FYI.    This close date is of large significance to GPG as we are going to be 
asking management to wait an extra week for monthly info that ties out to the 
financials.     This variance from what we thought was a "Common Design" is a 
huge deal, in fact the agreed upon close timing was a major consideration in 
getting agreement within GPG to go forward as it was an improvement that we 
could see had value.   I agreed to and "stacked hands" with all on the 
"Common Design", yet somehow there has been a failure to deliver the "Common 
Design".   I just want to make sure that the two of you are aware of my 
position on this issue.
 
---------------------- Forwarded by Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron on 06/21/2000 
05:15 PM ---------------------------


Michael Sullivan
06/21/2000 02:14 PM
To: Lisa Petruszka/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron@Enron 

Subject: Risk Document Information


I think Steve was planning to add my comments on impact of prolonging GPG 
close to the risk document, but  I did not see it in the document I edited 
yesterday.  To restate, it needs to be noted under org impact that GPG's 
close is going from 5 to 8+ days which is unacceptable.  We have the 
impression that there is not sufficient desire/potential across the BUs to do 
what is necessary to get it down to the committed 3 days that we all agreed 
to at the ASE.  We view this as a showstopper and will hold the  project and 
COE and our own team accountable for meeting that committment by the end of 
the year if not sooner.  It seems like we should already have a plan in place 
on how we are going to achieve that.  This was a design signoff exception too.

Also, info for risk document below.  My question below was taken from the 
risk doc and responded to for actions that have been taken..

If you can, please update for these two items before next distribution

Thanks