Q1: Why were some candidates disqualified after voting, and how does that align with our bylaws and state law?
A: Our bylaws Section 5.3 require that directors be “members in good standing,” meaning they have paid required dues and are not subject to disciplinary proceedings. The investigations and discipline processes followed all policies, including written notice and the opportunity to respond, and were initiated independently of the 2026 election timeline. Once those processes are triggered, any individuals no longer in good standing may not serve as directors, in accordance with our bylaws and California nonprofit law.
Should any board candidates who were elected return to “member in good standing status” within the 3-year term of any board member, those individuals could reasonably expect to be appointed to the board of directors for the remainder of the term in question.
Q2: Who handled the investigations and who ran the election?
A: The Regional Board oversaw the investigations and made findings about whether the Code of Conduct was violated. National was involved with the investigation and collaborated with the Western Board on findings and next steps. The Western Region CEO handled the logistics and administration of the election (announcements, ballots, timelines). These processes were run independently with siloed oversight so that those administering the election were not deciding discipline, and those deciding discipline were not counting ballots.
Q3: When did these investigations start in relation to the election?
A: The investigations began before the 2026 Board election was launched. They were initiated solely in response to conduct and governance concerns.
Q4: Were the disciplinary investigations started to influence the election?
A: No. Election dates did not drive when complaints were reviewed, when evidence was gathered, or when decisions were made. The Board’s responsibility was to apply the same standards and due-process steps we would use regardless of whether the individuals involved were candidates.
Q5: Has there been any thought to redoing the election?
A: The election itself was high integrity with no issues. Redoing the election would throw out all valid ballots and effectively disenfranchise the larger majority of members who already voted. It would also subject the candidates who remained in good standing and followed all requirements to the undue burden of running a second time. Our bylaws and policies do not provide any precedent or process for invalidating an entire election in these circumstances, so the fairest approach seemed to be to honor the original votes and seat the highest‑ranking eligible candidates.
Q6: If voting had already closed, did the timing of any disciplinary decision still matter?
A: Ballots can be cast only by members in good standing, and our bylaws require that directors be in good standing when they serve. The Board must validate the election after voting closes, which includes confirming that all candidates elected meet the eligibility requirements at the time of certification. Once the investigations concluded and a final recommendation was made, the Board had a duty to apply that decision to the certification process before instructing the CEO to announce the results.
Q7: Did votes cast for disqualified candidates still count toward turnout statistics?
A: Yes. All properly submitted ballots are counted for turnout and participation purposes, but votes for individuals who are not eligible to serve cannot result in seats on the Board. Reporting results this way lets us honor member participation while still complying with our bylaws and eligibility rules.
Q8: How were the final four winners determined?
A: The four eligible candidates receiving the highest number of votes were declared the winners. These individuals are: Brent Boblitt, Julie Brown, Neil Bussiere, and Sue Spain.
Q9: What due-process steps are provided before any member is subjected to a final disciplinary suspension or termination?
A: In every disciplinary case, members receive written notice of the concerns, reference to the relevant policies or Code of Conduct provisions, and an opportunity to respond and provide information. These matters are reviewed by authorized leadership following our written discipline procedures, which are designed to meet both PSIA-AASI policies and California nonprofit due-process standards. Only after that process is applied can membership standing and, therefore, final board eligibility be affected.
Q10: Why aren’t you sharing the names or specific conduct that led to disqualification?
A: The organization is bound by strict privacy policies and legal best practices regarding personnel and disciplinary matters. Investigative details and the names of individuals involved in disciplinary actions are kept confidential to protect privacy and maintain professional decorum. Consequently, these specific details cannot be disclosed in a public forum.
Q11: When will the new Board be officially active?
A: The transition will take place on April 27, 2026. The newly elected directors will be seated during the annual in-person Board Meeting held at Mammoth Mountain. This is the same time-frame a new board is seated every year.
Q12: Could future elections be handled differently to avoid questions about timing?
