Subject: Discussion Points for Meeting on Analyst Program
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:40:00 -0700 (PDT)

Charlene:  Outlined below are the points I promised to send you before our 
meeting on Wednesday morning.  I don't know your agenda for the meeting, so 
it may or may not be appropriate to discuss all of these items tomorrow.  

Background:  As a long-time supporter of the analyst program, I became 
concerned over the last several months as frustration emerged from other 
supporters of the program.   Many of those expressing frustration are heavily 
involved in the recruiting process.   It is their commitment to both 
recruiting and providing analyst rotations that has been key in attracting 
talented candidates to what has been the Merchant Services Analyst Program. 

I initiated a meeting, announced at Rick Causey's staff meeting, that would 
bring us together so that we could consolidate our concerns and then discuss 
them with you in a constructive manner.  Our intent is continued support and 
improvement of the program.   The meeting took place on March 28 and included 
the following:

 Brenda Herod   ENA - Energy Operations Executive Lead - LSU

 Brent Price  ENA - Energy Operations Executive Lead - UT  

 Jeff Sommers  CALME    Executive Lead - Univsersity of Florida

 Ed Coats  Corp. Tax    Core Team Member - UT, A&M, LSU and University of 
Florida

 Sally Beck  ENA - Energy Operations Executive Lead - UT and OU

 Carolyn Barrett  EBS    

 Howard Selzer  Enron Global E&P 

Summary of Concerns and Discussion Points:

One program, or two:  Prior to campus recruiting in the fall 1999, an 
announcement  was made that there would be one analyst program.  Not much 
materialized from that point to clarify what that meant or how that would be 
managed.  In fact, those of us involved heavily in the recruiting process saw 
that the MSAP and the Commercial Anlayst programs were managed separately and 
differently in terms of campus recruiting, rotations and orientation.  We 
feel uninformed and therefore are hampered in discussing the analyst program 
on campus. 

SIngle start date:  The single start date of July 17 for analysts is 
impractical and inflexible; a concern from our points of view for an 
innovative company.  The July start date does not consider December graduates 
and is not necessarily practical for undergrads whose graduation dates are in 
May.  

Lack of communication:   We are some of the most involved and committed 
senior managers in the MSAP, and yet we have received little information or 
communication about the program.   We hear rumors of "tracks", but no facts 
or details.  Some of us had heard about the single July start date, and some 
had not.  

Commercial focus too heavy:  Presentation materials, the attitudes of support 
staff in the Associates/Analysts Program and interview processes are heavily 
focused on commercial needs, without understanding support needs.

Lack of input from biggest supporters:  Given the time and effort that many 
of us put into the MSAP, we are concerned that we haven't been asked to join 
with you in some of your plans for the program.   We are concerned that 
decisions (example:  the single start date) are being considered in a vacuum 
without what could be some valuable input from some of us.  

MSAP has taken a step backward:  Previously, with a dedicated leadership team 
and staff, the MSAP had made great strides in the consistency of our on 
campus efforts, the quality of candidates, the acceptance rate of top 
candidates and the pride of participants in the program.  We feel that the 
focus on the MSAP has diminished considerably over the last nine months, and 
we are anxious to work with you to renew excitment for the program.  

Summary Concerns/Discussion Points:

Disc