QUESTION: Last night our main 'Server' failed, and we have been working since to restore service. It looks like we lost NO data For the time, you cannot get to your H:, P:, W:, R: (Local Drives) I have no ETA. You will have trouble starting some programs. Terminal Server is UNAFFECTED: Houston Based Data is UNAFFECTED: I will follow up with more news / details later Victor and Paul are available to help get you with anything we can. Thank you for your patience
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Portland Computer Problems
Charlene: Outlined below are the points I promised to send you before our meeting on Wednesday morning. I don't know your agenda for the meeting, so it may or may not be appropriate to discuss all of these items tomorrow. Background: As a long-time supporter of the analyst program, I became concerned over the last several months as frustration emerged from other supporters of the program. Many of those expressing frustration are heavily involved in the recruiting process. It is their commitment to both recruiting and providing analyst rotations that has been key in attracting talented candidates to what has been the Merchant Services Analyst Program. I initiated a meeting, announced at Rick Causey's staff meeting, that would bring us together so that we could consolidate our concerns and then discuss them with you in a constructive manner. Our intent is continued support and improvement of the program. The meeting took place on March 28 and included the following: Brenda Herod ENA - Energy Operations Executive Lead - LSU Brent Price ENA - Energy Operations Executive Lead - UT Jeff Sommers CALME Executive Lead - Univsersity of Florida Ed Coats Corp. Tax Core Team Member - UT, A&M, LSU and University of Florida Sally Beck ENA - Energy Operations Executive Lead - UT and OU Carolyn Barrett EBS Howard Selzer Enron Global E&P Summary of Concerns and Discussion Points: One program, or two: Prior to campus recruiting in the fall 1999, an announcement was made that there would be one analyst program. Not much materialized from that point to clarify what that meant or how that would be managed. In fact, those of us involved heavily in the recruiting process saw that the MSAP and the Commercial Anlayst programs were managed separately and differently in terms of campus recruiting, rotations and orientation. We feel uninformed and therefore are hampered in discussing the analyst program on campus. SIngle start date: The single start date of July 17 for analysts is impractical and inflexible; a concern from our points of view for an innovative company. The July start date does not consider December graduates and is not necessarily practical for undergrads whose graduation dates are in May. Lack of communication: We are some of the most involved and committed senior managers in the MSAP, and yet we have received little information or communication about the program. We hear rumors of "tracks", but no facts or details. Some of us had heard about the single July start date, and some had not. Commercial focus too heavy: Presentation materials, the attitudes of support staff in the Associates/Analysts Program and interview processes are heavily focused on commercial needs, without understanding support needs. Lack of input from biggest supporters: Given the time and effort that many of us put into the MSAP, we are concerned that we haven't been asked to join with you in some of your plans for the program. We are concerned that decisions (example: the single start date) are being considered in a vacuum without what could be some valuable input from some of us. MSAP has taken a step backward: Previously, with a dedicated leadership team and staff, the MSAP had made great strides in the consistency of our on campus efforts, the quality of candidates, the acceptance rate of top candidates and the pride of participants in the program. We feel that the focus on the MSAP has diminished considerably over the last nine months, and we are anxious to work with you to renew excitment for the program. Summary Concerns/Discussion Points: Disc
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Discussion Points for Meeting on Analyst Program
Aurora, my changes appear on the attached. I assume you or AA have updated the numbers for eligible transition costs (second paragraph of section 7). (If you have not, I'm really not sure who would have those numbers) I updated the numbers for environmental costs in the footnotes. Please call (x30596) if you have any questions.
Answer: Browncover notes
Here is an email: Today was the final ENA PRC. Relative ranking results up through the Senior Director level are final. You and your management team can begin the process of giving performance reviews to your employees. I spoke with Sheila Walton today to inquire about an expected time frame for completing and conducting the employee reviews. She indicated that the target completion date should be the end of July. Promotions will be effective August 1st. It is Dave Delainey's intent to announce ENA promotions sometime after he returns from vacation on July 24. This drives the end of July target completion date for reviews. I do not yet know if Delainey wants all ENA promotions to be announced in a single memo, or if each group within ENA will prepare such a memo. I will keep you updated on this as I get direction from him. Please note the following change since our Energy Operations PRC in June. In order to place focus on the qualitative feedback during this mid-year review process, we will not share performance clusters with employees when conducting their reviews. It is very important for all of us to be consistent in this process, so please communicate this to all in your groups who will be giving performance reviews. It is important to note, however, that the content of an employee's review should be consistent with our view of that employee's relative ranking. In other words, an employee in the Satisfactory category should not be given a review that simply states that the employee is doing a great job. Clearly, a large number of employees performed at a higher level than those employees in the Satisfactory category, so the feedback to that employee should include some specific areas of improvement needed in order for the employee to make a stronger impact in the organization, help you achieve the groups goals, etc. Also please note the following: Performance reviews for anyone in the Satisfactory, Needs Improvement or Issues categories must be reviewed by HR prior to these reviews being given to the employees. This will ensure that our feedback is commensurate with the relative performance of that employee. (This has been the stated process for the bottom two categories, and we are adding Satisfactory to this process as well.) Please remember to include a more experienced member of your management team, yourself, or an HR professional in reviews being conducted by inexperienced members of your management team, or those management team members where you have a concern over their ability or willingness to deliver candid and perhaps tough performance feedback. I believe that we have spent some time in identifying these situations. I ask your help to ensure that we follow through on this commitment. Thanks for all of your efforts in making this mid-year PRC process a meaningful one. It is Dave Delainey's intent to announce It if 0
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Update on PRC Process
Here is an email: I believe that the Crestar deal is almost finalized. According to my records, Transaction Number NV8176/370753 was partially documeted with a GTC confirm (2000-087crfm.doc attached) dated January 4, 2001. This covers a firm sale of 21,100 MMBtu by Crestar to ENA for the period November 1, 2000 through October 31, 2001. The remainder of Transaction Number NV8176/370753 has been documented with two GTC confirms (2001-023crfm.doc and 2001-023acrfm.doc also attached) dated March 22, 2001 (Revised). 2001-023crfm covers the firm sale of 0 - 8,260 MMBtu per day for the period November 1, 2000 through October 31, 2001 and 2001-023acrfm covers the firm sale of 0 -11,740 MMBtu per day, also for the period November 1, 2000 through
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
Crestar documents and partial assignment to BP