FORMAL PETITION FOR A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE MEMBERSHIP

Part I — The Petition

To the Board of Directors and the CEO of PSIA-AASI Western Region:

We, the undersigned, are fifty or more voting members in good standing of PSIA-AASI Western Region. Pursuant to Section 7.2 of the Bylaws[4], we hereby formally request a Special Meeting of the Membership.

Section 7.2 provides:

"Any fifty voting members of the Corporation, under special and unusual circumstances requiring prompt action, may request a special meeting of the membership provided notice of such meeting shall be mailed to each member at least ten days prior to the date thereof."

We submit that special and unusual circumstances requiring prompt action exist.

1. The certified results and the official announcement do not match.

ElectionBuddy's certified results[1] (publicly accessible at secure.electionbuddy.com/results/M6Q67SSWD47L) name Moore (268), Martel (252), Boblitt (233), and Brown (225) as winners. The official announcement[2] replaced the top two — and the 5th place finisher, Glines (197) — with the 6th and 7th place candidates, Bussiere (155) and Spain (152). Only by disqualifying all three do Bussiere and Spain become "winners." The organization's FAQ acknowledges the discrepancy but does not explain what specific authority permits post-election disqualification.[2]

2. The disqualifications were applied after 524 members had already voted.

The FAQ states investigations were initiated in January 2026[2] — yet all nine candidates remained on the ballot through 18 days of voting (February 23 – March 13).[1] If any candidate was ineligible, that determination could have been made before the election. Instead it was applied between the close of voting and the publication of results.

3. The organization's published procedures require specific steps that may not have been followed.

PNP §14.3.2.c states: "Prior to reaching any conclusion that Disciplinary Action is warranted, the Executive must afford the accused member an opportunity to provide mitigating or exculpatory evidence."[3] The FAQ confirms both that investigations began in January and that the process includes "written notice" and "opportunity to respond"[2] — but does not indicate whether §14.3.2.c's requirement was satisfied before the disqualifications were applied.

4. The Bylaws specify limited grounds for director removal.

Bylaws §9.9 permits a director's seat to be declared vacant only for: court-declared unsound mind, felony conviction, or court-found breach of fiduciary duty.[4] The FAQ confirms that disciplinary findings were used to change board composition.[2] The membership is entitled to know whether §9.9's requirements were met for any sitting director affected.

5. The National organization's involvement creates a governance question.

The FAQ states "the Regional and National Boards oversaw the investigations and made findings."[2] The declared winners include candidates whose seats depend entirely on the disqualification of higher-vote candidates.[1][2] The membership is entitled to understand what safeguards against conflicts of interest were applied when the National Board participated in decisions that determined which candidates would fill the seats.

6. The April 27 seating creates irreversibility before the process is complete.

The FAQ confirms that the disciplinary process includes an opportunity to respond.[2] The board seats on April 27.[2] Directors whose election depends on the disqualification of higher-vote candidates would be permanently seated while the process may still be open. This is the "prompt action" that §7.2 contemplates.[4]

7. The CEO has a documentable financial interest in the election outcome.

Bylaws §12.1 provides: "The Board may appoint the Chief Executive Officer who serves at the pleasure of the Board."[4] The CEO's annual compensation — $115,269, as publicly reported on IRS Form 990 (EIN 94-2210645)[5] — is determined by the Board. If the certified election winners had been seated, the Board's composition would have shifted. The disqualified candidates campaigned on a platform of organizational reform. A reconstituted Board majority could reach different conclusions about executive leadership and compensation.

The FAQ states that "the Regional and National Boards oversaw the investigations and made findings."[2] The publicly available information does not indicate whether any conflict-of-interest protocol was followed before the CEO participated in disciplinary decisions that determined who would sit on the Board that employs her. We do not allege that this interest influenced the CEO's actions. We ask only whether appropriate safeguards were in place.

8. Immediate suspension carries direct economic consequences for working instructors.

PSIA certification determines whether many members can work and what they are paid. The organization's own FAQ acknowledges that certification "often can mean increased wages" and that "most schools pay more for certified instructors."[6]

Members are aware that resorts in the Western Region have communicated to instructors that beginning next season, compensation will be directly tied to active PSIA-AASI certification status — with pay reduced by one level for inactive members. A suspension that removes active status can therefore cost working instructors real wages.

The membership is entitled to know whether the economic consequences of immediate suspension were considered before the decision was made to suspend members prior to the completion of the process required by §14.3.2.c.[3]

9. The Board has limited member access to information about this process.

On March 26, the Board cancelled a planned virtual Town Hall listening session — the only forum where members could have asked questions directly. The cancellation notice, in an email sent to members, stated the Board's priority was to "ensure an orderly transition as we onboard the newly elected Board" — using the contested results as the basis for ending member dialogue before the outcome is final. Members were directed to the FAQ, which does not answer the procedural questions raised in this petition. When the membership's only channel for engagement is closed at the moment engagement matters most, a Special Meeting is not merely appropriate — it is necessary.

10. A pattern: the disciplinary process has been used twice in two years against members who challenged leadership.

The discipline policy invoked against the suspended members was adopted in November 2024, at the recommendation of CEO Marisa Cooper and board member Caleb Lee.[3][7] Within months of its adoption, it was used to place the sitting Board Secretary — who had proposed bylaws amendments — on disciplinary probation. Board minutes record that Caleb Lee subsequently became Secretary.[7] The membership is entitled to know whether any conflict-of-interest review occurred given his role in recommending the policy.

