Procedural Asymmetry: Dean Marschall Runge States Accusations Against Dr. Bradley Foerster Before 5.09 Proceedings Were “Formally Initiated” (2018)
August 6, 2018 — A Meeting to Discuss Dr. Foerster’s Return to Work
August 6, 2018 was Dr. Bradley Foerster’s first full day back at work from approved medical leave.
Dr. Ella Kazerooni had scheduled a meeting with Dr. Foerster to discuss Dr. Foerster’s return to work. Instead of a discussion about Dr. Foerster’s return, the meeting became the setting for delivery of a four-page letter from University of Michigan Medical School Dean Marschall Runge recommending initiation of dismissal proceedings under Regents’ Bylaw 5.09 and immediate relief from University duties and responsibilities.
The preceding chronology—including Dr. Foerster’s tenure, medical disability and leave, treatment, and staged return to full-time work—is documented separately here:
Dean Runge’s August 6 letter carried the subject line:
“Initiation of Dismissal Proceedings under Regents’ Bylaw 5.09 and Relief of All University Duties and Responsibilities”
Dean Runge advised Dr. Foerster that Dean Runge had “recommended the initiation of proceedings under Regents’ Bylaw 5.09” seeking dismissal from the University. Dean Runge recommended that the matter proceed under Bylaw 5.09(4). Dean Runge also advised that President Mark Schlissel had accepted the recommendation to relieve Dr. Foerster immediately of all University duties and responsibilities pending final disposition of the dismissal proceeding.
The August 6 letter does not state that Dr. Foerster had previously received notice of the matters identified in the letter or an opportunity to respond before Dean Runge recommended initiation of dismissal proceedings.
What Dean Runge Said Before the Proceedings Formally Began
Dean Runge did not consistently introduce the central accusations as allegations awaiting investigation. Dean Runge stated several accusations affirmatively.
Regarding NIH Grant R01NS082304, Dean Runge wrote:
“You failed to meet your obligations under the Grant in material ways…”
Dean Runge identified asserted failures involving the Multiple PI Leadership Plan, grant agreements, study supervision, IRB responsibilities, and research documentation.
Dean Runge then connected the grant accusations to an outside federal investigation. Dean Runge stated that the University would no longer permit Dr. Foerster to serve as principal investigator or co-investigator on new NIH grants:
“pending the outcome of the formal Office of Inspector General investigation into the matter.”
The letter then turned to Dr. Foerster’s reporting about University matters. Under the heading “Unsupported or False Allegations – University Matters,” Dean Runge wrote:
“You have engaged in a pattern of unfounded attacks against your colleagues and others, with little regard for the accuracy of the allegations.”
Regarding Dr. Foerster’s reporting concerning the NIH grant, Dean Runge stated:
“the investigation revealed that it was you who failed to meet your obligations under the grant.”
The letter then turned to litigation. Under the heading “Abuses of the State and Federal Court System,” Dean Runge stated that there were “multiple instances” in which Dr. Foerster had “committed abuses of the federal and state court system.”
The procedural sequence described at the end of the same letter is therefore important.
“At That Time, Proceedings Will Be Formally Initiated”
After stating the accusations above, Dean Runge described what would happen next.
President Mark Schlissel would consult the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) concerning Dean Runge’s recommendation. President Schlissel would then determine whether the matter would proceed under Subsection 4 or Subsection 5 of Regents’ Bylaw 5.09.
Only after that determination, Dean Runge wrote:
“At that time, proceedings will be formally initiated and you will receive additional information about the hearing procedures.”
The August 6 letter therefore contains both parts of the chronology in the same document: Dean Runge stated central accusations affirmatively, and Dean Runge then stated that the 5.09 proceedings would be formally initiated later.
The distinction does not determine whether any underlying accusation was ultimately supported. The distinction identifies a procedural question presented by the document itself: how were the accusations characterized before the proceedings designated to investigate the charges formally began, and what does the August 6 letter say about prior notice and an opportunity to respond?
Nine Months Later — A Different 5.09 Charge Letter
A second University of Michigan 5.09 proceeding provides a direct institutional comparison.
Nine months after Dean Runge’s August 6 letter to Dr. Foerster, the University initiated dismissal proceedings against tenured professor Dr. David Daniels.
The Daniels Charge Letter expressly documented that Dr. Daniels had previously received “notice and an opportunity to respond” to some or all of the charges.
