|
|
Enron Mail |
I couldn't agree with you more. Mike missed the point of our phone call this
week. It was not to discuss the fine points of doorstep process or etiquette! The point was ownership of an integration process and deadlines that were missed. And how telling that when asked bluntly about his comfort level with controls for US operations that Mike's response was a deferral to Marcelo. I have a one-hour conference call set up with Mike tomorrow. This is one of the things that we will discuss. --Sally ---------------------- Forwarded by Sally Beck/HOU/ECT on 11/09/2000 05:56 PM --------------------------- From: Cassandra Schultz @ ENRON 11/09/2000 02:50 PM To: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Re: Jordan's comments on Doorstep meeting From Ted... ---------------------- Forwarded by Cassandra Schultz/NA/Enron on 11/09/2000 02:47 PM --------------------------- From: Ted Murphy @ ECT 11/09/2000 05:52 AM To: Cassandra Schultz/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: Doorstep meeting Cassandra, I think Michael's issue is just one for you and Shona to worry about and try to simultaneously come up with a way to diffuse without bastardizing the process. . I continue to say the we need to maintain the theme that speed and "gut reaction" is preferable to consensus and prosecutable evidence, I feel so strongly about this that I would consider removing my team from involvement if politically correct, grammatically sound and properly researched reports that do not say anything or are stale or are full of ambiguity are the end result (see the internal audit report on Helsinki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!). I think the solution is make it clear that these reports are not to be used for prosecution but frank discussion. I am right about this. Please forward this to Shona/Sally/Mike or anyone else at your discretion (this is a compromise between Evil Ted and Zen Ted) Ted
|