Q: Howdy all! We currently have an opening in the Real Time Trading Group reporting to Bill Williams III. If you have any questions about this position, please see Bill at the Real Time Desk. A list of responsibilities and candidate requirements can be found below. If you would like to be considered for this position, please contact Julie Kearney (x7404) or Grace Rodriguez (x8321) by close of business on Friday, October 19th, 2001. Regards,
Propose a subject line
A: Position Opening: Real Time Trading Opportunity
IN: Curricular Review Task Force (CRTF) Report # 9 (October 1, 2001) The Curriculum Review Task Force held its first meeting for the academic year on August 23, 2001. We reviewed the work done last May to tie up loose ends and to plan the work for the year. During the intensive work sessions in the last week of May, the eight faculty members of the Task Force (including the Chair) had made detailed presentations to our group on eight topics related to the Curriculum Review (Please see my last report for details). It was decided that these members would write a summary of their presentations, including their cited references, and circulate them to the other members of the Task Force. After reviewing these summaries, and remembering the strategic curricular initiatives collectively decided on by our faculty and staff during the Purser-Gans Conference, each Task Force member was asked to come up with five Educational Goals which would guide our future work. Meanwhile, it had been decided in consultation with the Faculty Senate that the Fall Faculty/Staff Conference would focus on the Curricular Review. The Task Force had decided last May that the first two curricular initiatives to be considered are (1) Reinvestment in Pedagogy and (2) Communication Across the Curriculum. These two topics became the key themes for the Faculty/Staff Conference. The Task Force met with the Conference Planning Group on August 20 and it was agreed that the small group discussions will be led by seven Task Force members. The Faculty Conference held on August 23 was very productive in providing valuable input for the work of the Task Force. In a general sense the Conference gave a vote of confidence for the work and approach of the CRTF. We have taken detailed notes of the discussions in the small groups and the plenary session. On September 12th and 19th, the Task Force held intensive work sessions in the Boone House from 5:30 to 9:00 p.m. Each member, as agreed earlier, brought a list of five Educational Goals and after a lengthy discussion we have arrived at six educational goals and a list of operational ends for each of them. These goals focus on the competencies to be developed by our students and the learning outcomes of our academic program. After these are finalized, we will arrange an open meeting to discuss them with our faculty. On September 24, the Task Force met with the Assessment Committee and Dr. Susan Holm, Chair of the MFL department. The Assessment Committee discussed with us its plans and the list of eight Assessment Review Questions prepared by the Committee. Dr. Holm discussed the role of foreign language learning in the liberal arts education, the recent changes in MFL majors/minors/concentration and her department=s plans for further changes. The details of these discussions will be available in our minutes which will be posted in the public folders later this week. To access this folder, please go to Public Folders, All Public Folders, Documents, College, Curricular Review Task Force. We are planning to meet with other departments in the near future. Thanks. Raj Ambrose, Chair Curriculum Review Task Force.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Curricular Review Task Force Report #9
IN: This is an email
I just wanted to give you an up date on the review with Heather. My primary= focus with her was taking on to much responsibility and not focusing enoug= h on the end results of her project such as Renewables. She just needs to s= pend more time ensuring that the numbers being reported are correct and acc= urate the first time, not after it goes into production. There had also bee= n a complaint from Fran that Heather is not involved enough with the daily = routines and may be taking the group for granted when it comes to the day t= o day work. Heather agreed with that but the problem that she faces is that= Nick, Fran and Sam use that inter messaging system to communicate instead = of verbally and as a result Heather is left out. I was thinking of telling = everyone that there should be no use of the messaging system for business r= elated issues within our group and also implementing the assigning of respo= nsibilities to people for a couple of weeks then rotating it around. That w= ay nobody can say somebody else is not helping enough. All in all it went w= ell otherwise. She is was very receptive to my concerns and readily admitte= d to areas of improvement. Couple of other things that I got from the meetings that might help the gro= up. The first is an informational meeting with settlements and maybe accoun= ting to understand what they do with the reports that we send each month an= d secondly, another meeting (hopefully better) regarding VaR and how the re= ports that we produce are used.

What is the subject?

OUT: Final Review
QUESTION: Folks: Here's a catalogue of issues that Sue, Mona and I put together using Paul's outline as a guide. Just a start (but a pretty good one), with lots more to do, but it should provide a solid platform to get the strategy completed in short order. Best,
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Strategy
For 11/25: Cypress cut of 2154 .0721= $155.30 Dom. Retail cut of 2750 $198.28 Tiger cut of 175 $12.62 VPEM cut of 875 $63.09 $429.29 For 11/26: Cypress cut of 1732 .0721= $124.88 +$155.30 Dom. Retail cut of 2750 $198.28 +$198.28 Tiger cut of 175 $12.62 +$12.62 VPEM cut of 875 $63.09 + $63.09 $398.87 + $429.29 = $828.16 For 11/27: Cypress Park 3886 .0721= $280.18 Dom. Retail 5500 $396.55 Tiger 350 $25.24 VPEM 1750 $126.18 $828.15 Joann
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: CUT VOLUMES @ VNG CITYGATE
I have gotten a call from Roger Mock, CEO of American Public Energy Agency, regarding a series of transactions. In 1999 we (ENA through Enron Natural Gas Marketing Corp.) entered into a 12-year prepay. We got approximately $297MM in cash up front, with delivery obligations at various delivery points, including NNG-Demarc, Rockies, TW-SJ, NIT, Topock and Sumas over the life of the deal. Currently the end users are Clark Public Utility District (Washington State), City of Glendale (California), City of Pasadena Water and Power Department (California), and Sacramento Municipal Utility District (California). It is my understanding that ENGMC is not currently in bankruptcy. I am sending down to Mike's attention a CD with the project documents on it. I apologize in advance for the absence of a table of contents, but I felt lucky just to get the information. Teresa Bushman may have a hard copy of the documents.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
APEA Gas Prepay Transaction