Board Response · April 10, 2026

The Board Has Responded — and Missed the Point

Ten days after delivery of the First Member Petition, the Board has declared it invalid and announced a meeting. Here is what they said — and what it means.

The Board's response has made the Second Petition necessary.

Sign the Second Petition →

Our assessment

The Board's response is a procedural maneuver, not an answer.

The First Member Petition was delivered March 31. On April 10, the Board declared it "invalid" and announced an informational meeting for April 21 — not the Special Meeting that the Bylaws require, with the agenda we requested, the official scrutiny of leadership's decisions, and the membership's right to vote. If the Board genuinely wanted to address member concerns, nothing prevented them from incorporating those items into the April 21 meeting. They chose not to. That choice is the answer.

We are reviewing our legal options.

The Board's Email — with Our Annotations

Dear Members who forwarded a petition request for a member meeting dated 3/31/26.

We acknowledge receipt of your petition. We are committed to transparency and have always acted in complete accordance with our fiduciary and governance responsibilities in serving the membership.

1. Validity of the Petition: The Board has determined the petition is invalid. The preamble claims that suspended or disqualified members had no involvement in this effort; however, the Board is in possession of documentary evidence that contradicts this claim, making the premise of the petition factually incorrect.

Our response

The Board claims to have evidence but does not share it. A petition signed by over 170 members is declared invalid based on an assertion. The members who organized this effort are not the suspended individuals — any attempt by the Board to conflate concerned members with those who have been disciplined is itself a tactic, not an argument. We call on the Board to publish the evidence it claims to have. If it cannot, this point collapses.

2. Existing Resources: Many of the procedural and eligibility points raised in the petition are already addressed in the 2026 Elections FAQ. We encourage you to reference that document for further details on how the election was validated and certified.

Our response

The 2026 Elections FAQ is a document produced by the same leadership whose conduct is in question. Referring members to leadership's own FAQ is not transparency — it is circular. The petition exists precisely because the membership does not accept the Board's self-certification as an answer.

3. Individual Disciplinary Process: Individuals who received disciplinary notices have been provided with the specific context of their violations and have a clear, established process to address these matters further. We encourage those individuals to follow the formal process outlined in their specific notices.

Our response

The petition is not filed on behalf of the suspended individuals — it is filed by the general membership, which has an independent governance interest in knowing how its elected officers were removed and by what process. The existence of a private process for the accused does not address the membership's right to transparency about board decisions made in its name.

4. Independent Oversight: Regarding the demand for an independent reviewer, the Board already addressed this by partnering with PSIA-AASI National leadership throughout the investigation and findings process. This collaborative oversight ensured a fair, neutral, and equitable approach that was consistent with Western and National standards.

Our response

PSIA-AASI National is not an independent reviewer. It is a related entity that shares leadership, standards, and institutional interests with Western Region. One of the individuals at the center of this dispute — Neil Bussiere — holds a position on the National Board. Calling National oversight "neutral" does not make it so. We asked for independence from both Western and National leadership. That request has not been addressed.

5. Need to Address Member Concerns: Despite this disqualification, the Board recognizes that many of our members signed in good faith and genuinely seek clarity regarding recent board actions and disciplinary procedures. We want to ensure that all members have access to accurate information rather than assumptions based on misinformation.

Our response

The Board characterizes member concerns as based on "misinformation" — without identifying what information it believes to be false or providing corrections. Framing members who signed a governance petition as misinformed is not engagement. It is dismissal. We reject the premise.

6. Special Member Meeting: To address these concerns transparently, the Board has agreed to host a Special Member Meeting, which we are scheduling for April 21. This forum will serve as a dedicated space to review our governance documents, address FAQs, and provide a session for member comments. We look forward to this opportunity to speak with you directly and provide the transparency our membership deserves.

Our response — this is the critical point

The Board is calling this a "Special Member Meeting" — but has defined it as an informational session: reviewing governance documents, addressing FAQs, taking member comments. This is not the Special Meeting our Bylaws provide for. A §7.2 Special Meeting is one at which the membership votes — on resolutions, on accountability, on the future of this organization. What is being offered instead is a town hall with no votes, no resolutions, no independent review, and no binding outcome, scheduled six days before the board is seated with no time left for any corrective action. The petition asked for a meeting with a specific agenda: scrutiny of the disciplinary process, review of conflicts of interest, and a membership vote. Every one of those items is absent from what the Board has scheduled. If they had nothing to hide, those items would have been incorporated. They were not. That omission speaks for itself.

7. Meeting Invitation: Further details and a formal invitation to the meeting will be sent to the full membership shortly.

The Board remains committed to an orderly transition and will continue to share procedural information as permitted under our strict privacy policies.

Sincerely,
The PSIA-AASI Western Board of Directors

What Happens Next

We are not satisfied with this response and we are not standing down. Specifically:

We are reviewing legal options. Declaring a petition invalid without disclosing the evidence, and substituting an informational forum for a voting meeting, may not comply with the Board's obligations under the Bylaws and California nonprofit law. We are consulting legal counsel.
We will attend the April 21 meeting. We will be there, we will ask questions on the record, and we will document the proceedings. We encourage all members to attend.
We are not the same people as the suspended members. The Board's attempt to invalidate 170 signatures by asserting undisclosed evidence of involvement by suspended members conflates two separate groups. The membership has an independent governance interest that exists regardless of what happened to individual candidates.

— Members of PSIA-AASI Western Region

Sign the Second Petition.

The Board's response has made it necessary. Every signature strengthens our position and our legal standing.

Sign the Second Petition →