campaign April 10, 2026 Latest Update

The Board has responded — and declared the petition invalid.

Based on evidence they refuse to disclose, the Board claims the petition is invalid. They are scheduling an informational meeting for April 21 — not the Special Meeting with the agenda we asked for or any capacity to vote as our Bylaws provide for. We are reviewing legal options.

open_in_new Read the full response and our reply → Sign the Second Petition →

Convene a Member Meeting Before Seating the 2026 Board

In the recent PSIA-AASI Western Region Board of Directors election, 524 members cast their ballots.[1] The certified results and the official announcement don't match.[1][2] We're asking for a meeting — one the Bylaws explicitly provide for[4] — so the membership can hear a full explanation before the new board is seated on April 27, 2026.

Independence notice: This petition is an initiative of concerned voting members acting independently. The suspended and disqualified members have not initiated, coordinated, or contributed to this effort, and have provided no private information. All facts cited here are derived from publicly accessible documents.

0 PSIA members
Sign Petition
Petition
threshold
50
Quorum
threshold
100
LFG!
threshold
150
OMG!
threshold
200
0 Community members
Show Support

Share with fellow PSIA members and our broader ski community

gavel

What Happened

Voting for the PSIA-AASI Western Region Board of Directors ran from February 23 to March 13, 2026.[1] All nine candidates appeared on the ballot throughout. No candidate was removed or flagged before or during voting.

On March 21, 2026 — eight days after voting closed — the organization published its official announcement.[2] It declared four winners. Three of the top five vote-getters were not among them.[1][2]

RankCandidateVotes%Official Result
1stBarclay Moore26816.01%Disqualified
2ndBryan Martel25215.05%Disqualified
3rdBrent Boblitt23313.92%Declared winner
4thJulie Brown22513.44%Declared winner
5thAlycia Glines19711.77%Disqualified
6thNeil Bussiere1559.26%Declared winner
7thSue Spain1529.08%Declared winner

Certified results publicly accessible at secure.electionbuddy.com.[1] The organization's FAQ acknowledges the discrepancy: candidates were "disqualified" after voting closed due to disciplinary findings. The FAQ states investigations began in January 2026 — before the election opened.[2]

report

Why This Requires a Member Meeting

1. Three candidates were disqualified after 524 members voted

ElectionBuddy's certified results name Moore (268), Martel (252), and Glines (197) among the top five.[1] All three were disqualified after voting closed.[2] Only by removing all three do the 6th and 7th place finishers — Bussiere (155) and Spain (152) — become "winners." The organization has not explained what specific authority permits post-election disqualification.[2]

2. Candidates were left on the ballot through 18 days of voting

The FAQ confirms investigations began in January 2026.[2] Yet all nine candidates remained on the ballot through the entire voting period (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. Members voted without knowing any candidate was under investigation.

3. The organization's own procedural requirements may not have been followed

PSIA-AASI W Policies & Procedures §14.3.2.c require that, before reaching any disciplinary conclusion, the accused must be afforded "an opportunity to provide mitigating or exculpatory evidence."[3] The FAQ states that investigations began in January and that disqualifications were applied by the March 21 announcement.[2] The FAQ also states the process includes "written notice" and "opportunity to respond"[2] — but does not indicate whether this occurred before or after the disqualifications took effect. The membership is entitled to know whether the sequence required by §14.3.2.c was followed.

4. A sitting elected director was removed without Bylaw authority

Bylaws §9.9 permits a director's removal only by court order (unsound mind, felony) or court-found breach of fiduciary duty.[4] The organization's FAQ confirms that disciplinary findings were used to change board composition.[2] The membership is entitled to know whether the §9.9 procedure was followed for any sitting director affected by this process.

5. National involvement creates a conflict-of-interest question

The organization's FAQ states that "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 know 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 makes this irreversible

The new Board is scheduled to be formally seated on April 27, 2026.[2] The FAQ confirms the disciplinary process includes an opportunity to respond[2] — but if directors whose election depends on the disqualification of higher-vote candidates are seated before that process concludes, the outcome becomes irreversible. This is the "prompt action" that Bylaws §7.2 contemplates.[4]

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

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

The FAQ confirms that the CEO's organization "oversaw the investigations and made findings" that resulted in the disqualifications.[2] The membership is entitled to know whether appropriate recusal procedures were followed — and whether any person with a financial interest in the election outcome participated in decisions that changed that outcome.

