SnowPros Engaged
PSIA-W 2026 Board Election & Allegations Information
On the mountain, clarity keeps us safe.
Off the mountain,
transparency keeps our community strong.
The summary and documents relating to the membership dispute over PSIA-West board elections and member disciplinary actions here is presented to help PSIA members access documented activity within PSIA-W leadership for the past two years.
Much activity has inspired concern among hundreds of PSIA members and industry stakeholders.
If you are concerned about ensuring integrity in the leadership, then alerting PSIA that members care about transparency can make a big difference. Contact PSIA
Professional Ski Instructor Association - Western Lawsuit
Support the Legal Action for Transparency & Honesty
This legal action asks the court to enforce association bylaws and California Corporations Code protections. Member plaintiffs are funding their own counsel out of pocket; the organization uses institutional resources for its defense. Donations to the GoFundMe help close that gap.
2026 Brief Summary
The summary here is drafted from information included in public documents both formally submitted to the court and posted publicly online.
____________________________________________
March 2026 Election Results Change Incident
The Professional Ski Instructor Association - West (PSIA-W), the primary ski instructor certifying body in the Western United States, held a vote among members to elect 4 new board of directors ending March 13th. After voting ended the sitting CEO Marisa Cooper and the sitting board members applied “provisional suspensions” prior to disciplinary process proceeding for 3 of the top 5 vote-getters. They declared the vote getters ineligible on the basis that the new provisional suspensions and announcing different election winners.
The leadership alerted each candidate by email of several never before revealed accusations that included harassment, misrepresenting themselves, and inappropriately using the membership list. No specific dates, actions or documentation was provided to inform them of accuser identities, when violations were made or even what specific activities constituted violations.
There was no due process offered or scheduled to evaluate accusations. All three members were “provisionally suspended” from the association and thus made ineligible to serve on the board as elected. Plaintiffs allege this procedure is inconsistent with California Corporations Code §7341.
There's no known law or association bylaw authority to retroactively declaring a director "not elected," even in case of a valid suspension. What is allowed under bylaws is declaring a seat vacant upon suspension, because a person becomes no longer a member in good standing. Membership is a necessary director qualification. It is highly dubious that a provisional suspension could support a retroactive director disqualification. If it could, any CEO would have unfettered exclusive power to make any and all directors ineligible. In association governance, the board employs CEO. It is not the other way around.
Conflict-of-Interest Concerns Raised by Plaintiffs
One of the candidates seated after the revised results is Neil Bussiere, who finished behind the suspended candidates in the original vote count. According to the verified complaint, Bussiere participated as a sitting board member in the March 19 vote to impose the disciplinary suspensions, then was seated through the revised results. Plaintiffs allege he did not recuse or disclose a conflict of interest.
All the disqualified members were told that National PSIA had participated in the discipline evaluation.
Candidates claim they were asked to respond to the accusations. With no documentation explaining the specifics of their violations, this was a meaningless offer and impossible task.
All candidates were told they may not share publicly share their responses to all accusations because their own responses are considered confidential board communication by the PSIA board.
Ongoing Pattern of Board Accusations & Punishments
According to plaintiff’s complaint to the California court, it appears this public extralegal move to retain power is only the latest effort in an ongoing effort of some PSIA-W leadership using unspecific and undocumented accusations, extra legal membership disqualification and imposing disciplinary actions that plaintiffs allege are void under California Corporations Code §7341 to intimidate and dismiss non-compliant board members, perhaps other association members.
In the days after the altered election results were announced, it was revealed that previous board members had also experienced accusations and punishments from PSIA-W leadership. According to plaintiffs this was done without complying with California due process law. I8 board members in 2 years were ejected or threatened ostensibly for behavior violations. They claim that none received due process before disciplinary sanctions were imposed.
For example, PSIA-W Board Member and treasurer David Achey flagged an unauthorized >$30,000 legal expense CEO Marisa Cooper committed PSIA to in 2025. Then in January 2026 he was formally censured and removed from the Finance Committee. Weeks later he was issued a Notice of Disciplinary Proceedings recommending one-year suspension.
A collection of sanctioned board members filed suit in California on April 21, 2026 for their extralegal ejection from the association that is the dominant credentialing organization in the field.
Membership Special Election Meeting
PSIA-W Members then separately hosted a special membership meeting which bestowed them authority to eject the leadership intending to appoint their own chosen directors. On April 23rd, the meeting election overwhelmingly pushed out all sitting board members.
The PSIA-W leadership to date has not honored or abided the membership vote results.
More Detail 2026 Events Sequence
The Suspensions
● On March 20, one day before election results were published and after the certification deadline had already passed, CEO Cooper issued disciplinary suspensions to 3 plaintiffs which include high vote gathering election candidates.
● According to plaintiff PSIA members, suspensions were imposed with no prior notice, no disclosure of evidence, and no opportunity for rebuttal hearing. All of this was a direct violation of California Corporations Code § 7341, which they claim makes such suspensions void and without effect.
● Board meeting minutes from March 19, the night before, reveal the board voted unanimously to adopt these disciplinary actions before any affected member was notified of any charge.
Disciplinary processes:
● Association governing documents require any discipline to be initiated by a written complaint by an individual. The CEO must then investigate, give an opportunity to defend, make a decision, and make a written report. The accused can then optionally appeal to the board, and the board makes a decision.
● For all the plaintiff suspensions, no written complaint has been disclosed to the accused. It appears that the CEO is both the complainant and acting as judge.
● The board has stated it consulted in the matter before the CEO applied discipline. So the acting board members at the time at the time are also acting as both complainants and purporting to act as judges, in case of an appeal.
● The processes have remained in limbo, leaving the purported provisional suspensions in place with out association required due process.
