I understand now.     Thanks.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Becker, Melissa  
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 3:10 PM
To:	Hayslett, Rod
Subject:	RE: Peer Groups

At mid year, Rodney and Wes went through a fair amount of discussion about whether the transaction accounting folks should be specialized technical or commercial support.  Same for some tax jobs.  It was probably my mistake to not recognize that London's not sticking to the same categorization created a problem.  In the end I think Fernley saw the problem, too.  So if there is a "message", it's to Fernley to do what the rest of the Global Accounting group is doing (and that message is pretty explicit below, I think).

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hayslett, Rod  
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 2:57 PM
To:	Becker, Melissa
Subject:	RE: Peer Groups

I didn't realize there was a choice.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Becker, Melissa  
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 1:26 PM
To:	Hayslett, Rod
Subject:	RE: Peer Groups

Noooo....  What is your question or concern?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hayslett, Rod  
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 12:02 PM
To:	Becker, Melissa
Subject:	RE: Peer Groups

Is there some secret measage here?    

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Becker, Melissa  
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 9:18 AM
To:	Causey, Richard; Colwell, Wes; Butts, Bob; Faldyn, Rodney; Hermann, Robert; Sommer, Allan; Wasaff, George; Beck, Sally; Dyson, Fernley; Hayslett, Rod; Stubblefield, Wade
Cc:	Migliore, Todd
Subject:	Peer Groups

I don't believe that there will be any change at year end in the use of Peer Groups (Commercial, Technical, Specialized technical, Commercial Support).  Do we want to go with the same usage of these Peer Groups as we did at mid year?  The one thing I would suggest, if possible, is that London go with the same usage as the rest of the BUs.

Please let me know your opinion on this.  Thanks!