Message-ID: <12306687.1075844784036.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: cheryl.nelson@enron.com
To: sheila.glover@enron.com
Subject: Re: Contractor Service Agreement
Cc: sara.shackleton@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: sara.shackleton@enron.com
X-From: Cheryl Nelson
X-To: Sheila Glover
X-cc: Sara Shackleton
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Dec2000_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Nelson
X-Origin: SHACKLETON-S
X-FileName: sshackle.nsf

Sheila, attached is a revised version of the agreement -- most of the changes 
reflect the revisions that we added to the final version of Pystech.  Two 
quick additional issues to doublecheck:

1. I assume that based on the short term of the agreement, you did not want 
to include the right to terminate the agreement at any time?  (the draft does 
not so say -- so let me know if you want to add this).

2.  The Agreement indicates that payment is $30,000 a month but the term is 
for 10 weeks or so.  So, do you want me to add a statement that this amount 
will be pro-rated?   I ASSUMED SO - SEE EDITS.  Do we mean $30,000 every 30 
days on a pro-rated basis or will he get the full sum for the "month" of 
August?

In case these are non-issues, here is the revised version.  Please review and 
let me know if it is okay and I will send an initialed version down to you.



Cheryl Nelson
Senior Counsel
EB3816
(713) 345-4693
http://gss.enron.com/



	Sheila Glover@ECT
	06/01/2001 09:18 AM
		 
		 To: Cheryl Nelson/NA/Enron@Enron, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Contractor Service Agreement


	



---------------------- Forwarded by Sheila Glover/HOU/ECT on 06/01/2001 09:15 
AM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Sheila Glover                           06/01/2001 09:15 AM
	

To: Cheryl Nelson/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Contractor Service Agreement


	


Cheryl,
Please do a legal review of this Contractor Service Contract.  The agreement 
is based on the Psytech agreement which had been previously reviewed by legal.
If possible, I would like to get this turned around today.
Thanks. Sheila