The Daniels Charge Letter also described the matters as “charges to be investigated” and repeatedly characterized the underlying conduct as “alleged” or “allegedly.”
The comparison does not establish how either proceeding should have been decided. The two University documents show different approaches to prior notice and to the language used to characterize disputed conduct.
The two Charge Letters are examined together here:
September 7, 2018 — The Formal Charge Letter
One month after the August 6 letter, Dean Runge issued Dr. Foerster a formal five-page “Charge Letter, Dismissal Proceedings.” The letter stated that Dean Runge was “initiating the process to dismiss” Dr. Foerster and expressly characterized the matters presented for review as “charges to be investigated.”
The September 7 letter organized those charges into four principal sections concerning VA dismissal, NIH Grant R01NS082304, University matters, and conduct involving the judicial system. Those sections provide the structure for the underlying documentary records examined in the subsequent entries of this chronology.
The September 7 letter also added a specific representation concerning the federal investigation referenced in the August 6 letter. Dean Runge stated that HHS-OIG had “conveyed to the University serious concerns” regarding Dr. Foerster’s conduct involving NIH Grant R01NS082304.
The September 7 Charge Letter and the documentary records underlying Sections A–D are examined next:
The Documentary Trails Continued
The August 6 letter did not remain an isolated document. Two subjects appearing in the letter—the NIH/HHS-OIG investigation and Dr. Foerster’s external reporting—continued through the 5.09 proceedings and into later documentary records.
The later records do not establish what Dean Runge knew on August 6, 2018. The later records allow the documentary trails already visible in the August 6 letter to be followed forward.
NIH Grant R01NS082304 and HHS-OIG
Dean Runge’s August 6 letter expressly referred to a “formal Office of Inspector General investigation.” The September 7 Charge Letter went further, stating that HHS-OIG had conveyed “serious concerns” to the University.
Dr. Foerster later sought records identifying what HHS-OIG investigated, what investigative records existed, and how the federal investigation involving NIH Grant R01NS082304 ended.
The later federal record is examined here:
The separate question of what supported Dean Runge’s September 7 HHS-OIG statement is examined here:
Dr. Paul Cronin, Russia-Related Reporting, and the Missing Witness
A second documentary trail entered the 5.09 proceeding through Dr. Paul Cronin.
On September 1, 2018, Dr. Foerster memorialized under oath Russia-related statements attributed to Dr. Cronin concerning statements reported from 2016.
On November 17, 2018, while the 5.09 proceedings were underway, Dr. Foerster asked the University to facilitate presentation before a federal judge of recordings and witness testimony concerning the Russia-related statements attributed to Dr. Cronin.
Later that same day, the University introduced Foerster v. Cronin into the 5.09 proceeding as Exhibit 39 and addressed the Russia-related allegation attributed to Dr. Cronin.
The November 17 record is examined here:
Dr. Cronin then became significant for another reason.
Dr. Cronin did not testify in the 5.09 proceedings. Dr. Foerster had expressly asked Dr. Cronin to testify under oath.
During the later SACUA review, University counsel emphasized that the record contained no testimony, affidavit, written statement, or recorded statement from Dr. Cronin and questioned “if he was even asked to testify.”
The contemporaneous correspondence answers that narrower question: Dr. Cronin had been asked to testify.
The resulting missing-witness issue is examined here:
Taken together, the records linked above place Dean Runge’s August 6 letter within the documentary chronology that preceded the 5.09 proceedings and the records that followed.
The broader chronology—including the University of Michigan 5.09 proceedings and related federal, investigative, and public-record records—can be followed through the Case Index:
Case Index — Documentary Record and Investigations
Primary Documentary Record
The complete August 6, 2018 letter from Dean Marschall Runge to Dr. Bradley Foerster is reproduced below.
Documentary Record Underlying Sections A–D
Section A — “Dismissal from the Veteran’s Administration”
VA Dismissal Allegation and Underlying AWOL, LWOP, and MERIT Grant Records
Section B — “R01 Grant”
NIH R01NS082304 Allegations and Underlying Grant, ORCR, and Financial Records
Section C — “Unsupported, False, and/or Defamatory Allegations – University Matters”
Attribution of Communications, Contemporaneous Challenges, and Later FOIA IP Records
Section D — “Improper Conduct in the Judicial System”
“Frauds Upon the Courts” Allegation and Underlying Federal and State Court Records
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.