Message-ID: <25702427.1075851016604.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 02:12:00 -0800 (PST)
From: steven.kean@enron.com
To: cindy.olson@enron.com
Subject: Re:
Cc: gina.corteselli@enron.com, david.oxley@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: gina.corteselli@enron.com, david.oxley@enron.com
X-From: Steven J Kean
X-To: Cindy Olson
X-cc: Gina Corteselli, David Oxley
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_Oct2001_2\Notes Folders\Attachments
X-Origin: KEAN-S
X-FileName: skean.nsf

I have been trying to hook up with Kevin and will see him tomorrow.  I still 
prefer to use the "old exec committee plus" for this PRC with a reformed MD 
PRC starting at mid year.  We have too many people in transition to just 
switch over to the policy committee at this stage.



	Cindy Olson
	12/04/2000 09:10 AM
		 
		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re:

Steve, my preference is the first option however I can live with either 
really.......we just need to make a decision ......what do you think??????
---------------------- Forwarded by Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron on 12/04/2000 
09:00 AM ---------------------------


David Oxley@ECT
12/04/2000 08:29 AM
To: Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Andrea Yowman/Corp/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re:

How can we resolve today if possible?
---------------------- Forwarded by David Oxley/HOU/ECT on 12/04/2000 08:28 
AM ---------------------------


Kevin Hannon@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS on 12/02/2000 10:12:58 AM
To: Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Steven J 
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron 
Subject: Re:   

You know my opinion, I vote for option #2.

Kevin




	Gina Corteselli@ENRON
	11/30/00 07:19 PM
		 
		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Kevin Hannon/Enron Communications@Enron 
Communications, Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: 

Following discussions with Steve and Kevin yesterday, we're providing some 
options for the conduct of final PRC reviews  for the Enron VP's and MD's.  
Please let us know which of these options (or a derivative therein) you'd 
prefer.  

For continuity through the year-end process, we might consider having the 
existing MD VP PRC Committee review the VP slate; and  the former EC and two 
newly appointed EC members  who are also VP PRC Committee, (John  Lavorato 
and Jeff Shankman were suggested), ratify the VP slate and review the 
MD's.    The newly appointed EC members who are MD level will remain in the 
"Not Rated" category, so that Jeff and John may participate in the overall 
discussion and depart before discussions relative to them and their EC 
colleagues.      

Alternatively, we might disband the existing MD VP PRC Committee in favor of 
having the newly appointed EC  (13  of whom are MD VP PRC) review the VP 
slate.  Thereafter, the Enron Corporate Policy Committee would be responsible 
for ratifying these results and for reviewing the MD's slate.  Insofar as the 
Policy Committee might require further  information on individual MD's, 
selected EC members could be invited for an appropriate period of time to 
provide the necessary details.   

If we opt to disband the existing MD VP PRC we'd need to notify those members 
who aren't part of the new EC that their services are no longer required.  In 
so much as some of these people are currently assigned to, and attending, BU 
and functional pre-rankings clearly the sooner we are able to do this, the 
better.

Your immediate attention to this issue would be greatly appreciated, since we 
are eager to begin the year-end VP/MD PRC planning process.  Thanks in 
advance,

Gina Corteselli