On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 08:25:44PM -0700, Sue French wrote:
> > I can't shed any light myself. Could you call MPW about it? -jeb
>
> I'd be glad to give them a call, but I'd feel a bit more competent if I
> had the information that they're likely to ask for -- ie, an invoice
> number... a membership ID, if we have one...hard copy of the invoice...
Yeah, MPW likes you to have the account # ready when calling. (It's
#7472 and listed on the MountainPeoplesFax page.) The invoice # is at
the top of the MPW-Reno-4-27-2001 page... GD552-004. Of course, this
info could be organized better, perhaps by listing it all in one place
either on the MountainPeoplesWarehouse, or OrderArchives pages.
(Please feel free to make changes to the site anytime...)
> I'll be interested in seeing how receptive they are to a call from an
> individual member of a co-op organization. From their perspective, I
> think it might be something of a nuisance.
You could just tell them that you're doing some accounting work for
Art Dogs, (and ran across some problems in their previous invoice).
This is fully accurate, and from their perspective you are just a
representative of that account... (I know Karinn had no trouble
calling them about the missing and incorrect items previously.)
> Beyond that, I also notice that any requests for adjustments are to
> be made within 48 hours of delivery.
Yeah, this is interesting. Still, I think we can expect an adjustment
for their mistakes, especially since we're a new account and didn't
expect their prices to be so far off those published. (Either that,
or a good explanation on their part.)
> If we are to be responsible for catching errors in our own portion of
> the order, I think we then need to have access to the invoice right
> after delivery.
I agree. The 'info' link on the MPW-Reno-4-27-2001 shows that it was
created on May 7, 2001. It took me a little longer than expected to
put it in a spreadsheet and publish it, but this next one should be
right away. (Of course, I just thought of making people responsible
for reconciling their own orders yesterday ;-) Previously, I assumed
one person would have to do it, and the tedium kept me from doing it.
> As I mentioned in my e-mail to Jeb, I do not want to have Leigh take the
> brunt of this $$$-wise. I would rather make good on the (my) difference
> than see that happen. Right now, paying an extra seven dollars or so
> doesn't mean that we don't eat. There have been times when we were
> still in school, though, that it would have meant just that, and that
> may hold true for others in the group. I would propose that the general
> (5%) fund be considered for use in that case.
Actually, Leigh *was* paid the correct amount (as shown in the
spreadsheet), and the buying club fund did cover it temporarily.
Also, if Mountain Peoples' mistakes cause serious financial strain on
anyone, they are free to request that the buying club fund cover those
permanently. However, consensus of the active membership is needed
for any use of buying club funds, so I would expect some debate...
(Does that sound fair?)
Thanks,
-jeb
