re : doorstep meeting mike ,
please find attached a status and time line of doorstep issues identified by
shona wilson and the rac group .
note that some specific implementation dates have not been provided by
responsible parties a of today . i have asked respective responsible parties
for specific dates and will update schedule attached as i receive the
information .
further note that it drives many of our critical dates . since our last
meeting we have been advised that any as 400 system changes will not be
considered top priority as the it team will focus on the off balance sheet
financing that must be in place by calendar year end . also , with the london
sap implementation pushed off until april 2001 , the credit aggregation system
will not be available until such time .
please let me know if you have nay questions or comments to the attached .
mike jordan @ ect
11 / 07 / 00 07 : 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
re : doorstep meeting
mike ,
please find attached a status and time line of doorstep issues identified by
shona wilson and the rac group .
note that some specific implementation dates have not been provided by
responsible parties a of today . i have asked respective responsible parties
for specific dates and will update schedule attached as i receive the
information .
further note that it drives many of our critical dates . since our last
meeting we have been advised that any as 400 system changes will not be
considered top priority as the it team will focus on the off balance sheet
financing that must be in place by calendar year end . also , with the london
sap implementation pushed off until april 2001 , the credit aggregation system
will not be available until such time .
please let me know if you have nay questions or comments to the attached .
mike jordan @ ect
11 / 07 / 00 07 : 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