Message-ID: <4367470.1075855867167.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:21:00 -0800 (PST)
From: cassandra.schultz@enron.com
To: sally.beck@enron.com
Subject: Metals Doorstep
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Cassandra Schultz
X-To: Sally Beck
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sally_Beck_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Doorstep
X-Origin: Beck-S
X-FileName: sbeck.nsf

---------------------- Forwarded by Cassandra Schultz/NA/Enron on 11/08/2000 
06:18 PM ---------------------------
   


From:  David Port                                                             
11/08/2000 05:14 PM	
	
	
	                           
	

To: Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Cassandra Schultz/NA/Enron@Enron, Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: Doorstep meeting  

Shona

How odd ? I came away with the impression that:

we would look at the outgoing commercial instructions to see whether they 
support the activity of the guys in Chicago with phones in their hands, and 
are in themselves wholly appropriate;
we would address the issue of not having taped lines;
we would address the issue of segregation of duties in the office, other than 
in Powerpoint
we would get to the bottom of the difference between the AS400 and "Local 
Access Database"
we would see a business model that defines how the office functions as an 
"origination only" office
we would see a revised timeline for the resolution of the other issues in the 
review

DP




   
	
	
	From:  Shona Wilson                           11/08/2000 04:37 PM
	

To: David Port/Market Risk/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Cassandra Schultz/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: Doorstep meeting


---------------------- Forwarded by Shona Wilson/NA/Enron on 11/08/2000 04:41 
PM ---------------------------


Mike Jordan@ECT
11/07/2000 06:45 AM
To: Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fernley Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT, Marcelo 
Parra/NYC/MGUSA@MGUSA, Tim Poullain-Patterson/LON/ECT@ECT, Andrew 
Cornfield/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Doorstep meeting

Shona

Thanks for the meeting yesterday - I think the process does improve the 
transparency and accountability of issues raised. 

After the call I mentioned to Ted that the meetings might be 'more efficient' 
if the specific issues identified during doorstep visits - that underpin 
report comments - were validated by the direct controller on 'point' for the 
office/business - in this case Marcelo. Ted replied that no harm came from 
the current approach and to a certain degree I agree that it is good to get 
an immediate collective response to issues raised !However, I thought we 
could discuss this for future meetings ( it could be part of the 'how to do a 
doorstep review' that my guys requested so they are ready to do their 
individual reviews next year ) -will call later

Additionally, I thought I would confirm with you the actions I took down 

Marcelo and yourself to identify/communciate the specific control concerns 
identified that were not part of the core tasks transfered
Marcelo to add these to existing process efficiencies ( such as systems 
improvements etc ) and give a full timeline for all 'doorstep' issues
Tim to send details of outward bound Commercial instructions and to validate 
that no specfic exceptions have been recorded to date. 
Marcelo to validate that no existing business activities conflict 
systematically with the above instructions
All to prepare for full NY review so as to validate compensating controls 
exist and function in NY
Marcelo / Me to identify if any cultural issues are left from recent business 
communications on roles and responsibilities
Myself to ensure that doorstep issues are included within database and 
monitoring process ( on timelines ) happens

Will call later

Mike