Staff was then directed to work with the group and find a suitable location. One being the site of the existing auditorium and gymnasium — this site was unacceptable to the school board because it would restrict any future development plans they may have for that site.

Again, look at the census data. We already have more high school space than we are going to need in the coming 20-30 years. What expansion does the school board have in mind?

It is the interest of this group who is spearheading this project to have it jointly funded by the province, the federal government and through private donations. It is also the intent of this group to have their own management staff run and promote the new facility. Their objective, which they feel they can achieve, is to be totally independent of the city.

Good, but this is still a risk, is it not?

Last week an agreement was reached between the city and the owner of the property north of Nanaimo Hall to purchase the property at a cost of $1.25 million. This will be paid out of the city’s capital reserve fund. All these resulting decisions are, in my opinion, positive news for the city and its future.

Let's be clear about these numbers: $1.25 of new land plus a comparable parcel of city-owned land (Nanaimo Hall) means a grant to the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facility Society (PDPAFS) of $2.5M of taxpayers' money. Whether this money came from reserve funds is irrelevant: it is all public money. Given this sizable investment of taxpayers' money in this initiative, it is odd that no documentation on the project is available on the web. Why is this? How are local taxpayers supposed to understand their investment?

Hopefully this explanation with these three projects will clarify my involvement with them and set the record straight.

Carol Ann Trabert: Sequel to Markin's fairy tale

The following response to Allan Markin's column appeared in the July 25th, 2007, edition of The Herald:

Dear Sir,

Having arisen from my 'fainting couch', I offer the following for your consideration.

The Man Who Fell From High Reason

Twice upon a time, a highly educated man took on the challenges of leadership, first as a principal and then as the Chair of a dedicated group who wished to save a well constructed, acoustically perfect building that was, however, built over 50 years ago.

Then tragedy struck this man and he took leave of those educated opinions he had earned over the years, and became tempted by the Next Big New Thing cult. He succumbed to New Building Dementia, which involves a single-mindedness to the New and forsakes rationality, even being prepared to sacrifice an existing, functioning facility. (Wonder if he would cut off his nose if the Cult assured him another one could be constructed for him in--well 36 months to 10 years) This poor man lost his ability to appreciate anything not New, which is a side effect of New Building Dementia. Another side effect is Money Madness, which manifests itself in an inability to recognize zeros in a dollar context. This madness is epidemic in many bureaucracies, owing largely to the fact that those spending the money do not have to be mindful of its source. It is rumoured that some think there are money grow-ops hidden in the government buildings, providing a fresh crop on a regular basis. But the ultimate manifestation is being able to talk about $30,000,000.00 of taxpayer dollars as cheerfully as they might talk about buying lunch.

But, back to the saga. This poor man fell under the spell of the Next Big New Thing Cult with its Money Madness syndrome and even promoted the idea that it was 'bad' money that paid to erect the original auditorium and gymnasium. Rational, thinking citizens raised their eyebrows at this, and this enraged him and his Cult so much that they became thoroughly rude, demeaning, and even antagonistic in an effort to defend their indefensible position that only New is Good. The group he joined gathered to concoct outrageous plans to promote their Cult. They all drank deeply of the Economic Benefit Opiate, envisioning thousands of people flocking to attend performances and magically doubling--no tripling--the sales of every hardware, grocery and shoe store in the City. And so they stumbled through their days in a Haze of Unrealism.

And if the vision they seek to impose on the thousands of citizens who aren't drinking deeply of any opiate doesn't come to pass? Hope there will be another project for the Next Big New Thing Cult. Reality may just be too hard for them to accept.

Allan Markin: City witnesses a performance for the ages

The following column appeared in the July 20th, 2007, edition of the Western News. Allan Markin is a Penticton freelance writer and a member of the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society (PDPAFS)

Once upon a time not so long ago, the citizens of Penticton awoke from a deep sleep, looked around at their peaceful little hamlet, and realized that the world was passing them by. Many liked it that way and went back to sleep. Some were sorely afflicted and began searching for mistakes made in the past by casting aspersions at previous civic leaders.