8. Immediate suspension has 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] Resorts in our region have already communicated that next season, compensation will be directly tied to active certification status. A suspension that removes active status can cost working instructors real wages. The membership is entitled to know whether the economic consequences 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.

pattern

A Pattern of Concern

This is the second documented instance in two years where the organization's disciplinary process has been used against members who challenged organizational leadership.

2024 – 2025

Board Secretary placed on disciplinary probation

Board minutes from November 2024 record the adoption of a new discipline policy, recommended by the CEO and a board member.[3][8] Board minutes from October 2025 record a 4-to-3 vote to uphold a disciplinary probation against a board officer. Board minutes record that the same board member who recommended the discipline policy subsequently became Secretary.[7]

2026

Members suspended and election results altered

The same discipline policy was invoked to suspend members — including three of the top five vote-getters — with the official election results published shortly after, naming the 6th and 7th place finishers as winners.[1][2]

The structural questions

We are not alleging that either disciplinary action was taken in bad faith. But the pattern raises questions the membership is entitled to have answered:

  • Board minutes record that the discipline policy was adopted at the recommendation of the CEO and a board member who subsequently became Secretary after the previous Secretary was disciplined under that same policy.[3][8] Was any conflict-of-interest review conducted?
  • The Board acknowledged in April 2025 that no policy existed for removing a sitting director for Code of Conduct violations, and resolved to draft one.[7] That revision was never completed. Was the administrative suspension used as an alternative?
  • The same 4-to-3 vote split that upheld the 2025 probation appeared again in the September 2025 votes on five governance motions.[7] What oversight existed for the investigation that led to the 2026 suspensions?
group

Disqualified Candidates

These are the three members whose certified election wins were set aside after voting closed. They are longtime instructors, trainers, and mentors — professionals who ran for the Board because they care about this organization.

Barclay Moore

Barclay Moore

1st Place — 268 votes

Barclay is a PSIA Level 3 Alpine certified instructor who has been teaching skiing for over 50 years, starting in New York in 1973. He served as Education Vice President of PSIA-Eastern and has been a ski school trainer at Palisades Tahoe, Alpine Meadows, Hunter Mountain, and Homewood. For the last four years he has led the Homewood TSI free program, bringing together instructors from multiple resorts to share knowledge and raise the standard of teaching across the region.

Bryan Martel

Bryan Martel

2nd Place — 252 votes

Bryan holds PSIA Level 3 Alpine certification — the highest level awarded — and is AIARE avalanche certified. He serves as a resort instructor trainer at Palisades Tahoe. Outside of skiing, he is a UC Berkeley-trained engineer and founder of Environmental Capital Group, a clean technology investment firm.

Alycia Glines

Alycia Glines ("Fish")

5th Place — 197 votes

Alycia is a PSIA Level 3 Alpine certified instructor with over 13 years in snowsports education, teaching at Jackson Hole and Palisades Tahoe at Alpine Meadows. She was selected as a candidate for the 2024 PSIA-AASI National Team — a distinction reserved for the profession's top performers. She specializes in women's mentorship clinics, certification prep, and crossover disciplines. She is a Wilderness First Responder and AIARE Level 2 avalanche certified.

Biographical details sourced from PSIA-AASI national publications, Snow Pro Portal, and LinkedIn.

We're Asking for a Meeting

Not a verdict. Not an overturn. A meeting — so members can hear a full explanation before April 27.

Sign the Petition Below

Know a member who should see this?

checklist

What 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 explain the basis for any discrepancy between the two.

2

Account for the disciplinary timeline and process

Including whether the organization's own procedural requirements — particularly PNP §14.3.2.c — were followed.[3]

3

Membership vote: stay the seating of contested directors

Until the disciplinary process is fully complete, including any appeals.

4

Membership vote: appoint an independent reviewer

Not the organization's existing legal counsel — to assess the 2026 election process and report findings to the full membership.

5

Disclose conflicts of interest

A written explanation of what conflict-of-interest safeguards were applied before the CEO — whose compensation depends on the Board's composition — participated in disciplinary decisions affecting the Board she reports to. Including disclosure of who filed the complaints, as required by PNP §14.3.1.[3]

Regarding notice and timing: This petition is submitted electronically, as authorized by Bylaws §7.3 and §17.2.[4] The organization routinely communicates with members by email, and the 2026 election was conducted entirely online. We request that the Board acknowledge receipt within 24 hours of submission and issue electronic notice of the Special Meeting to all members no later than 48 hours thereafter — allowing at least five days for members to organize attendance. The meeting must take place before the April 27, 2026 board seating. 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.

