Latest Update
Palisades Tahoe Suspends Requirement for Instructors to renew PSIA membership
A PSIA member reported on May 20th, 2026 that the Managing Director of the Palisades Tahoe Ski & Snowboard School, El Furtney wrote all of their ski instructors that as PSIA membership dues reminders go out and the PSIA membership renewal date approaches, Palisades Tahoe is implementing a one-year moratorium on the wage policy which states that instructors must be a member in good standing to receive certification-related pay rate.
This is a significant development for PSIA leadership because PSIA relevance relies on the legitimacy of PSIA credentials to the industry. When one of the most prominent instructor employers in the region no longer requires affiliation, it speaks to the eroding PSIA relevance with the leadership controversy.
Other employers are considering similar distancing from PSIA affiliation.
Member Alison Monahan's May 7, 2026 Demand Letter to PSIA-W Litigation Counsel Dan Stormer
On May 7, 2026, PSIA-W member Alison Monahan emailed Dan Stormer of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP — litigation counsel for PSIA-W in Moore et al. v. PSIA-AASI Western Division (Sac. Sup. Ct. No. 26CV009976) — with a written set of demands and two proposed paths to resolve the ongoing dispute over post-April 27, 2026 board composition.
Background. Monahan served as the elected Secretary of the April 23, 2026 special meeting of the membership and personally tallied the member vote at that meeting. She disputes the Corporation's contention that the April 23 vote was invalid or miscounted, and disputes the legitimacy of the directors currently seated on the post-April 27, 2026 board.
The demands. The May 7 email asked Stormer for three things:
Written confirmation of the legal basis on which each currently-seated director claims office.
A corrective communication to the membership — sent through the same Mailchimp/member channel as the April 25, 2026 board email and with equivalent prominence — retracting (a) the April 25 characterizations of the Sacramento Superior Court's April 24, 2026 denial of the Moore TRO, (b) the "no legal power and results are invalid" framing attributed to the court, and (c) statements attributed to legal counsel at the May 6, 2026 member town hall.
A forward-looking commitment that no further corporate communications would characterize the April 23 meeting as invalid or its votes as miscounted absent a court order.
Two proposed resolution paths. Monahan offered two distinct options for resolving the underlying election dispute:
Honor both votes — the 2026 board election results and the April 23 special-meeting vote.
Hold a fresh, properly-noticed special meeting — one both sides agreed in advance to respect the outcome of.
Stormer's response. Stormer acknowledged receipt on May 7. On May 12, his substantive reply was a single sentence: "We will not be able to accede to your time constrainsts [sic]." The reply did not address the demand for a corrective email, did not confirm the basis on which each currently-seated director claims office, did not address the statements attributed to counsel at the May 6 town hall, and did not engage with either proposed resolution path.