Others, looking into the future and calling themselves visionaries, began revising Penticton’s Official Community Plan. Soon there was building going on everywhere. Developers and speculators could be seen pounding on counters at City Hall, waving their plans around like broad swords. Sky cranes started flying above the city like giant albatrosses.

Tall (some said too tall) buildings began casting their shadows over previously quiet residential streets. Big-box retailers lined up at the city gates to beg for permission to locate in what was rapidly becoming a “boom” town. A roundabout to help eliminate massive downtown traffic jams was installed.

Soon the biggest and brightest jewel in the city’s crown, the South Okanagan Event Centre, was conceived, holding out the promise that Penticton would become the sporting capital of the region, maybe even the world. A few citizens complained about the excessive cost, but in a short time their protestations were heard no more. Some folks who value verdant parkland objected to losing green space. They too became silent. In a few short weeks power shovels occupied the site; they sat and waited for the command to dig, looking like a gang of praying mantis at a giant insect convention.

Another group of citizens, small in number but noted for their sober and perceptive thinking, asked: “what is missing from this picture?” They quickly concluded that Penticton and the South Okanagan did not have a state-of-the-art performing arts centre. They declared that such a shortcoming had to be remedied and immediately began working on the problem.

They had professionals study the situation, both as to need and feasibility, concluding that such a project was indeed much needed and doable. After careful study they also concluded that neither the Pen High auditorium nor the Cleland Theatre merited renovation. “Throwing good money after bad does not make practical economic sense,” they declared.

Officials at School District No. 67, engaged in building a new high school, remained steadfastly committed to demolishing the auditorium. Keeping it didn’t fit into their plans. City Hall decreed after careful analysis that renovating Cleland Theatre would be economically impractical, especially since renovations would compromise the integrity of several other parts on the Community Centre.

The resulting controversy was deafening. Refined ladies, overcome by powerful waves of nostalgia, rose from their fainting couches to plead, sometimes tearfully, that the auditorium, which was rumoured to have been built by the great ancient god Acousticus, must be saved.

They wrote letters to the newspapers. They evangelized on street corners. They sent angry e-mails. They engaged the support of experienced builders, whose knowledge of theatre design and operations was largely unknown. They cogitated and agitated, until several famous and not-so-famous performers were so moved that they just had to offer impassioned testimonials to the great hall, aka a tired, old high-school auditorium.

Soon the thunderous voice of an economist-soothsayer was heard coming from the wilderness in the west. He analyzed. He espoused conspiracy theories. He consulted his university text books. His views were published in the local paper.

Then, to everyone’s surprise, six former mayors came together, declaring that they had “buried their hatchets for this important civic cause.” Citizens who were keenly aware of past city politics didn’t believe them. Some reluctantly gave them the benefit of the doubt. Others wondered if any of the mayors had bothered to read the studies and reports that were available before joining the movement to save the old auditorium.

Everyone agreed that their communion was an excellent photo-op, especially if some of them were considering running for office in the next election. Everyone enjoyed the pretty picture that appeared on the front page of the local paper on what must have been a slow news day.

But the small group of visionaries working towards the creation of a modern performing arts centre remained undaunted. Knowing they had the facts on their side, they slept peacefully, dreaming of the multitudes flocking to the new facility to enjoy the great variety of performing arts.

They envisioned the rejuvenation of Penticton’s downtown core through the development of a fine multi-faceted cultural space that would become part of the city’s core infrastructure, an entity commonly seen in mature cities all around the world.

They marveled at the economic benefit that such a facility would bring to the city and region. They thrilled at the enhanced quality of life all citizens would enjoy. And they were glad.

My editorial comment: This is a nice bit of writing that is meant, I suppose, to poke fun at some of the people involved in the current debate about the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium (myself included). This is all well and good, but there is something about PDPAFS's strategy that escapes me: Why are they attacking people who want to save the Pen-Hi buildings (S.O.N.G., ex-mayors, Dodi Morrison, etc.)?

