The Record Before SACUA: Dr. Bradley Foerster Submits 800+ Pages of New Evidence Challenging the University of Michigan Bylaw 5.09 Dismissal Recommendation (2019)
On March 18, 2019, Dr. Bradley Foerster submitted his memorandum and New Evidence Brief for review by the University of Michigan Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA), together with more than 800 pages of documentary evidence organized as Exhibits A1 through Z2.
The accompanying cover letter and signed Proof of Service document transmission of the materials to SACUA counsel Angela Jackson and Bruce Wallace and University counsel Daniel Tukel. In the cover letter, Dr. Foerster also expressly requested that the SACUA hearing be public.
The submission followed the Medical School ad hoc committee’s 5–0 vote recommending Dr. Foerster’s dismissal under Bylaw 5.09 and preceded SACUA’s May 1, 2019 review hearing.
March 18, 2019 — Cover Letter and Proof of Service
A Charge-by-Charge Documentary Record
The New Evidence Brief organized the evidence in the same order as the clauses of Dean Marschall Runge’s Final Charge Letter—the charges on which the dismissal proceedings had been based.
This was therefore not simply an additional collection of documents. Dr. Foerster presented evidence directed to the specific allegations underlying the recommendation for dismissal and asked SACUA to consider that evidence in reviewing the ad hoc committee’s decision.
March 18, 2019 — New Evidence Brief
Among the principal issues were:
The VA termination. Dr. Foerster submitted subsequently obtained VA records documenting that, effective August 26, 2016, his appointment had been converted from a time-limited appointment to a permanent staff appointment at the Ann Arbor VA. Dr. Foerster maintained that he was never informed of that change and learned of it only through a later FOIA request. The submission also included the VA’s November 14, 2018 rescission of his February 2017 AWOL reprimand. Dr. Foerster argued that these records materially affected the factual basis on which his later VA termination had been presented during the Bylaw 5.09 proceedings.
NIH Grant R01NS082304. Dr. Foerster submitted evidence concerning the more than $200,000 University of Utah subcontract approved by Dr. Reed Dunnick in March and June 2017 while Dr. Foerster was the grant’s Contact PI. Dr. Foerster documented that he had not authorized or approved those subcontract awards and challenged Dr. Dunnick’s authority to approve them without the Contact PI’s consent. The submission also included NIH records obtained through FOIA showing that the University subsequently sought to transfer the R01 to Dr. Robert Welsh at the University of Utah, but NIH denied the transfer. Dr. Foerster documented that University officials had previously told him the grant had been transferred and argued that the NIH denial was significant evidence that had not been disclosed during the November 2018 dismissal hearings.
A materially expanded record after the Medical School ad hoc committee decision. By March 2019, the evidentiary record was no longer the same one on which the ad hoc committee had based its December 19, 2018 recommendation. Dr. Foerster submitted additional federal and University records, subsequent correspondence, and underlying source documents that had not been before the committee when it voted. These materials reached across multiple grounds cited for dismissal and allowed findings in the committee’s decision to be tested against a substantially larger documentary record. SACUA was therefore reviewing not only the committee’s conclusions, but a record that had materially changed since those conclusions were reached.
Outside allegations and proceedings. Several grounds relied upon in the Bylaw 5.09 case originated in separate investigations and judicial proceedings. Dr. Foerster submitted underlying records from those matters so SACUA could evaluate them in context rather than simply accept allegations or outcomes as established facts. The question was not merely what had happened in another proceeding, but what the underlying evidence actually showed and whether it supported the use of that proceeding as a basis for dismissal.
Lack of Medical School Ad Hoc Committee Pre-Hearing Access to the University’s 55 Exhibits
Exhibit Z2 preserved a particularly concrete procedural dispute concerning Dr. Foerster’s access to the University’s evidence before the November 2018 Medical School Ad Hoc hearings.
Dr. Foerster documented that on November 7, 2018—five days before the first hearing—he formally requested access to the evidence and witness list so that he could prepare his defense. Mr. Tukel sent an exhibit and witness list that same day identifying 55 exhibits/documents.
In his March 12 reconstruction of the chronology, Dr. Foerster stated that he had been provided only two of those 55 exhibits for review before the November 12 hearing. The OIE reports concerning Dr. Myria Petrou and Duaa Altaee were sent to him on November 14, after the first hearing.
The exchange also preserved Mr. Tukel’s position. On March 11, he wrote that there was “no obligation for either party to exchange exhibits or provide a witness list,” while stating that he had sent Dr. Foerster his contemplated exhibit and witness list and copies of various identified exhibits.
Earlier that afternoon, Mr. Tukel had written that he did not know what “formal request” Dr. Foerster was referring to and stated that the University’s position was that Dr. Foerster had received an appropriate opportunity to present and respond to evidence and witnesses during the ad hoc proceedings.
Dr. Foerster responded by reproducing the text of his November 7 written request:
“I am also requesting that your forward me all evidence and your witness list so that I am able to prepare a reasonable defense…”
He then stated that his formal request to review the evidence had been denied.
Exhibit Z2 thus preserved both sides of a specific evidentiary dispute for SACUA: 55 exhibits/documents had been identified before the first hearing; Dr. Foerster documented receiving two for review beforehand; and Mr. Tukel maintained that there was no obligation to exchange exhibits or provide a witness list.
Exhibit Z2 — March 2019 Correspondence Concerning Pre-Hearing Access to Evidence
The Record Before SACUA
The March 18 submission placed a substantially expanded, charge-by-charge documentary record before SACUA. The cover letter and Proof of Service document transmission of Dr. Foerster’s memorandum, New Evidence Brief, and Exhibits A1–Z2.
The New Evidence Brief and Exhibit Z2 are reproduced above. The complete 800+ page documentary record is available through the linked source file.
This was the record before SACUA for its May 1, 2019 review of the recommendation to dismiss Dr. Bradley Foerster under Bylaw 5.09.
Complete Documentary Record: View the complete 800+ page SACUA documentary evidence record
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.