SECOND 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; and to the CEO of PSIA-AASI National:

We, the undersigned voting members in good standing, file this Second Formal Petition pursuant to Bylaws §7.2[4] and California Corporations Code §5511.[9]

Preliminary Statement

We are facing a compressed timeline to resolve a situation created by the leadership — one with serious consequences for our organization. We are asking for emergency relief to guarantee the rights of the voters, the candidates, and the suspended members, and we are compelled to escalate. This section explains how we arrived at this point and why, if the Board does not act urgently, we will be obliged to act ourselves.

1. On March 13, 2026, the voting period for the 2026 election for the Board of Directors of PSIA-AASI Western Region closed, and soon after, ElectionBuddy — the platform used to certify the election — declared the winners on a results page that remains publicly accessible: secure.electionbuddy.com/results/M6Q67SSWD47L.[1]
2. On March 20, 2026, days after the closing of the election, the Board of Directors suspended three of the top five certified vote-getters — before the disciplinary process required by PNP §14.3.2.c[3] was complete — based on unsubstantiated claims, and using an emergency contingency in the Policies & Procedures Manual:

   14.3.3. Provisional Suspension
   a. To protect the complainant, other members, and the integrity of the Executive's investigation, the Executive may temporarily suspend the membership of an accused member until completion of the Executive's investigation or exhaustion of any appeal period.

3. On March 21, 2026, the Board officially communicated the results of the elections, which clearly contradicted the certified results from ElectionBuddy without naming the suspended candidates, and called for an open forum, if members "still had questions," on March 30.
4. On March 26, 2026, the Board sent another communication canceling the open forum and stating: "The proposed one-off virtual Town Hall listening session is canceled. Our immediate priority is to ensure an orderly transition as we onboard the newly elected Board and close out the 2025–26 season."
5. On March 31, 2026, more than 150 independent and concerned members submitted a petition (the "First Petition")[7] to the Board requesting a special meeting with a clear agenda to vote on, among other things, staying the seating of the board and appointing an independent reviewer to guarantee the rights of voters and candidates.
6. On April 10, 2026, more than ten days later and on a Friday at 1:56 PM Pacific, the Board responded to the petitioners communicating that their petition was deemed "invalid" on the basis of yet another unsubstantiated claim.[8] In the same email, it stated:

   "Need to Address Member Concerns: Despite this disqualification, the Board recognizes that many of our members signed in good faith and genuinely seek clarity regarding recent board actions and disciplinary procedures. We want to ensure that all members have access to accurate information rather than assumptions based on misinformation."

7. Also on April 10, 2026, a few hours later, the Board sent an official communication to all members inviting them to an informative meeting — not a "special meeting" as defined in the Bylaws, and not mentioning that an actual special meeting had been requested by more than 150 members — with no voting capability, using the following language:

   "…we are inviting you to a Special Member Meeting.
   
   This meeting is designed to serve as an educational forum to ensure all members have the same level of understanding of the facts, process, code of conduct expectations, and our organizational governance. We will be hosting this online session at 6 pm on April 21, with an agenda focused on the following:
   
   …4. Member Comment Session: A dedicated time for members to share their perspectives and ask questions directly of the board."

   This format does not comply with California Corporations Code §5511(a), which requires a meeting at which members may vote.[9]

8. On April 12, 2026, practically ten hours after receiving the Board's response, the Petition Committee sent an email to the leadership giving them notice that a new petition was forthcoming and, considering the compressed schedule, affording them additional time to prepare a response.
9. Now, we are filing this petition (the "Second Petition") and expect the leadership to act with urgency.
10. On April 27, 2026, the new board is scheduled to be seated. Once that seating occurs, the remedy the membership is entitled to under the Bylaws becomes substantially harder to obtain.

This creates a situation that, in our view, can only be positively resolved for the good of this organization through one of the following Board actions:

• (a) Seat the certified election winners on April 27 while continuing the investigation under full procedural guarantees, including the independent review requested in the First Petition.
• (b) Delay the April 27 seating until the investigation is completed with full procedural guarantees and independently reviewed.
• (c) Convene, before April 27, the voting Special Meeting requested by the First Petition, in compliance with California Corporations Code §5511 — not an informational forum.

If leadership takes none of these paths by the deadline stated below, the undersigned will exercise their statutory right under California Corporations Code §5511(c) to give notice of the Special Meeting themselves.

The virtual meeting will be set for Thursday, April 23, 2026 at 6:00 PM Pacific. The April 13 deadline gives the Board one full business day after receipt of this petition, and gives the petitioners the full ten calendar days of notice §7.2 requires between the issuance of notice on April 13 and the meeting on April 23.

Why a Second Petition

The facts summarized in the Preliminary Statement above are documented in the First Member Petition,[7] the Board's April 10 response,[8] the certified election results,[1] and the organization's own published FAQ.[2] The First Petition has since been signed by 178 voting members (updated list attached to this letter).

The argument for declaring our petition "invalid" was stated in the Board's response email, at point number 1:

"1. Validity of the Petition: The Board has determined the petition is invalid. The preamble claims that suspended or disqualified members had no involvement in this effort; however, the Board is in possession of documentary evidence that contradicts this claim, making the premise of the petition factually incorrect."

Following what is now a clear pattern, the Board appears to be using an unsubstantiated claim to silence dissent and override members' rights. In reality, there is no procedural basis to declare a member petition "invalid" as long as it is signed by more than the required number of voting members, as can be read in Section 7.2 of the Bylaws — a point the Board did not argue:

"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. Any notice of a special meeting must state the date, time and place along with the general nature of the business to be transacted and no other business may be transacted at such meeting."

