“Should Be Directed to Me”: University Outside Counsel Daniel Tukel Directs Dr. Bradley Foerster’s Communications as Dr. Foerster Seeks Procedural Information Not Provided to Him During the 5.09 Proceedings (2018)
The correspondence from October through December 2018 documents a basic problem Dr. Bradley Foerster confronted during the University of Michigan's Bylaw 5.09 dismissal proceedings: Dr. Foerster was trying to determine how the proceeding worked while being instructed to communicate through the outside attorney representing the University.
Daniel Tukel of Butzel Long had been retained as outside counsel for the University. On October 9, Mr. Tukel instructed Dr. Foerster that, apart from scheduling matters, communications concerning the dismissal proceedings and Dr. Foerster's University employment were to be directed to Mr. Tukel rather than Timothy Lynch or the University's Office of General Counsel.
Dr. Foerster followed that instruction. The correspondence that followed shows Mr. Tukel both advocating the University's position and communicating significant procedural information to Dr. Foerster about how the proceeding would operate.
October 9, 2018 — The University Directs Dr. Foerster to Mr. Tukel
Mr. Tukel informed Dr. Foerster that Mr. Tukel represented the University in the dismissal proceedings and directed future communications concerning the proceedings and Dr. Foerster's University employment to Mr. Tukel.
October 9, 2018 — Email from University Outside Counsel Daniel Tukel to Dr. Bradley Foerster
November 5, 2018 — Charges and Witnesses
One week before the first hearing, Dr. Foerster asked whether any additional charges would be presented and requested the University's witness list so that Dr. Foerster could prepare a reasonable defense.
Mr. Tukel pointed to Dean Marschall Runge's September 7 charge letter as providing notice of the charges “to be addressed during the hearing.” Mr. Tukel then stated:
“The process does not require you or the University to exchange witness lists in advance of the hearing.”
Mr. Tukel was therefore not simply receiving Dr. Foerster's communications. The University's outside attorney was also telling Dr. Foerster what the process required.
November 5, 2018 — Email Exchange Between Dr. Bradley Foerster and University Outside Counsel Daniel Tukel Concerning Charges and Witness Lists
November 12, 2018 — Mr. Tukel's Role Is Stated on the Record
At the opening of the first hearing, Ad Hoc Committee Chair Dr. Carol Bradford introduced Mr. Tukel as the attorney representing the University.
Mr. Tukel stated:
“I've been hired to represent the University in this hearing.”
Mr. Tukel then explained how the parties could proceed with opening statements.
There was no ambiguity about Mr. Tukel's formal role: Mr. Tukel was outside counsel representing the University.
November 12, 2018 — Ad Hoc Committee Hearing Transcript: Daniel Tukel Identifies His Role Representing the University
November 19–23, 2018 — Dr. Foerster Tries to Determine What Happens Next
After two hearing dates, Dr. Foerster reviewed Bylaw 5.09 and asked Mr. Tukel to confirm Dr. Foerster's understanding of the remaining process, including the final hearing, transcripts, notification of the committee and Medical School recommendations, and further review.
Mr. Tukel answered the scheduling and transcript questions. But when Dr. Foerster sought clarification concerning Dr. Foerster's rights under Bylaw 5.09, Mr. Tukel responded:
“With regard to your rights and interpretation of bylaw 5.09, you should consult with your own advisor or attorney.”
Dr. Foerster therefore sought clarification from SACUA Chair Professor Neil Marsh. Professor Marsh identified the applicable provisions and confirmed the route to Tenure Committee review. Dr. Foerster then forwarded Professor Marsh's response to Mr. Tukel.
The sequence is straightforward: Mr. Tukel had instructed Dr. Foerster to direct communications concerning the dismissal proceeding to Mr. Tukel, but when Dr. Foerster sought clarification of Dr. Foerster's rights under the governing Bylaw, Mr. Tukel directed Dr. Foerster elsewhere.
November 19–23, 2018 — Email Exchange Concerning Bylaw 5.09 Procedure and Dr. Bradley Foerster's Request for Clarification
November 26, 2018 — “Then the Committee Will Do Its Work”
At the conclusion of the final hearing, Dr. Foerster asked about the timing of the committee's work.
Dr. Bradford said there was no particular timeline. Mr. Tukel then explained that there was no specific deadline, that the committee had to proceed reasonably promptly, and that the report ultimately sent forward had to include the complete transcript.
After Dr. Bradford said transcript preparation would take approximately ten business days, Mr. Tukel stated:
“And when we get that, obviously I'll forward that on to the Committee and to Dr. Foerster, and then the Committee will do its work.”
That statement became important days later.
November 26, 2018 — Ad Hoc Committee Hearing Transcript: Post-Hearing Timeline and Transcripts
December 2, 2018 — Dr. Foerster Questions the Arrangement
Six days after the final hearing, Dr. Foerster asked Mr. Tukel for an update concerning the decision-making process and transcripts.
