The following articles appeared in the Reed College Quest on April 16 and 23, 1996:
Student speaks out on misconduct charges against Newhall
In wake of physician's abrupt departure, status of Renn Fayre health services questioned by Nic Warmenhoven and Adam Holdorf (appeared in the Reed College Quest, April 16, 1996)"Dr. [Jim] Newhall is no longer the College Physician." Thus read the first line of a brief piece of electronic mail circulated among Resident Advisors, House Advisors, and other students last Thursday evening. The words were Dean of Student Services Jim Tederman's; no explanation for the abrupt change in Newhall's employment status accompanied the message.
For many students, the unexpected news came as an upsetting shock. Several have said, recollecting past experience with Newhall and other physicians, that Newhall was the best doctor they had ever had. Some people who profess to have never felt comfortable with another doctor felt confident and relaxed with Newhall -- a fact Newhall acknowledges when he states that he feels he was largely successful in fulfilling the "explicit mandate" he received on being hired: "to restore confidence in the Health Center."
What then, the rumor mill wondered furiously, could possibly have led to Newhall's departure from the Reed Community?
Judith Kelly, a currently enrolled junior who recently came back from two years of leave, says that Newhall was fired, and further says that she knows the reason behind his termination. Kelly, who became friends with Newhall after he and Health Services Counselor Tom Talbot assisted in the recovery of one of Kelly's housemates from severe stress last year, says she saw the letter that advised Newhall that he was out of a job.
The letter, dated last Thursday, was signed by Tederman, says Kelly. (The Office of Student Services is responsible for oversight of Health and Counseling Services.) According to Kelly, the letter accused Newhall of sloppy record-keeping and "inappropriate relations with a student," and advised Newhall that the College would issue no recommendations to any potential future employers.
In addition, says Kelly, she learned from Newhall that Student Services had implicated Kelly herself in the accusation of "inappropriate relations," and that the permanent record of Newhall's termination kept in his personnel file contained Kelly's name. Newhall, on Kelly's account, learned in a private meeting with Tederman that Kelly's name appeared in the permanent files. The "inappropriate relations" alleged, says Kelly, are that Newhall gave her drugs in exchange for sexual contact.
Kelly insists that she was never approached by College personnel regarding any accusations against Newhall.
Though she fears that by speaking out so forcefully against the College she may jeopardize her status as a student, Kelly feels compelled to defend herself from the allegation that she is a "drug whore." Kelly has made efforts to tell her story to a wide public audience; she met with approximately thirty students and told them her side of the story on Friday evening.
On the advice of legal counsel, Newhall himself declined to comment on Kelly's specific assertions, "until things get worked out." He did stress that he felt his conduct while at Reed to have been exemplary, asserting that "nothing [he] ever did at Reed was even remotely unethical."
In a telephone interview on Monday, Newhall sounded noticeably frustrated with his counsel's restrictions on what information he could and could not talk about, since there is so little information on the situation available to the Reed Community. "The way the College handles dismissals," Newhall said, ends up seeming like "the person just disappears." Lots of rumors spread, and the truth never comes out.
In an interview with Quest on Monday, Tederman repeatedly declined to comment on anything having to do with the end of Newhall's employment, including revealing whether Newhall had left voluntarily or involuntarily. Explaining the legal ramifications that could follow a College official's divulging of particular personnel information, Director of Human Resources Mary Ann Wersch stipulated that "a charge could be filed as a common law claim under Oregon state law for invasion of privacy."
Later Monday afternoon, at an open-air meeting with nearly 200 students (and a handful of faculty and staff), Tederman reiterated his commitment to remaining silent on the issue of Newhall's employment, much to the frustration of attending students.
Among the recurring sentiments in students' questions for Tederman was a feeling of anger and disempowerment at having a trusted, valued member of the community such as Newhall taken away without warning or explanation. "The authority figures should be more free and forthcoming," said one student on leave who attended the meeting on the lawn, speaking on condition of anonymity. "[They] cannot afford to be underhanded about what they do."
Tederman explicitly acknowledged that students must feel frustrated at the lack of available information on the issue, but reiterated that information about personnel decisions must remain secret.
Despite the no doubt intimidating situation -- the mob of students, some sitting, some standing, surrounded the lone Tederman in a huge circle on Eliot's back lawn -- Tederman managed to keep his cool and deflect a steady stream of leading and tricky questions.
Some feel, however, that Tederman contradicted himself in his various comments to the crowd. At several points, Tederman asserted that he was unable to divulge whether Newhall's departure had been voluntary or involuntary. At another point, however, Tederman outlined the procedure that usually accompanied the termination of a College employee -- including an investigation into the charges against the employee and consultation with College counsel. First-year Max Ranall immediately asked Tederman whether those procedures had been followed in Newhall's case. Tederman responded that they had, thus seemingly admitting that Newhall had in fact been terminated.
