Same University, Different Treatment: Dr. Bradley Foerster Places SACUA's Andrei Borisov Precedent Before President Mark Schlissel (June 9, 2019)
On June 9, 2019, eight days before University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel issued the dismissal decision in the Bylaw 5.09 proceedings, Dr. Bradley Foerster supplemented the record already before the President.
Dr. Foerster had recently discovered a 2009–2010 SACUA Faculty Hearing Committee report concerning University of Michigan faculty member Dr. Andrei Borisov. Dr. Foerster described the report as “critical new evidence” and formally asked President Schlissel to consider the report and the additional information submitted with the June 9 letter before deciding the dismissal proceedings.
The significance of the newly discovered report was not that Borisov and Foerster were factually identical. Dr. Foerster expressly acknowledged that the “specific” facts were different. The significance was that SACUA itself had previously confronted many of the same kinds of questions now before President Schlissel: how a faculty member's evidence should be developed and evaluated; whether personal recordings could be used as evidence; how unavailable witnesses affected the record; whether law-enforcement involvement warranted scrutiny; and whether University actions reflected retaliation or a predetermined outcome.
The June 9 letter therefore placed an internal University comparison before President Schlissel: how had SACUA approached those questions in Borisov, and how had the same questions been approached in the Foerster Bylaw 5.09 proceedings?
Complete June 9, 2019 Letter to President Mark Schlissel and Supporting Exhibits
The complete June 9, 2019 submission from Dr. Bradley Foerster to University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel is embedded below. The submission includes the newly discovered 2009–2010 SACUA Faculty Hearing Committee report concerning Dr. Andrei Borisov and additional supporting exhibits. Selected excerpts following the document show the comparisons Dr. Foerster placed before President Schlissel.
Dr. Foerster identified personal recordings as perhaps the “biggest and most critical difference” between the two proceedings.
In Borisov, recordings formed part of the evidence SACUA used to determine what had happened. The Faculty Hearing Committee expressly identified “audio files of various conversations” supplied by Dr. Borisov among the materials examined and considered.
The Faculty Hearing Committee also used the contents of the recordings to test disputed allegations. When examining the allegation that Dr. Borisov had behaved in a physically threatening manner toward Dr. Mark Russell, the committee analyzed a recorded conversation between Dr. Borisov and Dr. Russell and stated that the recording contained “no hint whatsoever” that Dr. Borisov was a physical threat.
Dr. Foerster asked President Schlissel to compare that treatment with the Foerster proceedings. The June 9 letter stated that the Medical School Ad Hoc Committee and SACUA Review Committee had used Dr. Foerster's personal recordings as part of the basis supporting dismissal. Dr. Foerster also challenged SACUA's conclusion that making recordings for personal use infringed the academic freedom of other faculty members.
The comparison was not simply that both faculty members had made recordings. In Borisov, SACUA used personal recordings as evidence to test disputed allegations. In Foerster, the making and existence of personal recordings had themselves become part of the case supporting dismissal.
June 9, 2019 — Letter to President Schlissel, p. 2
The Borisov report also documented how SACUA developed the evidentiary record.
The Faculty Hearing Committee stated that “Dr. Borisov provided much of the information that the committee examined and considered,” including emails, correspondence, audio recordings, litigation materials, and records obtained through FOIA. The report also documented an affirmative step taken to obtain Dr. Borisov's materials: Professor John Lehman assisted the committee in obtaining documents possessed by Dr. Borisov.
That detail provided a direct point of continuity between the proceedings. Dr. Foerster specifically informed President Schlissel that Professor Lehman had also participated ex officio in Dr. Foerster's SACUA Review hearing.
Dr. Foerster then contrasted the resulting documentary records. The Borisov report referenced more than 60 documents, many originating with Dr. Borisov. The June 9 letter stated that the SACUA report in Foerster referenced 17 exhibits or documents submitted by Mr. Daniel Tukel—15 characterized by Dr. Foerster as hearsay—while “not reference[ing] a single piece” of more than 200 documents Dr. Foerster stated had been presented during the hearing process, including more than 50 pieces of new evidence submitted directly to SACUA.
The comparison therefore went beyond the amount of evidence submitted. In Borisov, the committee documented Professor Lehman's assistance in obtaining the faculty member's evidence and incorporated the evidentiary record into the report. Nearly a decade later, Professor Lehman participated in Dr. Foerster's SACUA Review hearing, while Dr. Foerster told President Schlissel that none of Dr. Foerster's extensive evidentiary submissions had been referenced in SACUA's report.
June 9, 2019 — Letter to President Schlissel, p. 2
The Borisov report documented a similar effort with witnesses.
The Faculty Hearing Committee identified the University officials interviewed during the investigation. The report also identified individuals who declined to meet with the committee, recorded that several had declined on advice from the Office of General Counsel, and acknowledged the consequence: the committee had been denied the opportunity to hear complete testimony, and additional testimony might have uncovered further evidence.
Dr. Foerster contrasted that record with the Foerster proceedings.
Dr. Foerster told President Schlissel that the charges against Dr. Foerster were largely based on second-hand testimony and documents, while individuals directly connected to the underlying allegations had not been brought forward to testify and be cross-examined under oath. Dr. Foerster identified, among others, Drs. Ella Kazerooni, Eva Feldman, Richard Cohan, Reed Dunnick, Robert Welsh, Paul Cronin, and Aine Kelly.
The difference was procedural as well as evidentiary. In Borisov, SACUA documented whom the Faculty Hearing Committee sought to hear from, recorded refusals to participate, and acknowledged the resulting limits on the evidentiary record. Dr. Foerster asked why comparable efforts to develop direct testimony had not occurred before findings were reached in the Foerster proceedings.
