May 24, 2019 SACUA Decision: University of Michigan Recommends Dismissal of Dr. Bradley Foerster Without Specifically Citing His More Than 200 Documentary Exhibits
On May 24, 2019, the University of Michigan Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) Review Committee issued its 14-page Report and Recommendation concerning the dismissal proceedings against Dr. Bradley Foerster, a tenured Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Michigan Medical School.
The committee consisted of Professor Karen Staller (Chair), Professor Gaurav Desai, and Professor Donald Freeman. Unlike the Medical School ad hoc committee's documented 5–0 vote recommending dismissal, SACUA's report did not record a formal vote or identify how its three members voted. It presented a collective recommendation without specifying whether the decision was unanimous.
SACUA reviewed the Medical School ad hoc committee's December 19, 2018 recommendation, the hearing record, and additional evidence submitted during the review process, including Dr. Foerster's March 18, 2019 submission of more than 800 pages of documentary evidence.
Unlike the Medical School ad hoc committee's December 19, 2018 report, which did not expressly cite Regents' Bylaw 5.09, SACUA's May 24, 2019 report specifically cited Bylaw 5.09(4) and identified the five criteria governing its review, including whether the original committee followed prescribed procedures, afforded a fair hearing, addressed the original charges, considered matters primarily concerning the Medical School, and reached findings supported by the weight of the evidence.
Unlike the Medical School ad hoc committee, whose recommendation was issued before the complete hearing transcript was available, SACUA issued its decision after the transcript was available for review. SACUA also conducted its own hearing on May 1, 2019, which was transcribed and incorporated into the review record.
SACUA concluded that Dr. Foerster had received a fair hearing and recommended his permanent dismissal, with the alternative of immediate resignation. Yet its decision rejected several grounds relied upon by the Medical School while leaving important questions about the evidence and original proceedings unresolved in its written analysis.
SACUA's Characterization of the Sexual-Harassment Complaint and Retaliation Concerns
On page 3 of its report, SACUA described the basis of Dr. Foerster's defense as follows:
Dr. Foerster’s defense to the dismissal is largely based on an argument that his efforts to help a colleague lodge a sexual harassment complaint against a co-investigator on their R01 grant triggered a complex, conspiratorial, and targeted retaliation campaign against him by unidentified individuals. At times, he argues the retaliation resided within the University and at other times suggests it may be part of a much larger and more sinister conspiracy.
SACUA's Finding That the Hearing Was Fair
SACUA concluded that the Medical School ad hoc committee had followed Bylaw 5.09 and afforded Dr. Foerster a fair hearing.
The Review Committee acknowledged the particularly active role of outside attorney Daniel Tukel, who represented the Medical School, but found no evidence that he had improperly influenced the proceedings. It also rejected Dr. Foerster's objections concerning conflicts of interest and the absence of witnesses whose testimony he had sought.
The decision did not, however, expressly address the documented dispute over Dr. Foerster's access to the University's evidence before the first Medical School Ad Hoc Committee hearing.
Exhibit Z2 of Dr. Foerster's March 18 submission preserved correspondence concerning 55 University exhibits or documents identified before the November 12, 2018 hearing. Dr. Foerster documented receiving only two for advance review and had requested the evidence and witness list so that he could prepare his defense. Mr. Tukel maintained that neither party was obligated to exchange exhibits or provide a witness list.
SACUA upheld the fairness of the hearing without specifically resolving that dispute over access to evidence before the proceedings began.
The Evidence and Witnesses Before SACUA
SACUA adopted the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard, acknowledging the importance of tenure and its protection of academic freedom.
Dr. Foerster submitted more than 150 exhibits during the Medical School ad hoc committee proceedings, followed by more than 50 additional exhibits for SACUA's May 1, 2019 review.
Yet SACUA's 14-page decision did not specifically identify or cite a single exhibit from Dr. Foerster's submissions when evaluating the allegations against him. Although the committee acknowledged newly obtained VA evidence, it ultimately excluded the VA termination as a ground for dismissal. For the allegations it sustained, SACUA repeatedly cited the University's exhibits without specifically addressing the documentary evidence Dr. Foerster had submitted to challenge those allegations.
The treatment of witnesses raises a related issue. SACUA criticized Dr. Foerster for failing to establish what certain witnesses would have said or adequately document his efforts to obtain their testimony. It concluded that documentary evidence was sufficient to sustain the principal findings.