A: Yes. The Board is already reviewing potential bylaw and policy refinements, such as setting a clear “record date” for both voter and candidate eligibility and clarifying how any discipline after that date affects seating or continued service. This will help ensure that everyone understands the timeline, and that sensitive decisions about conduct are less likely to coincide with election milestones.
Q13: Who ultimately has authority to disqualify a candidate or invalidate a campaign?
A: The authority flows from the PSIA-AASI national and divisional bylaws, Code of Conduct, and the Western Region’s discipline and governance policies. Investigations and recommendations are carried out by the appropriate leadership or committees under those policies, and the Western Region Board is responsible for applying final decisions to election eligibility and certification of results.
Q14: How is the Board making sure this process is fair to both members and the organization?
A: We strive to balance fairness, due process, and confidentiality with our obligation to maintain high professional and governance standards. That includes giving notice and a chance to respond, offering appeal rights, keeping investigations separate from election administration, and updating policies when we identify ways to improve clarity and trust.
Q15: How do these actions meet the California Corporations Code?
A: The California Corporations Code is the body of law that governs how business entities—such as corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies (LLCs)—are formed, operated, and dissolved within the state of California. PSIA-AASI, both National and the Western Region, followed specific written Disciplinary Policy and Bylaws in conducting this action. To ensure the integrity of our governance, the organization maintains a strict separation between disciplinary investigations and election administration, with the Board overseeing conduct reviews and the CEO managing the election independently. Following a comprehensive investigation initiated in January, the Regional and National Boards determined that certain individuals violated the Code of Conduct, leading to their temporary suspension in accordance with our established Disciplinary Policy. This process strictly adheres to California Corporations Code § 5341 by providing affected members with formal notice, a 21-day window to submit mitigating evidence—which exceeds the legal minimum—and a clear path for appeal, ensuring all actions are conducted in a fair, reasonable, and transparent manner.
Q16: How are our members protected from retaliation for speaking out?
A: Our organization views constructive dissent and robust discourse as vital components of our collective growth and our commitment to serving the membership effectively. To that end, members are explicitly protected when voicing concerns or challenging organizational processes; this right is fundamentally codified in Article V of our Bylaws.
However, it is essential to distinguish between healthy disagreement and conduct that undermines our community standards. Protection does not extend to behaviors that violate our Member Code of Conduct, such as the harassment of peers or staff, or the intentional dissemination of misinformation. Actions that transgress these professional boundaries—thereby violating our Bylaws—are subject to formal disciplinary review.
When a grievance is submitted at either the National or Western level, the organization adheres to a rigorous and transparent review protocol. For matters within the Western region, this process is strictly governed by our Policies and Procedures. We encourage all members to engage in open dialogue, provided such communication is conducted with the professionalism and civility necessary to maintain our organizational integrity.
Q17: Where can I find the rules governing member conduct?
A: Please refer to the National Code of Conduct, as well as the disciplinary guidelines under P&P Section 14 (Discipline of Members) and Bylaw 4.4, which define “Member in Good Standing.” All PSIA-AASI members acknowledge they will abide by the National Code of Conduct in the National Member Agreement.
Q18: What has the Board been up to?
A: The Board is focused on long-term growth through the “Forward-5” strategic plan and has achieved the region’s first positive Net Operating Income budget. We’ve prioritized member connection by launching the Ownership Linkage Committee (OLC) and the Ambassador program to ensure a stronger voice for our instructors. We also remain dedicated to upholding the professional standards that ensure the integrity and leadership of our association.
Detailed milestones are available in our Board Impact Report here.
Q19: I still have questions, who should I talk to?
A: Please be advised, there is very little detail the board can provide beyond the answers posted above, but we are happy to hear your concerns and ensure the membership is clear on the integrity of the process that took place in our election. If you still have questions or want to share your thoughts, please email the Board. We are actively reviewing your questions and updating the FAQ as new questions arise.
Last Updated: April 15, 2026
