|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks for the update, Fred. The idea of the meeting is great, and any
further views of the matter should be either expressed in that meeting or by phone, and not in e-mail to the greatest extent possible. I think Kay would agree on the need to discuss this and not write anymore. To be clear, Fred is not saying below that that the "eye-rolling" expresses his or EECC's view of the claim, but he is in fact expressing support for Kay's view of the claim. Fred is simply saying we should have a team meeting to get everyone involved on the same page so they understand the matter properly and don't send mixed signal. JWVS Fred L Kelly 02/14/2001 05:04 PM To: Ben F Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Keith Dodson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, John Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT Subject: Re: Siemens Westinghouse Points of Contractor- Generator Inspection Ben - although my role is changing inside Enron, you know I will always help you as requested/required. I am discussing this particular situation with Keith Dodson inside the newly formed EEAS - we will call you to discuss. Things I think/recommend should happen regardless: 1) Your idea of a coordination meeting is good. The combined efforts of our teams....., taking 7 months to get the generator uncrated and inspected..., is not spectacular. 2) I think that ........, in the right way........, we need to insure that if anyone asks Janet Dietrich or Delainey whether we were impeded on the Electrocities project, and......, whether we would really be willing to litigate a claim based on that..... I want to make sure our answer doesn't change. Don't take that the wrong way, but......, I believe there are people inside ENA and the old EECC that have rolled their eyes in front of Westinghouse regarding our claim for LD's. I don't think we have Westinghouse believing we were impeded (because the Enron team isn't convinced). Westinghouse's cooperation might be different if they sincerely believed that Enron was "impeded". Kay Mann's input that Enron was really impeded weighs strong on my mind (I put a lot of weight in Kay's opinions). If you could get that clarified/reinforced/defined at that level......, we can insure we are on solid ground in talking w/ Westinghouse. Kay makes a good point that it doesn't matter what "...the team believes....". I politely disagree and feel that if we convinced ourselves......., Westinghouse's cooperation might change. 3) I think that Kay (and John Schwartzenburg's team if Kay desires) should advise if any official notifications should be made to Westinghouse (e.g., we haven't really ever formally "rejected" delivery.... maybe we want to rely on the correspondance that has evolved, and...... a new letter now would weaken our case..... but....., I believe you would want Kay (and maybe John if Kay desires) to advise if any such notification could strengthen our position. ) Keith and I will call. Fred Kelly Phone 713-646-6207 Mobile 713-851-9172
|