There is nothing about building a new performing arts facility that precludes saving the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium. However, PDPAFS has created an unnecessary link between knocking down the old buildings and moving forward on the new. In my view, this this was a strategic blunder on their part because it casts those of us in favor of saving the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium as the opposition. It forces us to highlight the many risks and unknowns in PDPAFS's proposal in a desperate attempt to situate the Pen-Hi buildings as an insurance policy against their failure to raise sufficient funds. A vicious cycle ensues**. But this need not be the case—it should be possible to be in favor of both saving the Pen-Hi buildings and building a new performing arts facility.

In the best case, we end up with a new performing arts facility and the Pen-Hi buildings. Although the School District has been granted money for a new school and cannot publicly acknowledge that the new Pen-Hi's lack of an auditorium is a problem, some people in this town who have actually taught performing arts at Pen-Hi do see it as a problem. Fortunately, there is no reason that (once the new school is complete) students at Pen-Hi and other schools cannot make use of the old auditorium. In other words, Penticton could benefit from both a new performing arts facility and an old auditorium adjacent to Pen-Hi.

Alas, PDPAFS does not see it like this. I can only conclude that the leaders of PDPAFS believe they can further the society's agenda by actively obstructing and denigrating other agendas. Allan Markin's column provides an exemplar of this stratgy.

** A textbook-trained economist would instantly recognize this as a Prisoner's Dilemma (and seek to avoid it).

Dodi Morrison: City misusing its resources

The following appeared in the July 15, 2007, edition of the Western News:

Recently Mayor Kimberley wrote a letter to the editor explaining how prohibitively expensive it would be to retain the auditorium and gymnasium. I’m sure he hoped this would convince us of the immediate necessity of contributing to a new concert hall (on land donated by the city I am told.)

Of course an equally convincing letter could have been written if he had wanted to defend not taking those buildings down. He mentioned that although our taxes would go up for keeping those buildings, we need fear nothing as the new concert hall would be built with money taken from “reserves.”

“Reserves?” Did anyone know about these? Where were they when we begged for affordable housing? Where was the land now so available — I’m told — for the concert hall? Offers made regarding low-cost housing were turned down. I am reminded of the old story of Marie Antionette when told that the people had no bread —”Let them eat cake!” she replied.

Not long ago a short article in the local paper told of the city of Trail’s dilemna. Apparently there is a lack of affordable housing in both Trail and Rossland. So much so that the nearby ski resort of Red Mountain was having great difficulty finding people to clean its rooms. I wonder where all the new occupants of the condos going up around us will find a cleaning lady? And that is just one of the town’s many services that will be needed by those seniors.

But back to those two buildings. How many people realize that the new school will have no auditorium? Only an activity room, with bleachers. I know from a friend in another such school in another city how frustrating that can be — and how much confusion is caused whenever an event takes place. Our present auditorium has been well used by our gifted music teachers — not only the one at Pen High but other schools’ too. And with some cosmetic repairs it could last for another 50 years. The main part is still solid. Just the stage area needs replacing, and rooms added for dressing rooms, toilets and a hall. The concert hall in Metaline Falls is part of a school far older, which was revived and made into a cultural centre. The Falls is a tiny town (just across the border from Yak) but we met people there from Colville and Spokane at one of its good concerts. “All this talk of nostalgia and sentiment is insulting!” one long- time concert goer said to me.

Well, the mayors have spoken — and it was quite an announcement. Let’s hope they will now bully the necessary people, give us the leadership we crave and get things going.

It can’t be too soon for me — I have learned a whole other vocabulary I never expect to use — cuss words completely new to me! Masses of people really think council has lost its head over this.

And no doubt we’ll get the lovely new concert hall in about 10 years’ time anyway. By then we will need both halls. But meanwhile wouldn’t it be nice if we pulled together for once and saved a whole lot of great events? As for more parking — when what we need is to get more cars off the road — that’s insane. The school board and teachers should start getting kids to walk. Bribe them — have a competition — offer big rewards — whatever it takes. The traffic is appalling and the last thing we need to do is encourage it to get worse.

I wonder how many know that when Jeff Hyslop performed here he made an impassioned plea for the auditorium? Even though he is now in New York, he knew its value.

