Latest Updates
PSIA Member Files with Court to Release PSIA-West Documents
PSIA Member Alison Monahan is suing PSIA-West to hand over records she says she's entitled to see under California nonprofit law (Corp. Code § 8333) which gives voting members a right to inspect certain corporate records.
This is a separate case from the Moore v. PSIA-AASI Western Division lawsuit that's also pending against the organization.
She's asking to see:
Documentation for a $34,000 payment to the law firm Holland & Hart that appears on PSIA-West's FY25 tax return.
CEO compensation-setting records — the comparability data, committee deliberations, and documentation of the review/approval process that PSIA-West's own Form 990 says it follows each year.
Full, unredacted board and committee minutes — she says the organization has only released "final" summarized minutes and is withholding meeting minutes tied to committee-level discussions, including from an April 2026 in-person board meeting.
She sent written demands by email to the Board's official contact address and to the CEO, on May 12 and 13, 2026, and the organization didn't respond for weeks.
PSIA then produced roughly 700 pages on May 27, but she argues essentially all of it was already public information (board minutes, tax filings) that added nothing new, and this production happened just over an hour after she formally served the lawsuit on the organization's registered agent.
PSIA-West argued she should have used an internal board appeal process first. She argues that provision only kicks in after the organization formally denies a request on specific grounds, and it never issued any such denial, it just stayed silent.
She's asking the court to order:
Provide the records within 10 days
The option for the court to appoint an independent inspector if the organization still doesn't comply
An award of her costs and legal fees under § 8337, on the theory that PSIA-West's non-compliance was "without justification"
PSIA Sues 3 Former Board Members
As of June 2026 PSIA filed suite against 3 of it’s own board members who publicly called the organization out for wrongdoing.
Alleging Extortion
In April 2025, someone secretly recorded then PSIA West board members Dave Achey, Greg Felsch, and Blane Lomen at a restaurant as they discussed board actions. This unauthorized recording was shared with other PSIA board members and CEO Marissa Cooper and then used against them.
On learning of the use of the recording against them, three men went to the Mammoth Lakes Sheriff's Department and complained that the CEO Marisa Cooper had illegally allowed them to be recorded without their permission. They demanded she reveal who made the recording.
According to the document, the Sheriff's Department called board members and specifically threatened the CEO with criminal charge, seizure of her personal property, and jail time if she didn't hand over the identity of the person who recorded them.
The cross-plaintiffs (the now PSIA board) argue this was all used as leverage, essentially saying "tell us who recorded us and wipe our records clean, or you could go to jail."
Whether the recording was actually illegal was somewhat beside the point. The now suing PSIA board members say the then three board members who were secretly recorded weaponized the criminal justice system to get what they wanted.
PSIA Member Sues PSIA West Over Wrongful Board Director Appointments
Member Alison Monahan is asking the court to rule on who is actually entitled to sit on the PSIA-West Board of Directors. There is dispute over who won the election and who's been wrongly kept off the board. The suit names the organization plus four individuals whose board seats she's challenging: Sue Spain, Neil Bussiere, Meghan Ochs, and Thomas Powell.
The core allegations
In the March 2026 board election, members voted for 4 open seats among 9 candidates. The certified results (not disputed by PSIA-West) were:
1) Barclay Moore, 2) Bryan Martel, 3) Brent Boblitt, 4) Julie Brown
Boblitt and Brown were seated without issue. But Moore and Martel - the top two vote -getters were not seated. Instead, the 6th and 7th place finishers, Bussiere and Spain, were seated in their place.
On March 20, 2026, a week after the election closed, six members — including Moore and Martel — were suspended.
Monahan alleges these suspensions were:
Issued with no advance notice and no chance to respond before taking effect (notices announced suspensions already in place)
Based on a disciplinary policy that was never properly adopted — she argues it needed a full membership vote (never held) and needed to be published to members (she says it was posted only on an obscure and unlinked webpage)
In violation of California nonprofit law (Corp. Code § 7341), which requires 15 days' advance notice and a pre-suspension hearing before any member suspension takes effect — this petition treats none of that as having occurred, and California law states that a suspension issued outside these procedures is void
Because the suspensions are alleged to be void, and because a membership suspension isn't recognized under the bylaws as a way to remove a director, Monahan argues Moore and Martel remained entitled to their seats the whole time.
Two other sitting directors also allegedly excluded
David Achey - a continuing director (term through 2027) who was excluded from the board based solely on the same disputed March 20 suspension. Notably, PSIA-West's own CEO has stated under oath in a related case that "Achey's seat remains intact."
Tiffany Chiu - another continuing director whose disciplinary probation expired April 17, 2026. PSIA-West's own outside counsel confirmed in writing on April 8 that she'd be reinstated. She wasn't. The day before an April 27 board meeting, the board instead raised a new "conflict of interest" claim — based on the fact that she'd hired a lawyer and had joined in calling a board meeting (a right directors have under state law). The board voted not to seat her, and Monahan alleges four separate written requests for the legal basis of this exclusion have gone unanswered.
The appointment of additional board members
Monahan also challenges a March 25, 2026 board vote to appoint Richard "Tad" Sheldon to a vacant seat, alleging the meeting lacked a quorum (only 3 directors attended) and improperly counted absentee "pre-given" approvals, which the bylaws expressly prohibit. She argues this makes Sheldon's appointment void — which in turn means his later resignation didn't create a real vacancy, so a subsequent appointment (Meghan Ochs) to "fill" that seat is void too. She applies similar quorum/authority arguments to the April 27 meeting where Thomas Powell was appointed and Spain/Bussiere were formally "accepted."
Membership list access
The petition also alleges a pattern of the organization refusing member requests for the membership contact list which is needed for members to communicate with each other and organize a special meeting.
She's asking the court to:
Declare the suspensions and the underlying disciplinary policy void
Declare Moore, Martel, Achey, and Chiu the lawful directors, and order them seated within 7 days with full access restored
Declare Spain, Bussiere, Ochs, and Powell not lawfully seated
Order PSIA-West to produce the membership list
Order a corrective communication to the full membership
Require 14 days' notice before the board takes major action while the case is pending
Award her costs/fees
PSIA Verified Answers To Suit
This document is the official response filed by PSIA-AASI West and its board members to the lawsuit brought against them by Dave Achey, Greg Felsch, Blane Lomen , and several others including Barclay Moore and Bryan Martel.
One recurring argument is technical but important: they repeatedly note there is no legal entity simply called "PSIA", the proper name is "PSIA-AASI Western Region." They use this to push back on several of the plaintiffs' claims.
On the election dispute, defendants deny they manipulated results or wrongfully disqualified anyone. They say the suspended members' board seats are simply being held open pending the outcome of their disciplinary proceedings.
Notably, the defendants openly confirm their view that the February 5 "Proposed Resolution" email from Achey, Felsch, and Lomen was an extortion attempt.
The Affirmative Defenses
Beyond just denying the claims, the defendants raise 15 separate legal defenses, essentially arguing that even if some facts are true, the plaintiffs still can't win because they acted in bad faith and failed to use the organization's internal appeals process first.
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.
