President Schlissel’s 5.09 Dismissal Recommendation of Dr. Bradley Foerster: Credibility, Fairness, and the Rebuttal Record (2019)
On June 17, 2019, University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel recommended the dismissal of Dr. Bradley Foerster under Regents’ Bylaw 5.09.
Two conclusions in President Schlissel’s recommendation warrant particular attention: the adoption of the faculty committees’ findings concerning Dr. Foerster’s credibility and the determination that the proceedings had been fair.
On credibility, President Schlissel wrote:
“Importantly, both faculty peer committees found that Dr. Foerster was not credible in a number of ways.”
President Schlissel deferred to the committees as being “in the best position to determine whether his explanations and testimony were credible and persuasive.”
On fairness, President Schlissel wrote:
“My review indicates that Dr. Foerster had a fair opportunity to present evidence on his own behalf and to dispute evidence submitted on behalf of the Dean.”
President Schlissel also concluded: “I am satisfied that the process provided in Bylaw 5.09(4) was followed.”
The hearing record and the objections submitted before the dismissal recommendation provide important context for both conclusions.
Four witnesses testified under oath in support of Dr. Foerster’s truthfulness, honesty, ethics, and professionalism. Dr. Foerster presented that evidence without an attorney, while Dean Marschall Runge was represented by counsel.
The testimony and the circumstances under which the testimony was presented are documented here:
Concerns about procedural fairness were raised directly with President Schlissel before the dismissal recommendation.
In late May 2019, after the three Medical School Ad Hoc Committee hearings and the May 1 SACUA appeal hearing had concluded, Dr. Foerster obtained SACUA’s written guidance for 5.09 proceedings.
The guidance identifies SACUA’s responsibility to ensure that “the hearings are fair to all parties” and that “the procedures set forth in 5.09 are followed.”
The guidance also addresses attorney representation, stating that “in those cases where the faculty member has retained an attorney,” the Office of the General Counsel will represent the administration and the University should retain outside counsel to advise SACUA and the Tenure Committee on procedural matters.
Dr. Foerster had not retained an attorney.
On May 26, 2019, Dr. Foerster challenged the participation of administration-side outside counsel Daniel Tukel and SACUA outside counsel Bruce Wallace. On May 29, while the proceedings remained pending, Dr. Foerster raised the issue directly with President Schlissel. Outside counsel subsequently responded.
The SACUA guidance and contemporaneous correspondence are reproduced here:
The procedural objections were followed by two substantive written submissions.
On May 31, 2019, Dr. Foerster submitted a detailed rebuttal to SACUA’s May 24 report and recommendation, challenging the committee’s treatment of documentary evidence, witness testimony, credibility, and the grounds advanced for dismissal. The rebuttal also disputed the committee’s treatment of evidence that Dr. Foerster maintained had not been rebutted.
On June 9, 2019, Dr. Foerster submitted additional evidence, including SACUA’s 2010 report concerning Dr. Andrei Borisov. In that earlier case, a SACUA faculty hearing committee had found retaliation, violations of University policy, and wrongful damage to a faculty member’s reputation and credibility.
Dr. Foerster asked President Schlissel to consider the contrasting treatment of documentary evidence, personal recordings, witness testimony, and procedural protections in the two matters.
Both submissions preceded President Schlissel’s June 17 recommendation and placed specific evidentiary and procedural objections before the president.
On page 2 of the June 17 memorandum, President Schlissel characterized Dr. Foerster’s arguments as “similar in nature to the arguments he made to the Review Committee,” which President Schlissel stated had found the arguments either not credible or insufficient to change the recommendation.
President Schlissel then wrote:
“I did not find anything in Dr. Foerster’s post-Review Committee comments or in the June 9 letter to me that convinces me that any recommendation other than dismissal is appropriate.”
President Schlissel acknowledged the submissions and rejected the objections without separately addressing the specific documentary challenges or explaining how the additional evidence affected the assessment.
President Schlissel recommended dismissal after reviewing the faculty committee recommendations, Dean Runge’s final recommendation, and Dr. Foerster’s responses.
The memorandum adopted the committees’ adverse credibility findings and concluded that Dr. Foerster had received a fair opportunity to present and challenge evidence under Bylaw 5.09(4).
The significance of President Schlissel’s conclusions lies not only in the written recommendation, but also in the documented objections and evidence presented before the recommendation was issued.
The complete June 17, 2019 memorandum from President Mark Schlissel is reproduced below.
.png)
%202.jpg)
5.09 Documentary Chronology
← Previous
|
Return to 5.09 Documentary Chronology
|
Next →
Selected Reporting
- Bradley Foerster Submits 140-Exhibit, 1,121-Page Documentary Chronology to FBI for Supervisory Review of the Investigation Involving Dr. Bradley Foerster, Dr. Myria Petrou, and Duaa Altaee
- From One FBI File to a Legislative Proposal: Peter and Maria Foerster Ask Senator Van Hollen's Office and Congressman Jamie Raskin to Consider a Uniform Administrative Framework for Federal Investigations
- Eva Feldman Documentary Chronology: 139 Exhibits on NIH R01NS082304, University Proceedings, and Federal Investigation — No Response Received
- Bradley Foerster and Myria Petrou Send Ann Arbor Officials Documentary Chronology on AAPD and Related Federal Investigations — No Response Received
- Timothy Lynch Documentary Chronology: 63 Exhibits on University of Michigan Office of General Counsel, University Investigations, and Law Enforcement — No Response Received
- Bradley Foerster and Myria Petrou Documentary Chronology: 8 Exhibits Document More Than Two Years of Efforts to Trace Bank of Ann Arbor's $1.4 Million Sheriff's Sale Credit Bid — No Response Received
Brad Foerster, MD PhD
Brad Foerster is a FOIA advocate documenting requests, transparency disputes, and accountability investigations involving public agencies, universities, police oversight, and Russia-Gate related inquiries. His work compiles original documents, timelines, and analysis of public records and institutional responses. Brad is also a board-certified radiologist, author of Town & Gown, and has published over 40 peer-reviewed articles. Brad lives in Potomac, Maryland with his family and is a member of the Montgomery County Medical Society and the Takoma Park U.S. & World History Book Club.