Subject: Re: Trading Support Operations - London
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:49:00 -0800 (PST)

I agree fully with the last sentence.  E mail is not an appropriate forum to 
discuss an issue like this.  This may be somewhat moot given Fernley's latest 
e mail but I believe this warrants direct communication.  Fernley, I would 
suggest you set up a discussion that would include this group and may grow to 
include AA at some point to get their perspective directly.  As I have 
indicated before, I believe Barry is a valuable asset but may need some more 
managing.

Ted Murphy@ECT
02/09/2000 12:32 PM
To: Fernley Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Rick Buy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard 
Causey/Corp/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Trading Support Operations - London  

Fernley,
On January 25, 1999, I had breakfast in London with a shaking Richard Sage 
who recounted the tail of Barry threatening his bonus and employment for 
doing exactly what Jeff Skilling told him to do in the previous November.  
Subsequently, Richard was "moved" from his position and Barry promoted.   If 
that is dealing with the situation, this actually reflects on your 
credibility.  If you think that an open communication, independent back 
office message was sent to the back and middle office in Houston and London 
by virtue of your promotion of Barry twice in 12 months, then you are sorely 
mistaken. 
On February 2, 2000 the Arthur Andersen team, including Tom Bauer, John 
Sorrells and Jim Brown stated that Barry was an issue in satisfactorily 
completing the Audit tasks from London.
I am not sure what we are attempting to accomplish here.  You have dismissed 
my "advice" and you need to do what you need to do.
If the goal is to get me to change my view, you have a big hole to dig out 
of.  I obviously can't change your point of view.  I still feel a 
responsiblity to express the views that I have and others are afraid to 
surface. It is the inability for people to be heard and feel that they will 
be supported when they step out on a limb that caused us to lose more money 
trading than we ever have from a little office in the middle of nowhere.
Need I go on.

Let us stop the e-mail wars now.  They serve no productive purpose.
Ted

Fernley Dyson
02/09/2000 04:56 AM
To: Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Rick Buy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard 
Causey/Corp/Enron@ENRON 
Subject: Re: Trading Support Operations - London  

Ted,

We have had discussions about Barry in the past and I have followed-up on 
specific instances you have mentioned - I believe they date back to 1998 and 
prior to my first hand experience of working with Barry throughout 1999, and 
the people who raised concerns then acknowledge that the environment has 
changed since then. We are not so Barry-dependent. We have a team of quality 
risk management professionals as evidenced by the fact that it is the primary 
recruiting ground for the RAC team (David Port, Oliver Gaylard). 

Barry's role is much less hands-on now and he is not our candidate for the 
Global Products position - this will continue to be Kevin Sweeney. The role I 
suggest for Barry is the high level co-ordination of the operations team - 
his energy, enthusiasm and ability to execute on a plan, combined with his 
considerable institutional knowledge, making a superior candidate difficult 
to find. Frankly, I suggested Steve Young not for additional depth, but to 
address the relationship issue that clearly exists - I do not belittle this 
issue, and while I don't think that anyone can point to any "prosecutable" 
offences that Barry may have committed in recent history, his management 
style doesn't help to promote the view that he is totally impartial and 
objective. I will say that he has always been open and frank (very frank) 
with me - indeed if Mally and Sweeney had been as open we may have had a 
different story to tell on Helsinki.

As an aside, I have not been involved in or consulted on the 'World Tour', 
although I know that Barry suggested this sort of thing to Sally a few weeks 
back. I think it is great that Brent Price is involved, but we would be happy 
to contribute staff to this too.

Regards

Fernley

To: Fernley Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Rick Buy, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: Trading Support Operations - London  

Fernley,
As we discussed earlier this year, I have serious concerns about Barry that I 
think are both well-founded and reasonably well documented.  To be fair, I 
will say that since Q1 of last year, I have not seen any FURTHER 
"prosecutable" offenses and he has made some attempts at being more 
communicative.  However, I am clearly unwilling to stake my career on his 
transformation, particulary with as influential person as John Sherriff in 
charge of the office.  Probably more to the point,
it continues to concern me that London has not developed an operations team 
that is not so Barry-dependent.  Evidence to this effect are, the fact that 
he is your only candidate for the Global Products position, that someone from 
Houston has to be part of the "World Tour"  in Europe (Brent Price), that 
your candidates  for a senior interim operations head in Helsinki was David 
Port or Richard Sage, and that your suggestion for additional depth is Steve 
Young.

Further for the record, I believe that I am not the only one with whom Barry 
has a credibility issue - Arthur Andersen, other Global Products personnell, 
and other risk people in London have expressed similar concerns to me - I 
just happen to be the most vocal.
Ted

Fernley Dyson
02/08/2000 04:07 PM
To: Richard Causey/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Rick Buy/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Sherriff/LON/ECT@ECT, Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, 
Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Trading Support Operations - London

Rick,

Not wishing to delay the comprehensive review of our trading support 
function, particularly as it relates to our Global Products business, we 
already have Barry Pearce taking a lead in this area.

The issue of concern is whether this should be an interim measure or a more 
permanent solution.  Well - nothing is permanent in Enron and I think Barry 
understands this as well as anybody. If we had a more suitable candidate, we 
would give him/her the job. 

I have seen Barry develop and mature over the last 12 months along with the 
team that we have built around him. I'm convinced that he can add significant 
value by drawing the Global Products support functions 'in to the fold'. 
However, he clearly has a credibility issue with Ted in particular and, 
whilst I do not share Ted's views, I do not hold Barry out as a saint and I 
can see recurring problems if such a key relationship is not well grounded.

I suggest that we continue to search for a candidate - known and trusted 
within Houston, who can instill confidence there. Steve Young (head of RAC in 
London) may be an interesting option, although I'm sure he would not be easy 
to replace. In the meantime we need Barry to take things forward and I will 
be monitoring the situation very closely.

Regards

Fernley.