A further provision of Newhall's departure from the College is that Newhall is not permitted on campus without the prior permission of Tederman. Both Newhall and Tederman admitted to this fact. Some students at the Monday gathering on the lawn wondered aloud to Tederman: if Newhall wasn't fired, then why would he be barred from campus?
Reed retains the services of its employees on an "at will" basis, and thus "the employee or the College can terminate the employment relationship at will at any time, with or without cause or advance notice" (taken from an Office of Human Resources staff policy manual). In the case of involuntary termination, "the College in its sole discretion as at-will employer may provide immediate termination with or without cause, with or without notice or additional pay."
One of Newhall's greatest frustrations in the matter is that he has heard very little feedback from students about his termination. Tederman, too, speculated that Newhall would like to hear from supportive students. (Newhall's mailing address is 19008 NW Reeder Road / Portland, OR 97231.)
Newhall's sudden and unexpected departure three weeks before the end of classes has also left many wondering about the College's immediate provisions for health care on campus. Tederman emphasized on Monday that temporary employees had already begun work fulfilling Newhall's duties as College Physician, and that medical care should continue uninterrupted.
Tederman stresses that long-range decisions about replacing Newhall have not been made, especially since President Steve Koblik is out of the country until next Monday. He speculates that the committee formed to advise on the hiring of current Director of Health Services Mary Catherine King may be revived to address the question of how to replace Newhall's position.
The two people already hired on to temporarily assume Newhall's duties are Dr. Merritt Quarrum, a Reed alumnus who has worked for the Health Center in the past, and Liz Hatfield-Keller, a physician, registered nurse, and paramedic with experience in drug and alcohol treatment. Each is working about 15-20 hours a week for the rest of the semester.
Some students are unsatisfied with the College's response, however. "I think that it is really unfortunate," says Renn Fayre Czarina Bess Stiffleman, "that with two weeks before Renn Fayre, we've lost [Newhall] -- our physician who knows the student body and is experienced in dealing with [Renn Fayre].
"It makes me nervous," says Stiffleman.
Other Renn Fayre health issues that some suspect may be involved in the decision to end Newhall's employment stem from the College's recently articulated skepticism about on-campus treatments of drug overdose. Tederman says that before the departure, Newhall recommended that the College be equipped during Renn Fayre to administer Narcan, a drug that blocks the effects of heroin overdose.
According to Tederman, the College is still seeking outside opinions on the "safety and appropriateness" of administering Narcan on a campus that lacks the facilities of a full emergency room. The College is also reviewing the safety and appropriateness of using "invasive methods" such as Thorazine for dealing with "bad trips." Narcan has never been used on campus in the past, and Tederman speculated that the "invasive methods" used to treat other drug problems have only been used once in the past six years.
When asked if Newhall's open frankness and practical approach to drug use was a factor in the termination, Tederman refused to comment on the decision, but suggested that this was not the case, remarking that Newhall's frank approach was "one of the reasons [the College] hired him."
Still, many feel that the potential change in focus of Health Services that may be signaled by Newhall's departure and the skepticism about the wisdom of using effective drug treatments at Renn Fayre are symptomatic of an increase in the College's concerns about legal liability.
Student Body Vice President Toby Sheppard Bloch feels that in both situations, Tederman and the College are "putting the liability of the institution above the welfare of individuals that belong to the community. . . . [Tederman's] concern is getting sued, mine is the life of students."
Kelly feels that in recommending the use of Narcan, Newhall "was sincerely on the students' side." While liability is the primary concern of the College, Kelly asserts, it was not first on Newhall's mind.
"Health Services is definitely undergoing changes; I think you'd be blind and deaf not to see that," says Newhall. "The school is desperately afraid of medical legal issues." Newhall suggests that this is the motivation behind several decisions regarding Health Services personnel and policy in recent years, including the expansion of mental heath care services, an area of care with "relatively low liability."
While again unwilling to comment on Newhall's departure, Tederman stressed that the College's primary concern with regard to drug treatment policy is whether Health Services can "provide treatment in an environment where it is safe to do so and medically recommended."
Perhaps it is the very notion of what constitutes safety that some challenge: "Reed was a place where people could be safe and say what they think," worries Kelly, "and now I feel that's dissolving."
Dawn Patrick contributed to this article.
I met with former College Physician Jim Newhall last Friday to talk about his recent dismissal and his thoughts on his continuing relationship with the College. He gave me a letter to the student body (the text of which follows), but explained that some aspects of his situation had changed since he cleared the letter with his lawyer earlier in the week.Last Tuesday, Newhall's lawyer sent a letter to the College stating that the College's stated reasons for firing Newhall were suspect at best, and that Judith Kelly -- the student with whom Newhall has been accused of having "inappropriate relations" -- had signed an affidavit swearing that nothing improper had ever occurred between herself and Newhall. The affidavit stated, in addition, that Kelly had never been approached by an officer of the College and questioned regarding her interactions with Newhall.