The Board voted 4-to-3 to uphold that probation in October 2025. The same 4-to-3 vote split appeared in the September 2025 votes on five governance motions, including a motion requiring board approval before the CEO incurred unbudgeted investigation expenses.[7]

In April 2025, the Board acknowledged that no policy existed for removing a sitting director for Code of Conduct violations. The minutes record a resolution to draft one "that upholds fair and due process."[7] That revision was never completed. The membership is entitled to know: if the disciplinary process was used to affect the status of any sitting director, was the §9.9 framework followed? And what role did the CEO play in initiating or approving the action?[4]

We Request

A Special Meeting of the Membership before the April 27, 2026 board seating, pursuant to Bylaws §7.2[4], with the following agenda:

1. Present the certified election results alongside the official announcement, and provide a written statement — to be distributed to all members and appended to the meeting minutes — answering:
   • What specific Bylaw, PNP, or policy provision authorizes the disqualification of candidates after voting has closed?
   • On what date was each disqualified candidate first notified of the investigation?
   • On what date was each disqualification decision finalized?
   • Who participated in each disqualification decision?
   • Was the CEO recused from the disciplinary process? If not, what conflict-of-interest procedures were followed?
2. Account for the disciplinary timeline by providing a written timeline, appended to the meeting minutes, answering:
   • When was each investigation initiated?
   • Was each accused member afforded the opportunity required by PNP §14.3.2.c[3] to provide mitigating or exculpatory evidence before any disciplinary conclusion was reached?
   • If yes, on what date? If no, why not?
   • Was the economic impact on working instructors' employment and wages considered when immediate suspension was chosen?
3. Membership vote: stay the seating of any director whose election depends on the disqualification of a higher-vote candidate, pending completion of the disciplinary process including any appeals. If the Board declines the stay, the Board shall provide a written explanation of the legal basis for seating directors under these circumstances, appended to the meeting minutes.
4. Membership vote: appoint an independent reviewer — not the organization's existing legal counsel — to review the 2026 election process and the disciplinary actions that affected its outcome. The reviewer shall have access to all disciplinary records, communications, and board minutes. Findings shall be reported in writing to the full membership.
5. Disclosure of conflicts of interest. A written explanation of what conflict-of-interest safeguards were applied before the CEO — whose employment and $115,269 annual compensation[5] depend on the Board's composition — participated in disciplinary decisions affecting the Board she reports to. Disclosure of who filed the complaints that initiated each investigation, as required by PNP §14.3.1.[3]

Regarding Notice, Timing, and Format

This petition is submitted electronically, as authorized by Bylaws §7.3, which permits notice "sent by first class registered, certified mail, or electronic mail."[4] Bylaws §17.2 further authorizes electronic communication.[4] The organization routinely communicates with members by email, and the 2026 election was conducted entirely online.

We request the following timeline:

• Within 24 hours of receipt: The Board shall acknowledge receipt of this petition and confirm that the §7.2 threshold of 50 voting members has been met.
• Within 48 hours of receipt: The Board shall issue electronic notice of the Special Meeting to all members, stating the date, time, format, and agenda.
• At least 5 days before the meeting: Notice must provide sufficient time for members to organize attendance, consistent with the spirit of §7.3's notice requirement and the urgency contemplated by §7.2.
• Before April 27, 2026: The meeting must take place before the new Board is formally seated. This is the entire purpose of §7.2's provision for "prompt action."

The meeting must be held in a virtual format to ensure maximum accessibility and to meet the §7.4 quorum requirement of 100 voting members. An in-person-only meeting at a remote location would effectively prevent the majority of the membership from participating, undermining the purpose of §7.2. Bylaws §7.4 requires a quorum of 100 voting members — 524 participated in this election, and we are confident quorum will be met.[4]

Respectfully submitted by the undersigned voting members of PSIA-AASI Western Region.

Part II — Signatures of the Undersigned

Consent Statement

Each signer explicitly agreed to the following statement before submitting their signature. The exact consent text is stored with each signature record.

Signatures (178 total — live count)

Signatures are listed in alphabetical order by first name. The petition was originally filed on March 31, 2026 with 154 signatures. This live version reflects all signatures collected through the filing deadline and will be resubmitted prior to the April 27 board seating. The unredacted version filed with the Board and the California Attorney General includes Member IDs, email addresses, IP addresses, and SHA-256 row hashes for tamper verification.

Part III — Collection Method & Verification

How Signatures Were Collected

Signatures were collected via a secure web form at psia-petition.vercel.app. Each submission was validated and recorded with the following server-side data captured automatically (not reliant on client-side JavaScript):

• Server Timestamp — UTC time recorded by the server at the moment of submission
• IP Address — Network address of the submitting device
• User Agent — Browser and device identification string
• Row Hash — SHA-256 hash ensuring records cannot be altered after the fact
• Confirmation ID — Unique identifier provided to each signer at submission
• Consent Version — Exact text of the consent statement the signer agreed to

Verification Offer

The petitioners offer to cross-reference the Member IDs listed above against the PSIA-AASI Western Region membership roster to confirm that each signer is a current voting member in good standing. We request that the organization facilitate this verification.

Part IV — Sources

Sources and References

Every factual claim in this petition is derived from the following documents, all of which are either publicly accessible or available to members under California nonprofit law.