2026 PSIA-W Board of Directors Election
● Between February 23 and March 13, 2026, PSIA Western Division held a board election in which 524 PSIA-W members voted.
● Three reform candidates: Barclay Moore (1st place), Bryan Martel (2nd place), and Alycia Glines (5th place) ran on a platform that included “change” that included removing CEO Marisa Cooper.
● On February 10, Cooper herself sent written confirmation to these candidates that they "meet all eligibility requirements" to run.
● Election results were required by policy to be published within three business days of voting closing. They were not.
Election Manipulation
● On March 21, PSIA published altered election results. Barclay Moore, Bryan Martel, and Alicia Glines were declared disqualified because they were "not in good standing" due to their brand-new suspensions.
● Plaintiffs state that no process consistent with PSIA bylaws or California law was used to disqualify them from serving as a board director.
● Candidates who finished 6th and 7th were declared board seat winners instead.
● According to plaintiffs’ submission to the court, one of those declared winners, Neil Bussiere, personally seconded the motion at the March 19 board meeting to impose the very suspensions that cleared his path to victory, with no conflict-of-interest disclosure or recusal.
Ongoing Pattern of Manipulating and Threatening Board Oversight
● An email by board member David Achey dated in Feb. 2026 documents that PSIA board members David Achey, Blaine Lomen, and Greg Felch also had violation accusations, punishments and retaliation levied against them months before the April 2026 elections.
● In early 2025, CEO Marisa Cooper committed PSIA-AASI W to outside legal-services costs in excess of $30,000 without prior Board approval, far above the $5,000 ceiling on CEO discretionary expenses set by PSIA-AASI W Governing Policy 2.5 Asset Protection #13. The Board was not asked to vote on the invoice until the services had already been “rendered” and the invoice was “outstanding.” The expense was then accounting-classified out of the Legal line item, leaving the FY25 audited Legal line at $3,795.
The Board Treasurer David Achey flagged the expense and on January 27, 2026 was formally censured. Then on March 20, 2026 he was issued a Notice of Disciplinary Proceedings recommending one-year suspension.
● David Achey’s March note asks the PSIA - W board to “Withdraw all current complaints and violations against us (several board members)”, “Dismiss all past violations or censures” and “Reinstate Board and committee positions.”
● A prior board member, Tiffany Chiu, faced similar retaliatory disciplinary proceedings in 2025 after raising governance questions. According to plaintiffs, CEO Cooper had recused herself in that matter but then unilaterally issued discipline anyway, directly mischaracterizing the Advisory Council's written instructions
● Plaintiff Alicia Glines's claims that her legal right to inspect the member contact list for campaign purposes was denied on the legally unfounded basis that it violated the federal CAN-SPAM Act. She claims that this is a commercial email law with no bearing on California nonprofit inspection rights
● Board minutes from a meeting at which Cooper's employment contract was allegedly approved are missing. When asked directly at the April 21 forum whether such a contract exists, leadership refused to answer.
Specific Allegations Against Each Plaintiff
● Moore and Martel: accused of unauthorized use of member contact information, though records show the Board Secretary had authorized that access in writing in 2024
● Glines: accused of hostile communications and misinformation. No documentation of alleged activities have been provided to her.
● Achey, Felsch, and Lomen: an internal settlement email they sent was characterized as an "extortion letter". The document itself contained no threats and explicitly sought a "FRESH start"
● Connors: permanently barred from PSIA membership anywhere in the country, without any due process.
Member Response Also Suppressed
● Over 180 members signed petitions demanding a special meeting to challenge the suspensions and election results. This is well above the legal threshold under California law.
● The board declared the petition invalid and refused to convene the meeting.
● Instead, PSIA held a controlled "Member Forum" on April 21 where the board set the agenda and members could only submit written comments. This was nota lawful special meeting
● At that forum, plaintiff Bryan Martel was removed by the host and locked out, unable to rejoin despite four attempts
The Lawsuit and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
● A verified complaint was filed April 21, 2026 in Sacramento Superior Court (Case No. 26CV009976)
● Two days later, plaintiffs applied for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order to block the board seating planned for April 27, the day this summary is being written
● The TRO application argues that once the disputed board is seated, it will begin ratifying prior actions and making the harm impossible to unwind
● The TRO was denied because there was insufficient evidence that the harm of seating unlawfully chosen board members would be irreparable.
Membership Special Meeting
● In accordance with association bylaws, on April 23, 2026 the membership convened a special meeting to vote on association leadership. Over 200 members attended the online event ran by PSIA member Jeff Jensen.
● The membership voted to:
○ Remove all five sitting directors named in the lawsuit
○ Censure the leadership
○ Demand an independent review
○ Seat the candidates who legitimately won the original election
● All resolutions passed with margins between 85% and 99%. This was a near unanimous repudiation of the PSIA Western board by the association’s members.
PSIA Response
● As of April 27, 2026 the PSIA Board has refused to include the elected directors, honor the membership special meeting vote and dismissed a board member Tiffany Chiu.
● On April 26, 2026 Board Member Brent Boblitt was dismissed from the board and then reinstated for a not yet disclosed reason.
● On April 27th dismissed board member Tiffany Chiu sent questions to the board so they could explain the legality of her board position dismissal on the record.
PSIA Member Alison Monahan Proposed Path Forward to PSIA Lawyer Dan Stormer on May 7, 2026
● According to PSIA member Alison Monahan’s email on May 7th to PSIA legal council, she specifically asks for the reasons PSIA leadership rejected the member special meeting vote where Alison counted the member votes.
● Alison also proposes paths to resolve all ongoing leadership position disputes.
● To date she has no answers to her specific questions to PSIA national, PSIA - W or their legal council.