Newhall has always maintained that no sexual contact of any kind ever occurred between he and Kelly, and that nothing about his friendship with Kelly had ever been inappropriate. Newhall believes that friendly out-of-office contact with patients is not only healthy, but that the College encourages such contact with mechanisms like the Vollum Fund (which provides money to be spent on furthering student contact with faculty and staff outside of official contexts.)
On Thursday, the College offered to let Newhall resign rather than be fired. When I spoke with him, Newhall planned to accept this offer. Under this new offer, his personnel file would show that he resigned, and the letter of termination (which I saw) would be permanently removed from the file. Under both his termination and the new offer of resignation, Newhall would be paid through the end of the fiscal year (June 30).
The new offer indemnifies the College of any legal fault surrounding Newhall's departure, but is at the same time explicitly not an admission of any sort of guilt or liability on the part of the College. Under the new agreement, Newhall is still not to be allowed on campus without the prior permission of the Dean of Student Services.
Both Human Resources Director Mary Ann Wersch and Dean of Student Services Jim Tederman declined to comment on the status of Newhall's departure. "I am as frustrated as anyone about not being able to speak on this issue," said Tederman, but reiterated that the College was required by law to remain silent about individual personnel decisions.
Newhall has already received letters of support from members of the Reed community. His mailing address is 19008 NW Reeder Rd., Portland, 97231.
The text of his letter follows.
-- Nic Warmenhoven
15 April 1996
To the Quest:
You have requested some explanation of my sudden disappearance. Because the College is legally bound by confidentiality requirements, the administration will not be able to provide much of an explanation, so you can be given only my side of the story. I, in turn, have been advised by my attorney to be circumspect until negotiations with the College have occurred.
The College has fired me in a sudden, harsh, and prejudicial manner which I believe was unwarranted. The College cites as a reason for my dismissal lapses in medical records, which indisputably occurred. Keeping current on medical records is a constant struggle for most doctors, myself included. Hospitals and large medical offices have trained specialists to review records and to notify and hound doctors about charting deficiencies. Medical records deficiencies are commonplace; in the range of possible medical transgressions they are minor. I have heard of doctors having their privileges suspended, or having their pay withheld, but I've never heard of a doctor being fired over them. It must be a rare occurrence -- so rare that a reasonable man would conclude there must be something more to it. In taking this harsh action the College has made such an insinuation. Therefore let me issue some categorical denials.
I can't imagine what else should get a doctor fired.
- There have been no settlements or lawsuits filed or threatened during my 6 years at Reed. The only "serious" missed diagnosis I know of was a case of Scabies about 3 years ago.
- I have not stolen anything from the College.
- I have never had any unethical contact or behavior with any patient, present or former.
- I am not party to any pending legal matter, except as plaintiff in a class action suit.
- I have never been convicted of any crime.
- I have never been subjected to disciplinary action or investigation by any medical board, licensing agency, or professional organization.
- My credentials are in order.
I believe the underlying issue has to do with changes in the health center administration. I have apparently clashed with my new supervisor too often over style and scope of practice. She and the Dean are very concerned about the potential for huge liability to the College inherent in running a health service. Formalizing the style of practice and limiting its scope may be appropriate measures to reduce the College's exposure to liability.
When I was hired I was encouraged to define my scope of practice at Reed in terms of what I was comfortable doing. I have done those things which I was competent and qualified to do; the rest I referred out. In areas where I am especially qualified, Reproductive Medicine and "Rock" Medicine, I have been overruled recently.
My style of practice is informal and tutorial. An objective was to teach you something about yourselves and your health. (Do any of you Rugby players remember the signs of serious head injury?) I was available for consultation in the office, in the dorms, in the dining commons, on campus, by phone, and at all hours. Some of this stuff didn't get into the charts. When I started at Reed my understanding of my mandate from the Dean was to establish/restore student confidence in the health center. By the objective criterion of patients seen, I have succeeded. By the subjective criterion of student feedback, I have been even more successful. My informal practice style has been fundamental to this.
I have heretofore considered myself fortunate to work on Jim Tederman's staff. He is an honest, straightforward, and highly capable college administrator. His action in this case was based on slanted and incomplete information given him by others. Believing this information, I think he felt compelled to act to protect the College. Of course, I think his decision was hasty, wrong, and injurious.
The College has the right to terminate my employment at any time and for no reason; it does not have the right to defame me. It is clear that I shall not be coming back. Protests and confrontation will not change that. I would advise students to stick to their books; this is a bad time of year for distractions. If you must do something, write a letter to me, your mom, your congressman, the Dean, or whomever else you like. Get it off your chest and get back to studying.
I'll miss you guys. Take care of yourselves.
Sincerely,
<signed> Jim
James F. Newhall MD