Dr. Foerster then directly questioned Mr. Tukel's role. Dr. Foerster noted that Mr. Tukel represented the University but had also communicated rules concerning the process, discovery, evidence and scheduling and had answered Dr. Foerster's procedural questions. Dr. Foerster also questioned Mr. Tukel's communications with the committee after the final hearing outside Dr. Foerster's presence.
Dr. Foerster asked how those asserted roles could be reconciled and how the concerns could be addressed “to ensure a fair process.”
The concern was documented before the Ad Hoc Committee issued its recommendation.
December 2, 2018 — Letter from Dr. Bradley Foerster to University Outside Counsel Daniel Tukel Concerning the Dismissal Process
December 4, 2018 — Representation and the Hearing Transcripts
The December 4 correspondence clarified an important point about representation.
Because attorney Cyril Hall had appeared during the hearing, Mr. Tukel contacted Mr. Hall to determine whether Mr. Hall continued to represent Dr. Foerster. Mr. Tukel explained that representation would restrict direct communications with Dr. Foerster.
Mr. Tukel reported that Mr. Hall had confirmed:
“he is not representing you with regard to the dismissal process.”
The contrast was explicit. The University was represented in the dismissal proceeding by outside counsel Mr. Tukel. According to Mr. Tukel, Mr. Hall was not representing Dr. Foerster in that proceeding. Mr. Tukel continued communicating directly with Dr. Foerster about the process.
The same exchange also documented Dr. Foerster's understanding concerning the hearing transcripts. Dr. Foerster wrote:
“Thank you also for confirming that the transcripts of the hearings will be provided to me as well as the committee members before they can put their written report together, as you also stated at the end of the last hearing.”
The November 26 transcript above shows the basis for that understanding. Mr. Tukel had said that after the transcript was received, Mr. Tukel would forward it to the committee and Dr. Foerster, “and then the Committee will do its work.”
Two days later, Mr. Tukel corrected Dr. Foerster's understanding.
December 4, 2018 — Email Exchange Between Dr. Bradley Foerster and University Outside Counsel Daniel Tukel Concerning Representation and Hearing Transcripts
December 6–7, 2018 — A Post-Hearing Procedure Document
On December 6, Mr. Tukel sent Dr. Foerster a document titled “AD HOC COMMITTEE — POST-HEARING PROCEDURES.”
Mr. Tukel described the attachment as a “post-hearing procedure document which was provided to the committee.” Mr. Tukel also disputed Dr. Foerster's understanding of what had been said about the transcripts:
“I did not indicate to the committee that it is required to wait for the transcripts before it can prepare its report.”
Dr. Foerster responded the following day and asked:
“Who provided the document to you and to the committee?”
Dr. Foerster also identified the immediate concern: the transcript from the first hearing containing the University's presentation was available, while the transcripts from the subsequent hearings containing Dr. Foerster's evidence and defense were not.
December 6–7, 2018 — Email Exchange Concerning the Post-Hearing Procedure Document
The complete post-hearing procedure document provided by Mr. Tukel is reproduced below.
The single-page document contains no visible date, author, signature, letterhead, citation to Bylaw 5.09, or other notation on its face identifying who prepared it.
December 6, 2018 — “AD HOC COMMITTEE — POST-HEARING PROCEDURES” Document Provided by Mr. Tukel
The document draws a distinction between making a recommendation and filing or transmitting the report. The committee could make its recommendation before the transcript was prepared, but the report could not be filed or transmitted until the complete transcript had been prepared.
The correspondence presented here does not identify who authored the post-hearing procedure document or who originally provided it to Mr. Tukel and the committee.
December 16–17, 2018 — Dr. Foerster Asks for a Specific Response
On December 16, Dr. Foerster consolidated the procedural objections in writing. Among them were the possibility that the committee could reach a decision before all transcripts—including Dr. Foerster's defense—were available; Dr. Foerster's concern about Mr. Tukel's simultaneous advocacy and procedural roles; and the absence of advance information concerning committee selection and decision-making procedures.
Dr. Foerster closed the letter by returning to the communication structure established at the beginning of the proceedings:
“Finally, in spite of me repeatedly raising concerns of lack of due process with respect to the hearing, you have chosen to remain silent and not specifically address my concerns. Not communicating and addressing my concerns specifically in the setting where you require me to only communicate with you regarding these issues is a fundamental violation of due process.”
Dr. Foerster then asked for a response “addressing all of these matters with specificity.”
December 16, 2018 — Letter from Dr. Bradley Foerster to University Outside Counsel Daniel Tukel Concerning Procedural Objections
Mr. Tukel responded the following morning:
“I do not intend to respond to each of your various allegations regarding the conduct of the hearings or purported improprieties.”
Mr. Tukel stated instead that it was the University's position that the dismissal hearings had been conducted appropriately and in accordance with Regents Bylaw 5.09. Mr. Tukel again directed Dr. Foerster to consult with an advisor or attorney regarding Dr. Foerster's rights and options.
December 17, 2018 — Response from University Outside Counsel Daniel Tukel to Dr. Bradley Foerster
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.