The full formal petition, with detailed questions for the Board, can be read below.

#1
edit_document

Formal Signature

Prefer to sign the Second Petition? Given the Board's response, we are now directing members to a second petition that directly addresses their actions. Sign the Second Petition →

You must be a current voting member of PSIA-AASI Western Region. All fields are required. If you are not eligible, show your support here.

Please enter your full legal name (first and last)
Please enter a valid PSIA Member ID
Please enter a valid email address

How your information will be used: Your name, Member ID, and email are collected solely for the purpose of this petition and related PSIA-AASI Western Region governance matters. Your email may be used to send you updates about this petition, the Special Meeting request, and related member governance efforts — including, if necessary, coordination of legal support for affected members. Your information will never be sold, shared with third parties for commercial purposes, or used for any purpose unrelated to PSIA-AASI Western Region member governance. You may request removal of your data at any time by contacting psia-petition@proton.me.

Endorsements

volunteer_activism

Why We Are Filing This

We are not asking for a verdict on the disciplinary allegations. We are not asking for the election results to be overturned. We are not asking the organization to admit wrongdoing.

We are asking for a meeting — one the Bylaws explicitly provide for[4] — so the membership can hear a full explanation and participate in deciding how the organization proceeds before a decision that cannot be undone is made.

PSIA-AASI Western Region has served ski and snowboard instructors for over 70 years. It belongs to its members. When certified election results don't match the official announcement, members deserve an explanation. The window closes April 27.

link

Sources

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

[1] ElectionBuddy certified results (public) — secure.electionbuddy.com/results/M6Q67SSWD47L

[2] PSIA-AASI Western Region FAQ: 2026 Board Election (public) — psia-w.org

[3] PSIA-AASI W Policies & Procedures §14.3.2.c, January 2026 (public) — Google Drive

[4] PSIA-AASI Western Region Bylaws (§§7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 9.9), effective December 19, 2023 (member document) — psia-w.org

[5] PSIA-AASI Western Region IRS Form 990, EIN 94-2210645 (public) — ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer

[6] PSIA-AASI Western Region Membership FAQ (public) — psia-w.org/home/membership/faqs

[7] PSIA-AASI Western Region Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, 2024–2025 (available to members upon request pursuant to California nonprofit member inspection rights)

Share with fellow PSIA members and our broader ski community

Formal Petition — Full Text

This is the complete formal petition that will be submitted to the Board of Directors pursuant to Bylaws §7.2. The page you just read is a summary of this document.

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

We, the undersigned voting members in good standing, submit this petition pursuant to Bylaws §7.2, which provides:[4]

"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] 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 — with the 6th and 7th place candidates. 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.[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] Neil Bussiere — one of the declared winners whose seat depends on the disqualification of higher-vote candidates — serves as the Western Region's National Representative.[1][2] The membership is entitled to understand what safeguards against conflicts of interest were applied.

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. 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 alongside Boblitt and Brown, 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] Resorts in our region have already communicated that next season, compensation will be directly tied to active certification status. A suspension that removes active status can cost working instructors real wages.

The membership is entitled to know whether the economic consequences 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 one month earlier 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 explicitly 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, 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 the following:
    • 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 that resulted in the disqualification of election candidates? 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 to provide mitigating or exculpatory evidence before any disciplinary conclusion was reached?[3]
    • 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 over completing the full disciplinary process first?
  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 related to the 2026 election. Findings shall be reported in writing to the full membership — not solely to the Board.
  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 composition of 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:

We are amenable to a virtual meeting format to maximize accessibility. Bylaws §7.4 requires a quorum of 100 voting members — 524 participated in this election, and we are confident quorum will be met.

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

All Endorsements

check_circle

Signature Recorded

Confirmation #:

"I, the undersigned, am a current member in good standing of PSIA-AASI Western Region. I am signing this petition voluntarily and confirm that the information provided is accurate. I understand this signature may be submitted to the PSIA-AASI Western Region Board of Directors and used in formal proceedings."

Please save your confirmation number for your records.