I was disappointed,  to say the least, at the return email I received from 
you so I waited before replying so as not to react in haste. Previously I 
stuck to facts and did not bring things of a personal nature into the 
equation. I feel, however, that there are a few things you should know about 
me and how I have exemplified the ENRON VISION so you can realize why I took 
this so seriously and why am, to be blunt, ticked off at the resolution.
In the 4 years that I worked on the scheduling desk for Clinton I never 
missed a day of work.........not one.
I never took vacation during bid week or during tie out time.
Between 96 - 00 I took all but 3 days vacation between the months of May - 
October so as not to interfere with winter gas operations.
I have had nothing but above average reviews in the past 5 years,  been 
promoted twice, and received special recognition for working shorthanded 
through the winter of 99-00.
As you can see I have consistently put ENRON ahead of personal conveniences 
and strived to do the right thing for the company. I am distressed that the 
very values Enron holds me to ring hollow with regards to how I have been 
treated.
Changing vacation rules, be it legally legitimate, does not exemplify 
INTEGRITYin my eyes!
Not stating a policy change (THERE HAS STILL NEVER BEEN A FORMAL STATEMENT OF 
THIS CHANGE) does not illustrate COMMUNICATION!
Stating that I will be paid for vacation less any I take between now and the 
severance date is deceptive at the least and would not constitute RESPECT, 
EXCELLENCE nor INTEGRITY!
FACT - items 1 - 6 in the original email are 100% true. #2 is of the most 
significance as the words came from the lips of our HR representative that I 
would be paid the vacation amount we discussed UNLESS I TOOK ANY VACATION 
BETWEEN NOW AND JUNE 1st.
FACT - At least 2 people were allowed vacation time off during this 
transition (Susan Weison, Sheri Wallace)
FACT - If you check my vacation records you will find that I have taken a 
vacation EVERY YEAR IN MAY. My request was made, like in all previous years, 
a few weeks before I wanted to take it. HAD I KNOWN THAT THE RULES OF THE 
GAME WERE GOING TO BE CHANGED I WOULD HAVE MADE MY INTENTIONS KNOWN EARLIER.

In conclusion I do not expect, or even wish for a response. I have enjoyed my 
time with Clinton Energy and Enron. I have learned much and forwarded my 
career greatly and for that I am thankful. I just wanted you to know where I 
am coming from and how an unfortunate situation of severance was turned into 
one in which I leave being taught a lesson by Enron that does not make me a 
better person, just a smarter one. This lesson; a spotless record & loyalty 
to a company means very little. It is better to look out for #1. In the end 
the company you work for is going to protect their best interests regardless 
of the rhetoric in their Vision Statement. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Sean Zurbrick




Judy Gray
05/04/2001 09:33 AM
To: Sean Zurbrick/DUB/EES@EES
cc: Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kenneth Lay/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff 
Skilling/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kalen Pieper/HOU/EES@EES, Judy Gray/HOU/EES@EES, 
Ashley Kerr/HOU/EES@EES, Tim Weithman/DUB/EES@EES, Ken Brooks/DUB/EES@EES, 
Kriste Sullivan/Enron@EnronXGate 
Subject: Re: Clinton Energy Vacation Policy & Request  

Sean;

Thank you for bringing your concerns to us.  We value the input of our 
employees, and constantly seek ways to improve the quality of our employee 
benefits.  After talking to some of the parties involved in this matter and 
reviewing our vacation policy, we find that your management acted within the 
scope of its responsibility and within the bounds of our vacation policy.  In 
addition, we find no evidence of inconsistencies and believe that you and 
your co-workers at Clinton have been treated equitably and fairly regarding 
the denial of vacation during this transition period. 

In closing, we support the decision to deny vacation requests to the Clinton 
employees affected by this transition.  Should you have any other questions, 
please do not hesitate to direct them to your management



Sean Zurbrick
05/01/2001 01:41 PM
To: Kenneth Lay/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Skilling/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kalen 
Pieper/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Judy Gray/HOU/EES@EES, Ashley Kerr/HOU/EES@EES, Tim Weithman/DUB/EES@EES, 
Ken Brooks/DUB/EES@EES 
Subject: Clinton Energy Vacation Policy & Request

I have held discussions with Tim Weithman, Ashley Kerr & Ken Brooks 
(immediate supervisor) regarding a request for vacation for the 3rd or 4th 
week in May. I have been told recently by both Ms. Kerr as well as Mr. 
Weithman that those of us being severed from the company are not permitted to 
take any vacation time between now and June 1st. It would seem that there are 
several inconsistencies regarding Enron policy as well as how the subject was 
presented both to the group as well as individually. Below are the 
inconsistencies I speak of.

During the group meeting in the beginning of April there was no mention of 
"vacation freezes". The only reference to time that was mentioned was that 
you must be employed by Enron as of June 1, 2001 to receive the severance 
package.
During my private discussion, in which both Ms. Kerr and Ms. Gray were 
present, I was presented with the specifics of the severance package. I 
specifically remember being asked for my current unused vacation amount. I 
gave them the amount of 152 hours and was told that I would be reimbursed for 
that total unless, of course, I took any additional vacation. This implied 
that regular Enron vacation policies would be in effect. Again, at no time 
was it presented to me that I was ineligible to take ANY of my earned 
vacation or that there would be any deviations from normal Enron policy 
regarding vacation.
At no time has Mr. Weithman, Ms. Gray, Ms. Kerr or any other Enron agent made 
public a policy of vacation freezes.
At no time were there ever any public or private requests that the plans for 
those with previously scheduled vacations to be made available to any Enron 
agent.
I can find nothing in my severance package that states any deviation from the 
standard Enron vacation policy.
I realize that Enron policy requires vacation approval from the supervising 
employee. It states in that policy the following:
"An employee's preference for scheduling vacation should be adopted when 
possible."
"The supervisor must verify that unit staffing needs are met before approving 
an employee's vacation request."
I am currently still an Enron employee.  I have also verified that staffing 
needs are met. 

In summary, as you can see there are several inconsistencies with regards to 
the vacation policy for those being severed at Clinton Energy. It more than 
offends me that I am being prohibited from taken ANY part of the 152 hours of 
accrued vacation that is, by all accounts, mine to take. This being said, I 
am formally requesting one last time that I be granted my vacation request 
during the month of May. Furthermore I would like this approval as soon as 
possible so that I may make necessary arrangements. As you review this I am 
consulting an attorney so that I may be advised of my rights regarding this 
matter.

Thank you,

Sean Zurbrick
614-760-2792