Portland committee presses city on fire‑chief hiring after public concerns about candidate’s background and pay

A public commenter and several Portland councilors pressed city administrators on the hiring process that led to an offer for the Portland Fire & Rescue chief job, asking whether the city’s vetting and reference checks were adequate and whether the candidate’s previous employers and later request for additional relocation pay were considered.

City Administrator Jordan and Ron Zito, deputy director for the Bureau of Human Resources, described the city’s multi‑stage recruitment process used for executive hires and said finalists undergo reference checks and background screening before an offer is finalized.

The public commenter who opened the conversation questioned the selection of Reginald Freeman, saying he had worked for “3 places in the last 4 years,” including a brief stint with the city of Oakland, an insurance company and what the commenter described as work for the Saudi government. The commenter asked whether that employment history was a “warning sign” and said he was concerned enough to ask the committee about it in public rather than privately. The commenter also said Freeman later sought an additional housing allowance after accepting the job.

Ron Zito described the city’s reference and offer process: the Bureau of Human Resources typically asks candidates for three to five references—“people that actually supervise them” in prior roles—and reaches out to those supervisors. He said the recruitment team sometimes conducts additional outreach, including contacts to previous employers (in this case, he said the city made outside phone calls to Oakland and “got some very good feedback” from there). Zito said offers are generally contingent on criminal history checks and other background screenings.

City Administrator Jordan and other staff acknowledged that high‑level hires are frequently negotiated and that candidates sometimes counter offers after an initial acceptance. Jordan said that occurrence is “unusual, but not unheard of,” describing cases where a candidate’s circumstances changed or came to light after an initial acceptance. Several councilors said they found the timing of an additional request—reported publicly as coming days after acceptance for a housing allowance—“an eyebrow raiser.”

Councilors also raised two process points: whether the city should make a practice of seeking references from people who worked for applicants (not only supervisors), and whether union participants involved in recruitment—specifically, a poll facilitated by fire union president Isaac MacLennan—should be given access to poll results. Ron Zito said some organizations do not respond to reference checks, and that staff will dig deeper when a reference raises concerns. On the union poll, staff said the recruitment manager (who was ill the day of the hearing) would be asked to follow up and confirm whether the union received results.

Pay equity questions also surfaced: a councilor said media reporting indicated the incoming chief was offered roughly 3 percent less than another finalist. City staff described an internal pay‑equity analysis they apply to non‑represented leadership offers that looks at internal comparable experience, indirect internal experience and relevant external experience to set an equitable pay rate. Ron Zito said leadership offers are also negotiated case by case, within the parameters of the equity analysis.

Speakers and councilors cautioned that employment at a controversial employer can be a legitimate line of inquiry but that interviewers must remain focused on job‑related qualifications. City Administrator Jordan said previous employers and a candidate’s full body of work are “fair things to look at,” while also noting legal limits on how far questioning may stray.

The committee did not take formal action on the hire during the discussion. Councilors asked staff to confirm the chain of events around the poll, to provide more detail on the pay equity comparison between finalists, and to consider whether additional reference‑checking practices should be formalized for future executive recruitments.

The session made clear the gap between what the public expects in transparency about executive searches and what the city’s HR practice permits; staff pledged follow‑up on specifics raised in the hearing.