Yet SACUA also acknowledged that University faculty and staff might be reluctant to testify against their employer when it rejected the absence of character witnesses as a ground for dismissal. The report did not reconcile that acknowledgment with its criticism of Dr. Foerster's inability to produce supportive witnesses or examine the absence of testimony from individuals whose accounts supported the University's allegations.
Findings SACUA Rejected as Grounds for Dismissal
Although SACUA ultimately recommended dismissal, it declined to rely on several grounds advanced by the Medical School ad hoc committee.
The committee excluded the VA Merit Award allegation because it had not appeared in the original charge letters. It also declined to rely on the VA termination, the absence of character witnesses, unrelated civil litigation, and alleged mischaracterization of evidence as grounds for dismissal.
The VA termination received particular attention. Newly submitted evidence indicated that Dr. Foerster's VA appointment had been converted from temporary to permanent, that an AWOL reprimand may have been rescinded, and that the record was unclear concerning notification of appeal rights.
SACUA acknowledged these records and concluded that the VA termination should not be used to revoke Dr. Foerster's University tenure.
SACUA acknowledged Dr. Foerster's newly submitted VA evidence and excluded the VA termination as a ground for dismissal. Yet for the allegations it upheld, the committee repeatedly cited the University's exhibits without specifically identifying the documentary exhibits Dr. Foerster had submitted to challenge those findings.
Civil Litigation and the Limits of SACUA's Review
SACUA also concluded that Dr. Foerster's unrelated civil litigation should not have been used to support dismissal.
The committee acknowledged that hundreds of pages of litigation materials, including judicial orders criticizing Dr. Foerster's conduct, had been introduced during the Medical School hearings. It determined that litigation unrelated to the University was not an appropriate basis for dismissing a tenured faculty member and that reliance on such material undermined the use of Bylaw 5.09 proceedings reserved primarily for Medical School matters.
SACUA did not, however, address the potential First Amendment implications of introducing Dr. Foerster's participation in civil litigation into proceedings seeking to revoke his tenure.
Nor did the report examine whether those materials had influenced the ad hoc committee's broader conclusions concerning his credibility, character, or professional conduct before SACUA recommended excluding them as a dismissal ground.
The Findings SACUA Sustained
Despite these exclusions, SACUA concluded that the remaining findings justified permanent dismissal under the clear-and-convincing standard.
The committee sustained findings concerning the authorship and dissemination of allegations of fraud involving University faculty and administration, allegations involving clinical billing, Dr. Foerster's responsibilities for NIH grant R01NS082304, and his practice of recording conversations with colleagues without their knowledge.
SACUA rejected Dr. Foerster's explanation that emails attributed to him had been sent without his knowledge or authorization, concluding instead that he had authored or facilitated their dissemination.
Regarding the NIH grant, the committee accepted findings concerning the lapse of IRB approval, research oversight, and Dr. Foerster's participation in arbitration proceedings involving Dr. Robert Welsh and the University of Utah.
It also concluded that undisclosed recordings of colleagues undermined professional trust and the free exchange of ideas within the University.
These findings formed the basis for SACUA's recommendation to dismiss Dr. Foerster.
Finding 12: Dr. Foerster's Continued Rejection of the University's Conclusions
In Finding 12, SACUA endorsed the Medical School ad hoc committee's criticism that Dr. Foerster had failed to take responsibility for his actions.
The Review Committee went further, citing Dr. Foerster's challenges to findings by the University and other organizations, as well as his refusal to accept University instructions and positions with which he disagreed.
SACUA concluded:
“This conduct has led to the conclusion by the Review Committee that Dr. Foerster’s repeated pattern of behavior supports the Hearing Committee’s recommendation for dismissal.”
Notably, SACUA reached this conclusion after rejecting several of the ad hoc committee's own grounds for dismissal. Finding 12 nevertheless treated Dr. Foerster's challenges to other institutional conclusions as further support for terminating his tenured appointment.
The Record Before the Final Decision
SACUA's May 24 report rejected several grounds advanced by the Medical School, upheld the fairness of the original proceedings, and sustained the remaining allegations under the clear-and-convincing standard.
For those remaining allegations, its written decision repeatedly cited the University's exhibits without specifically identifying a single exhibit from the more than 150 submitted by Dr. Foerster during the ad hoc hearings or the more than 50 additional exhibits submitted for SACUA review.
The committee nevertheless recommended the permanent dismissal of Dr. Bradley Foerster, with the alternative of immediate resignation, under University of Michigan Bylaw 5.09.
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.