John Cornelissen: Bulldozing bad business

The following appeared in The Herald and the 13 July, 2007, edition of the Western News:

I grew up in a home that was over a century old. Although heavily damaged during the Second World War, it was repaired and the building may well last another century. The motto “waste not want not,” was firmly brought home to me. It is paramount and ought to be adhered to buildings with a number of years of remaining useful life, on which replacement costs are many times its upgrading costs.

Reading Mayor Kimberley’s letter justifying bulldozing the buildings, one wonders how much credibility it should be given. He talked about doing away with the buildings as soon as it was suggested to save them and long before any analysis was made. The taxpayers have not been presented with a detailed cost-benefit analysis. For instance:

A) Why generate the $ 1.2 million to $1.5 million borrowing costs for renovation with a one per cent property tax increase while the borrowing of $ 2.5 million for the cemetery upgrade results in a 0.95 per cent tax increase?

B) Where is the off-setting factor of the income generated by the gymnasium and auditorium against the operation and maintenance cost? What about operation and maintenance cost for the new performing arts centre?

C) What will be the impact on property taxes for the estimated $30 million cost of a new performing arts centre?

D) The statement “monies for the purchase of land for a performing arts centre site would be taken out of the capital reserve fund and therefore would not require a property tax increase” is grossly misleading. It means the money is not available for other capital projects and therefore will be borrowed and become a burden on the taxpayers!

The mayor told us that the contract of the event centre that was awarded would cost the taxpayer a cup of coffee. How wrong did that statement proved to be? Are figures being twisted for the mayor’s pet projects?

I suggest we hold a reverse petition borrowing bylaw for the upgrading of the Penticton gymnasium and auditorium similar to the other reverse petitions for the wellness centre and the cemetery upgrade.

In closing the mayor talks about the safety aspect of school traffic onto Eckhardt Avenue. Why not follow through with Ed Bonthoux’s recommendation and subscribed to by a former mayor that school generated traffic ought to be directed to Jermyn Avenue.

Michael Brydon: Deliberately creating a facilities deficit

A slightly edited version of the following letter appeared in the July 12th, 2007, edition of The Herald:

Some leaders in our community, including Mayor Kimberley and Councilor McIvor subscribe to a theory. The theory is that Penticton has a better chance of raising the $30M or so that is required for a new 700-seat performing arts facility if our existing 700-seat auditorium is demolished. By deliberately creating a facilities deficit for the performing arts in Penticton (the theory goes) we can somehow compel senior levels of government to step in with most of the money for a new venue.

This is clearly a controversial gamble so its adherents seem reluctant to acknowledge their theory in public. Instead, they rely on a collection of surrogate arguments in an attempt to cast demolition of the two Pen-Hi buildings as the only fiscally responsible course of action. The problem is that these surrogate arguments are so clearly bogus. Take for example Mayor Kimberley’s recent assertion that it would be financially irresponsible for the city to spend up to $230,000 per year to operate the Pen-Hi auditorium (and gym) given that the auditorium averages only 37 events per year. This argument has at least two flaws. The first—which must have proponents a new $30M facility squirming—is that a new performing arts facility will also incur operating costs but will require an additional $8.5M of local taxpayers’ money to build. To state the obvious, this is a lot of money for 37 performances per year. How can the mayor describe himself as the champion of hard-nosed fiscal responsibility (in the face of irrational sentimentality) when the total cost of saving the two Pen-Hi buildings does not even amount to a year’s interest on the total cost of his preferred alternative? A more troubling problem is that the operating cost estimate used by the mayor includes the salary of a full-time coordinator for the performing arts. It is clear, however, that the city intends to staff this coordinator position regardless of what happens to the Pen-Hi buildings. In other words, the cost of the coordinator is irrelevant to the decision at hand and only serves to artificially inflate the operating cost estimate of the Pen-Hi gym and the auditorium. This is not kosher.

