No vote. No agenda. No scrutiny.

More than 150 members of PSIA-AASI Western Region signed the First Member Petition under §7.2. The membership is entitled to test the assertions being used against it. The grounds for censure are set out below.

1. Emergency disciplinary actions and the procedural questions they raise. In the months surrounding the 2026 election, leadership initiated multiple disciplinary proceedings against sitting board members, candidates, and elected winners, and imposed emergency suspensions on several of them before they could take their seats. PNP §14.3.2.c requires, before any disciplinary conclusion is reached, that the accused be afforded "an opportunity to provide mitigating or exculpatory evidence." The membership is entitled to know, in writing, whether that opportunity was afforded to each certified election winner — and, if an emergency suspension was imposed in advance of it, what specific emergency circumstance justified bypassing the ordinary sequence. This disclosure is owed to the membership independently of the merits of any underlying claim.
2. Refusal to convene a §7.2 Special Meeting. The Board declared the First Member Petition "invalid" on evidence it has not disclosed, referred members back to leadership's own FAQ, claimed PSIA-AASI National — an entity sharing leadership with Western Region — as the "independent oversight" the petition requested, and in place of the voting Special Meeting §7.2 requires, scheduled an informational forum that omits the agenda, the votes, and the scrutiny the membership asked for. A §7.2 petition is not a request for leadership's permission; it is an instruction from the members on whose behalf leadership serves. The Board acknowledged the instruction and declined to act on its substance — six days before the April 27 seating.
3. Restrictions on member communication during a contested election. Leadership retained exclusive control of the organization's official communication channels during the election and disciplinary period, while the suspended members were, per information available to us, instructed not to respond publicly to the claims against them. The exact text of any such instruction should be disclosed. The membership received only one side of a dispute that directly affected the election.
4. Failure to disclose conflicts of interest. The Board and CEO have not disclosed whether anyone involved in originating, investigating, or adjudicating the claims has a conflict. The membership is entitled to know — via the independent reviewer — what role, if any, the CEO and Neil Bussiere (Western Region's National Representative and a 2026 candidate) played in the decisions under review.

A note on the CEO. The Board holds exclusive authority to retain or terminate the Chief Executive; a formal vote of no confidence does not circumvent that authority but triggers it. We further call on the CEO to recognize the membership's clear loss of confidence in her leadership.

The membership cannot vote responsibly on the composition of its board without knowing what decisions were made, by whom, under what conditions, and with what legal authority. The required disclosures must be published to all members in writing at least five days before the Special Meeting. They must include:

1. All board decisions related to the 2026 elections. For each decision: the date, the subject matter, the composition of the Board at the time (number of directors present, in good standing, and with voting rights), the motion as stated, and the result of the vote.
2. All disciplinary proceedings initiated in connection with the 2026 election cycle. For each such proceeding: the name of the member who was its subject; the date the proceeding was opened; the board composition at the time of each decision (explicitly identifying any proceeding in which the Board was operating below the minimum of seven directors required by §9.2); the motion voted and the result; and the name and role of every Board member, officer, or executive who participated as claimant, source, witness, investigator, or decision-maker, together with any conflict of interest, disclosed or not, at the time of each decision. Claimants who are neither Board members, officers, nor executives, and who have a legitimate privacy interest, may be identified by role only. The total number of such proceedings shall be disclosed in full.
3. Independent legal opinion on below-quorum decisions. The Board shall retain independent outside counsel — not the organization's existing legal counsel — to opine in writing on whether any action taken while the Board was below the §9.2 minimum is valid, voidable, or void, and to identify specifically which decisions, if any, are affected. That opinion must be provided to the membership before the Special Meeting.

This moratorium applies only to the seating of directors who were not among the certified election winners; nothing in it prevents the certified winners from being seated on schedule under Resolution 3.

These members were set aside before the disciplinary process the organization's own written rules require had run its course. Staying the suspensions is not a favor to them; it is a correction to the electorate whose vote would otherwise be overridden. If the independent reviewer concludes that the suspensions were procedurally proper and substantively warranted, the stay lifts and the disciplinary process resumes on its own terms.

On the Board's claim that PSIA-AASI National already provided independent oversight. The Board's April 10 response claims it "partnered with PSIA-AASI National leadership throughout the investigation and findings process," and that this collaboration was the independent oversight the First Petition requested. It was not. National shares leadership, funding, and institutional interests with Western Region, and Neil Bussiere — a candidate at the center of this dispute — serves as Western Region's National Representative. A reviewer independent of Western while reporting to National is not independent of the dispute. The membership is entitled to a reviewer with no ties to either entity.

Qualification criteria

• No current or prior employment, contractual, or financial relationship with PSIA-AASI Western Region, PSIA-AASI National, or any party to the matter.
• No personal relationship with the CEO, any Board member, or any suspended member that could reasonably create the appearance of bias.
• A retired judge, licensed mediator, or attorney specializing in nonprofit governance or employment law.

Scope of review

The reviewer shall examine (a) whether the conduct of any member disciplined, suspended, or disqualified in the 2026 election cycle warranted the action taken, and (b) whether leadership's conduct in initiating, investigating, and adjudicating those proceedings — and in responding to the First and Second Member Petitions — complied with the Bylaws, the Policies and Procedures, and fiduciary duty. No finding favorable to either side is to be reached without the corresponding inquiry into the other.

Required findings. The reviewer must report to the membership on:

1. Conflict of interest. Whether the CEO, Neil Bussiere (Western Region's National Representative and a candidate in the 2026 election), or any other member of leadership was directly involved — as source, witness, investigator, or decision-maker — and whether that involvement was disclosed at the time.
2. Standard of proof. Whether the claims would satisfy a neutral third party, not merely those with an interest in the outcome.
3. Timing of claims. Whether any claims relate to conduct that occurred after the suspension was issued; such claims cannot have been its basis and must be identified.
4. Grounds for emergency suspension. Whether there was a genuine, documented, immediate threat of serious harm sufficient to justify bypassing normal due process. If not, the reviewer must say so plainly.
5. Board vote and minutes. Whether a formal Board vote approved the suspension, and whether minutes exist. Those minutes must be published, with redactions limited to third-party claimants who are not themselves Board members or executives. Any claimant who is a Board member or executive must be identified.

Nominations may be submitted to the petition committee; a shortlist will be published before the Special Meeting and confirmed by majority vote of the membership.

California Corporations Code §5222 confers the member power to remove a director without cause; §7.5 of the Bylaws imposes the notice rule governing that vote. The general nature of this proposal — the removal of one or more directors — is explicitly stated in this notice, so that a majority vote of the members is sufficient to act. This notice is directed to each of the following members of the current Board of Directors:

[DIRECTOR NAMES TO BE INSERTED BEFORE FILING]

Each is named on the basis that they were part of the Board that authorized or participated in those actions, the procedural validity of which is in question under PNP §14.3.2.c. Naming every sitting director is not an accusation of collective guilt: it is the specific notice §7.5 and §5222 require so that no director can later claim they were not given the opportunity to account for their own conduct. Directors who dissented from the emergency disciplinary actions, or who acted in good faith to correct them, are expected to present that record at the Special Meeting.

The specific grounds on which the membership may consider removal of any director, and no other grounds, are those set out in Resolution 1: (i) participation in the emergency disciplinary actions surrounding the 2026 election and failure to disclose their procedural record; (ii) substituting an informational forum for the §7.2 Special Meeting; (iii) restrictions on member-to-member communication during a contested election; and (iv) failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

We are putting this option on the agenda because the members are entitled to it, not as a presumption of guilt.