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. The disqualified candidates campaigned on a platform of organizational reform. A reconstituted Board majority could reach different conclusions about executive leadership and compensation. 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.

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. 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.[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 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 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 and resolved to draft one "that upholds fair and due process."[7] That revision was never completed.

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 answering: what specific provision authorizes post-election disqualification; on what date each candidate was notified; who participated in each decision; whether the CEO was recused.
2. Account for the disciplinary timeline, including whether PNP §14.3.2.c[3] was followed and whether economic impact on working instructors was considered.
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.
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.
5. Disclosure of conflicts of interest regarding the CEO's participation in disciplinary decisions affecting Board composition, and disclosure of who filed the complaints that initiated each investigation per PNP §14.3.1.[3]

This petition is submitted electronically, as authorized by Bylaws §§7.2, 7.3, and 17.2.[4] The meeting must be held virtually to meet the §7.4 quorum requirement of 100 voting members and ensure accessibility to the full membership.

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:

Signatures (161 total)

Signatures listed in alphabetical order by first name. The unredacted version with Member IDs, email addresses, IP addresses, and SHA-256 row hashes was filed with the Board and the California Attorney General.

Part III — 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.