June 9, 2019 — Letter to President Schlissel, p. 4
Law-enforcement involvement was not peripheral in Borisov. The SACUA Faculty Hearing Committee examined why Department of Public Safety officers had been brought into Dr. Borisov's employment dispute, allegations that Dr. Borisov posed a physical threat, the trespass warning, Dr. Borisov's arrest, and restrictions on Dr. Borisov's communications.
SACUA did not simply record those events. The Faculty Hearing Committee evaluated whether the University's use of law enforcement and restrictions on Dr. Borisov were justified. The Borisov report found no basis for the allegation that Dr. Borisov posed a physical threat and described the allegation as “reckless and without merit.”
In its separate analysis of DPS conduct, the Faculty Hearing Committee addressed what happened when Dr. Borisov was told that he could be arrested for stalking if he contacted another faculty member directly. SACUA's conclusion was explicit:
“This is a violation of his civil rights (freedom of speech) under color of law.”
The significance of that finding went beyond the conduct of an individual police officer. SACUA treated the University's use of law enforcement, restrictions on a faculty member's communications, and resulting freedom-of-speech concerns as matters properly examined in a faculty review of the University's treatment of Dr. Borisov.
Dr. Foerster placed that precedent directly before President Mark Schlissel. The June 9 letter explained that law-enforcement activity had also intersected with Dr. Foerster's dismissal proceedings and argued that Dr. Foerster's constitutional and procedural objections had not received comparable examination. The letter referenced the Ann Arbor Police Department, University of Michigan Police, and other investigative activity in making that comparison.
One issue involved President Schlissel directly. In an August 3, 2018 memorandum, President Schlissel directed Dr. Foerster to “remain off Medical School and Michigan Medicine property.” On June 9, Dr. Foerster asked President Schlissel how Dr. Foerster constituted an immediate threat to faculty, staff, or students, why the restriction had not been issued through the procedures described in University trespass policy, and whether a written trespass order existed.
The University policy attached to the June 9 submission stated that University students, faculty, and staff generally should not receive a trespass warning absent extenuating circumstances, such as posing “an immediate threat to the safety of others.”
Dr. Foerster expressly connected the issue to the earlier SACUA precedent, writing that the restriction had “significant implications for First Amendment violations” and that “the trespass issue was a central part of 2009-2010 SACUA Faculty Hearing Committee investigation involving Dr. Borisov.”
The comparison therefore concerned more than different outcomes. In Borisov, SACUA itself investigated police involvement, campus exclusion, restrictions on communications, and the resulting civil-rights questions—and expressly found a violation of freedom of speech. Dr. Foerster placed that precedent before President Schlissel while asking why closely related constitutional and procedural questions in Dr. Foerster's own case had not received comparable examination.
June 9, 2019 — Letter to President Schlissel, p. 4
2009–2010 SACUA Faculty Hearing Committee Report — Analysis of DPS Conduct, p. 46
The comparisons converged on a broader question: had the result been decided before the process designed to determine the result was complete?
In Borisov, SACUA treated that question as an evidentiary issue.
The Faculty Hearing Committee examined communications preceding Dr. Borisov's termination and concluded that University administrators had gone through a “pro-forma” period during which Dr. Borisov supposedly had an opportunity to improve even though, according to the committee, the decision to terminate Dr. Borisov's position had already been made.
The Borisov report also connected that issue to the procedure used to remove Dr. Borisov. The Faculty Hearing Committee concluded that a Bylaw 5.09 proceeding would have been appropriate if Dr. Borisov were being terminated as faculty and described the University's treatment of Dr. Borisov as staff rather than faculty as “evidence of a predetermined outcome.”
Dr. Foerster's June 9 letter asked why the same question had not been investigated in the Foerster proceedings.
Dr. Foerster connected the issue to the absence of direct witnesses, the Hall Render investigations, disputed NIH grant matters, the continued absence of requested source and IP-address information for disputed emails, and the Medical School Ad Hoc Committee's earlier reliance on personal civil litigation that SACUA subsequently determined was irrelevant to dismissal.
The newly discovered Borisov report therefore did more than provide support for Dr. Foerster's assertion of a predetermined outcome. The Borisov report showed that SACUA itself had previously treated whether University actors were pursuing a predetermined result as a question requiring investigation.
June 9, 2019 — Letter to President Schlissel, p. 4
June 9, 2019 — Letter to President Schlissel, p. 5
The Borisov comparison did not end with differences in procedure.
After developing the evidentiary record, interviewing witnesses, documenting unavailable testimony, examining recordings, and scrutinizing the University's use of DPS, the Faculty Hearing Committee answered the questions SACUA had charged the committee to investigate.
The Faculty Hearing Committee found that Dr. Borisov had been deprived of intellectual property, personal freedom, and academic freedom; that University personnel had not followed University policy; that Dr. Borisov had been retaliated against for reporting wrongdoing; and that University personnel had wrongfully deprived Dr. Borisov of reputation and credibility.
The Faculty Hearing Committee then stated that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Dr. Borisov's reporting of alleged misconduct had led to retaliation, including Dr. Borisov's unwarranted dismissal involving DPS. The Faculty Hearing Committee separately found clear and convincing evidence that the University had failed to comply with federal requirements involving significant changes to key personnel on an NIH grant and maintenance of effort records.
The newly discovered Borisov report showed not merely that SACUA had encountered similar issues before. The Borisov report documented how an earlier SACUA Faculty Hearing Committee developed the evidentiary record, tested disputed allegations against recordings and witness testimony, examined the conduct of University personnel and law enforcement, and reached findings under a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.
2009–2010 SACUA Faculty Hearing Committee Report — Conclusion, pp. 50–52
The June 9 submission added something distinct to the record President Schlissel had received on May 31: an internal University comparison.
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.