Here is another opinion to support my earlier thoughts.  Michelle


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------

Michelle Cash
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3823
Houston, Texas  77002
(713) 853-6401
michelle.cash@enron.com

This message may contain confidential information that is protected by the 
attorney-client and/or work product privileges.
----- Forwarded by Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT on 06/28/2000 09:03 AM -----

	Sharon Butcher@ENRON
	06/27/2000 08:23 PM
		
		 To: Kriste Sullivan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: CALME JV & Consultants

Dear Michelle:  I agree with you and Kriste.  I thought we put this issue to 
bed several years ago.  Consultants and Contractors are to be reviewed, if at 
all, by their respective employers.  If the Consultant and/or Contractor is 
not an employee of a third party employer, then Enron has the right to 
determine if they are meeting the terms and provisions of their contract.  
However, this does not mean they are to be included in the PEP and PRC 
process. 

To include them opens too many doors with respect to the proper 
classification of these individuals.  If we treat them like employees, we may 
find that a court determines they should be employees and thus eligible for 
all employee benefits, a la MicroSoft.  

Thanks.  Sharon


06/27/2000 02:33 PM
Kriste Sullivan
Kriste Sullivan
Kriste Sullivan
06/27/2000 02:33 PM
06/27/2000 02:33 PM
To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kathryn 
McLean/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sharon Butcher/Corp/Enron@Enron 
Subject: Re: CALME JV & Consultants  

I agree with your recommendation Michelle that consultants and contractors 
should not participate in the PRC or the PEP process.  If  you treat 
consultants and contractors like "employees", they will soon become them in 
the eyes of the law, along with all of the costs, bonuses, and benefits.


Kriste K. Sullivan
Enron Corp. Legal
1400 Smith, EB 4861
Houston, TX  77002
(713) 853-7557
(713) 646-5847 Fax
KSulliv@Enron.com


This message may contain confidential information that is protected by the 
attorney-client and/or work product privileges.



	Michelle Cash@ECT
	06/27/2000 01:03 PM
		
		 To: Kathryn McLean/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Sharon 
Butcher/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kriste Sullivan/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject: Re: CALME JV & Consultants

Privileged and Confidential -- Advice Covered by the Attorney-Client Privilege

K2: 

I have copied this email to Sharon & Kriste, who are supporting the CALME 
region.  My recommendation is to exclude contractors/consultants because 
their inclusion would increase the risk that they would be deemed to be 
employees, and that a court could determine that they are owed employee 
compensation and benefits (a la Microsoft).  This exposure could be high.  
Depending on the other indicators of independent contractor status, rating 
them along side our employees could be a factor to tilt the balance.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Michelle

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------

Michelle Cash
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3823
Houston, Texas  77002
(713) 853-6401
michelle.cash@enron.com

This message may contain confidential information that is protected by the 
attorney-client and/or work product privileges.



	Kathryn McLean
	06/27/2000 10:01 AM
		 
		 To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: CALME JV & Consultants

Hi Michelle, 

Please see my note below regarding including JV employees and Consultants in 
our PEP system and the PRC. Could you please give us more expert legal advice 
(from my own : - )!!) in relation to this? We want to ensure that we cover 
ourselves.

Thanks, K2.
---------------------- Forwarded by Kathryn McLean/HOU/ECT on 06/27/2000 
09:51 AM ---------------------------

	Kathryn McLean
	06/26/2000 09:12 AM
	
To: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Janie 
Bonnard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Chris 
Cockrell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Monica Cale/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: CALME JV & Consultants


	

David, 

I've been forwarded a voicemail on Friday from David Haug where he has 
requested that we include CALME's JV employees and Consultants who are at the 
VP level. (He knows that they should not be pulled into the VP meeting).  
Monica and I initially pushed back on this due to the requirement that only 
AIP employees are involved in our mid year process, however, due to David's 
instance I'm reverting to you for a decision. 

Although I do not have a strong opinion on including the JV's - my concern is 
primarily with the Consultants.

Below are my concerns in accommodating this request:-

- The PEP system has officially told employees that the feedback stage has 
finished. Although the system is still open we are going to turn off the 
system message requesting reviewers to access PEP to review employee.  In 
this instance, there would need to be an effort within Janie's team to 
communicate to all reviewers of the JV's that they are required to give 
feedback.

- The way PEP is set up, we would need to load the consultants as employees 
in order to generate the 360 feedback functionality. Due to US law on how to 
describe employees/non employees in a database, this comes with legality 
issues and I want us to be aware of what we're doing regarding this.

Call me to discuss or if you wish for me to forward the voicemail, 

K2