If you take a look at the SONG website (http://saveournorthgym.blogspot.com), you will see that some members of the community (myself among them) have spent time collecting information, looking at the numbers, and attempting to refute the steady stream misinformation, red herrings, and inconsistent logic from local leaders on this issue. We continue in our efforts because we believe the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium represent an unprecedented opportunity for the city to acquire valuable assets at a bargain price. Moreover, we are confident that we represent the majority view. The city’s own survey showed that most respondents (60%) were in favor of the city acquiring the buildings for community use.

Unfortunately, SONG has made little headway with local decision makers because the ruling clique never really cared much about the facts and details. Instead, they seem to be fully committed to their beguiling but seldom-articulated theory. This creates problems for SONG, which is, and always has been, firmly in favor of a new performing arts facility. We recognize that senior levels of government—who are essential sources of funding for the new facility—might tell Penticton to make do with what we have if the Pen-Hi auditorium remains standing. On the other hand, we point to the risk of being too clever by half—of destroying two valuable community resources in the name of an unproven theory. Many of us believe that the risk of being left empty handed outweighs the speculative benefits of gambling. After all, we would have been crazy to knock down Memorial Arena in 2003 when we still had no funding in place for a new (at that time) $30M events centre. More tellingly, we would be crazy to knock Memorial Arena down now, even though funding for the events centre is in place and the old building is architecturally unappealing. But perhaps as mere spectators on the outside of the political machine, we are in no position to question our elected leaders on such matters of fine strategic judgment.

The recent statement by all living ex-mayors of Penticton (save the sitting mayor, of course) changes all this. A formidable group of political veterans has delivered an unambiguous and unanimous verdict on our current leadership’s pet theory. They recommend that funding be secured for the new performing arts facility before any consideration be given to flattening our only large auditorium (and, as collateral damage, a much-needed gymnasium) to make room for a school parking lot. This is a welcome infusion of high-octane common sense into an issue that has become needlessly murky and muddled. Recipients of the ex-mayors’ rebuke are certainly free to dig in their heels, cling to their pet theory, and dismiss the collective expertise of the group as sentimental, negative, impractical, or (most absurdly) uninformed. But an unwillingness to even consider the recommendations of such a group says much about our current leadership’s willingness to place reckless bets.

The Western: Mayors facing an uphill battle

The following editorial appeared in the Western News on July 6th, 2007:

It is hard to downplay the political optics of seeing six former mayors unite in criticizing council’s refusal to assume ownership of two school buildings scheduled for demolition.

Al Kenyon, Ivan Messmer, Dorothy Tinning, Beth Campbell, Mike Pearce and David Perry do not necessarily share similar backgrounds and views. But they have all sat in the chair now occupied by Mayor Jake Kimberley and that grants their views a certain gravity.

So people pay attention when these elder statespeople issue a joint statement opposing the destruction of the Penticton Secondary School auditorium and the north gym without replacements in place.

Whether this “desperate” appeal in the words of Campbell will save the buildings from the wrecking ball is uncertain. The odds appear to be against it.

Only two current councillors, Dan Ashton and John Vassilaki, opposed the city’s refusal to assume ownership of the two buildings and even their opposition was not unanimous. Local school board officials and the provincial government have also made it clear they are not interested in saving the facilities.

This has left the city as the only government agency capable of saving the facilities and we already know how it feels. So supporters of saving the facilities face a difficult task in translating public sentiment into political leverage.

Kimberley is certainly saying the right things in acknowledging the emotional aspect of the current debate, while trying to deflate it with a whole host of facts and figures that justify the direction of the city as it moves forward with plans for a new performing arts facility. Everybody generally agrees that the city needs such a facility.

Sorry, but I can't let this part slide: Where does this emotional/sentimental/nostalgic stuff come from? SONG's argument is at its core an economic and social argument.

But the critics say the city cannot afford do without the auditorium until it has built that new facility. And if recreational groups are clamouring for more space after the loss of Nanaimo Hall, why tear down a functional gym?

But these arguments are still looking for new converts. The city has so far dominated the commanding heights of this issue. But Thursday’s political rally has left us with the distinct and teasing impression that some among this Group of Six still carry dry powder.