|
|
Enron Mail |
Gina,
Have we figured out what happened here? I haven't heard anything in a while. Michelle ---------------------- Forwarded by Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT on 08/23/2000 11:29 AM --------------------------- Michelle Cash 07/13/2000 11:04 AM To: Brian Schaffer/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kathryn McLean/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: Performance Review Process I agree with Brian. I recently learned that someone can "hack" into the emeet site and pretend to be Jeff Skilling (as I discussed with you, Brian, this morning). So, we probably should start with that group to see if there are any gaps in the email system. I would suggest that someone from Net Works -- Roberto DeLeon or his crew-- would be the appropriate technical support for this endeavor. I agree with Brian that the focus should be on the impersonation of the office of the chairman and not the content of the email itself. I am happy to assist in any way you would like. Michelle Brian Schaffer@ENRON 07/13/2000 10:28 AM To: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kathryn McLean/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: Performance Review Process David: I am less concerned about the substantive comments of the message as I am about the "forgery" of the ECT OTC mailbox. Unless Michelle or another opines differently, I believe it is incumbent upon us to determine who mis-used that e-mail address. This is not to say that an employee should be disciplined for raising complaints; obviously that would be retaliatory in nature. And so, if this person had simply left an anonymous voice message or old-fashioned letter with OTC, I would have no issue. But, here, this person has sent a communication ostensibly from ECT's OTC and apparently has access to do so in the future. In my mind, that activity must be addressed and ceased. I suspect that it is technologically feasible to determine the source of the message. Unless there is objection, I would recommend an investigation (which my group can do) to determine the author. Brian David Oxley@ECT 07/13/2000 09:59 AM To: Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kathryn McLean/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian Schaffer/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: Performance Review Process Can we discuss below please? Please review message and give me your comments. Given it is anonymous it's difficult to respond. David ---------------------- Forwarded by David Oxley/HOU/ECT on 07/13/2000 09:57 AM --------------------------- Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. From: Kay Chapman 07/13/2000 09:50 AM To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Frevert/NA/Enron@Enron, David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Nicki Daw/NA/Enron@Enron, Rhonna Palmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sherri Sera/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: Performance Review Process This memo went to Corp and Sherri forwarded for us to handle. Thanks, Kay Enron North America Corp. From: Sherri Sera @ ENRON 07/13/2000 09:21 AM To: Kay Chapman/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Mary Clark/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Performance Review Process Kay, per our discussion, here's the e-mail. You should probably find out who has access to that ECT Office of the Chairman mailbox and who forwarded this up to the Corp. Office of the Chairman. This should be handled with ENA. Thanks, SRS ---------------------- Forwarded by Sherri Sera/Corp/Enron on 07/13/2000 09:14 AM --------------------------- Office Chairman on 07/13/2000 08:04:17 AM To: Mary Clark/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sherri Sera/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Performance Review Process ---------------------- Forwarded by Office Chairman/Corp/Enron on 07/13/2000 08:04 AM --------------------------- Office of the Chairman@ECT 07/06/2000 10:01 AM To: Office Chairman/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Performance Review Process After having lived through another PRC process, it has become exceedingly obvious that there are several issues that need improvement in the process. With all our discussions about Communication within Enron, I am now communicating to your level issues that I have communicated in years past to other parties without change. 1) Enron needs to lay out the groundrules in total that will pertain to the upcoming review period and communicate them in advance of the review period, not during the PRC process to be applied after the performance has already occurred and upon which each employee cannot change their behavior for such review period. This is only fair to our employees so that they know the criteria upon which they will be evaluated in advance. 2) The PRC system needs to be changed whereby any and all people that are willing to provide input on performance of any individual can be done without a bunch of red tape. There is this idea that unsolicited input works within the system, but it requires too much effort to get throught the hurdles and it still requires that the supervisor approve such input. There needs to be an unobstructed communication line for this input. The theory of upward feedback should also be questioned. I have never been asked to provide input to my direct boss (President of Houston Pipe Line) in all the years that I have worked for that position. Are Managing Directors exempt from this process? This issue is also addressed in #3 below in a different manner. How can appropriate feedback be given if those that work directly with individuals are not given the opportunity to communicate? 3) There is still way too much preferrential selection of reviewers in the process. There should be set out for each employee a listing of absolute minimum reviewers (certain people) that must be solicited, depending upon the job function. I have seen too many circumstances where the obvious people to provide input were not even solicited. There was one individual that partially worked directly for another during this past review period and was not even asked for input. 4) What constitutes an average employee and what that category is within our PRC definitions is still being debated. It has been described by several HR representatives that it is either/and both Strong or Satisfactory. Neither one of the definitions describes such performance as "simply doing the job". Because of such confusion, the reviewers when they provide input do not effectively and precisely rate the employee. What we end up with in the PRC is an over-inflated representation of each employee and the committee has to pull the entire group back a notch. With better definitions and communication to our employees on how to interpret the definitions, it will give us a better process and set the standards in writing that seem to be lacking. Thanks for your listening ear.
|