We do not dispute the Board's right to investigate genuine misconduct — that authority is essential to good governance. The First Petition was clearly a call for transparency and due process. However, after what we can only interpret as stonewalling tactics from this leadership, we are calling, through this Second Petition, to expand the scope of the meeting to include the possibility for the members to censure the leadership and potentially vote on the removal of board members.

We note that the only ground on which the Board may declare a §7.2 petition invalid is if the number of signing voting members falls below fifty. If the Board believes the petitioner-convened meeting is procedurally deficient for any other reason, the remedy under California Corporations Code §5511 is not to block the meeting but to convene a compliant one itself.[9] Either way, the membership's right to meet and vote is preserved.

Agenda

The Special Meeting shall address the full agenda of the First Member Petition plus the five resolutions below.

Items from the First Petition (incorporated in full)

The First Petition's five-item agenda[7] sought:

• (i) Presentation of the certified election results alongside the official announcement, and a written statement answering: what specific provision authorizes post-election disqualification of candidates; on what date each disqualified candidate was first notified; on what date each disqualification was finalized; who participated in each decision; and whether the CEO was recused from the process.
• (ii) A written disciplinary timeline answering: when each investigation was initiated; whether each accused member was afforded the opportunity required by PNP §14.3.2.c[3] to provide mitigating or exculpatory evidence before any disciplinary conclusion was reached; and whether the economic impact of immediate suspension on working instructors' employment and wages was considered.
• (iii) A membership vote to 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.
• (iv) A membership vote to 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, with findings reported in writing to the full membership.
• (v) Disclosure of conflicts of interest: what safeguards were applied before the CEO — whose employment and compensation depend on the Board's composition — participated in disciplinary decisions affecting the Board she reports to; and disclosure of who filed the complaints that initiated each investigation, as required by PNP §14.3.1.[3]

The First Petition was signed by 154 voting members at the time of delivery and has since been signed by 178 voting members. The updated signature record of the First Petition is appended to this Second Petition so that the combined record of both petitions is available to any body — including a court — that may need to assess whether the §7.2 threshold of fifty voting members has been met and by what margin.

New Resolutions (Second Petition)

Alternative Procedure Under Cal. Corp. Code §5511

California Corporations Code §5511(c) provides that when a proper request for a special meeting is made, an officer "forthwith shall cause notice to be given" at a time "not less than 35 nor more than 90 days after the receipt of the request." If that notice is not given within twenty days, "the persons entitled to call the meeting may give the notice" themselves, or the superior court shall summarily order the giving of the notice.[9]

The First Petition was delivered on March 31, 2026. On April 10, the Board did not merely delay — it definitively refused, declaring the First Petition "invalid" and scheduling a non-voting informational forum instead of the §5511-compliant meeting the statute requires. Where the Board has conclusively communicated its refusal to act, the petitioners should not be required to wait for the full twenty-day period to expire before exercising the statutory remedy §5511(c) provides. The Board's refusal on day ten forecloses the possibility that it will comply on days eleven through twenty. The undersigned alternatively rely on the expiration of the full twenty-day period on April 20, 2026 — which still precedes the April 23 meeting date — and reserve the right to reissue notice on that date if necessary.

Furthermore, §5511(e) provides that a meeting at which a quorum is present is valid even if notice was not given in strict compliance with this section, so long as members attend without objection.[9] And §5511(g) authorizes any court to validate actions taken at a meeting where notice was given "in a fair and reasonable manner."[9] The undersigned intend to give the broadest practical notice to every member through every lawful channel available. Any member who attends the Special Meeting without objecting to notice will have waived any deficiency under §5511(e), and any action taken at the meeting will be subject to judicial validation under §5511(g).

Demand for Membership List — Bylaws §14.4.B

Pursuant to Bylaws §14.4.B,[4] the undersigned demand an alphabetized list of all voting members — names, addresses, emails, and voting rights — as of April 12, 2026, for the proper purpose of giving notice of the Special Meeting and communicating with fellow members on matters of corporate governance. We request production by Monday, April 13, 2026 at 5:00 PM Pacific — the same deadline by which the Board must issue its own §5511-compliant notice. The undersigned tender payment of any reasonable charge upon production. If the list is not produced in time, the undersigned will proceed under §5511(c) with such membership contact information as has been lawfully compiled through prior authorized member-to-member communication and any other lawful source available to them.

Timeline

• Monday, April 13, 2026 at 5:00 PM Pacific: Board deadline to issue §5511-compliant Special Meeting notice and produce membership list under §14.4.B.
• Monday, April 13, 2026 at 6:00 PM Pacific: if the Board has not acted, petitioners issue meeting notice under §5511(c).
• Thursday, April 23, 2026 at 6:00 PM Pacific: Special Meeting (virtual).
• Before April 27, 2026: action required before new board seating — the core purpose of §7.2's "prompt action" provision.

Notice, Format, and Attendance

The meeting will be virtual to maximize participation and meet quorum (Bylaws §7.4 requires 100 voting members; 524 participated in the 2026 election).[4] We request the attendance of the CEO and all current directors, plus any suspended or disqualified members, so the membership may hear all perspectives. No participant's presence is to be construed as admission of any fact.

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. The exact consent text is stored with each signature record.

Signatures — Second Petition (93 total)

Part IV — Sources

Sources and References

Every factual claim in this petition is derived from the following documents, all of which are either publicly accessible, available to members under California nonprofit law, or direct correspondence from the Board of Directors.