Minneapolis Ward 7 Council Member Katie Cashman recently distributed campaign literature featuring a photo of herself standing beside Police Chief Brian O’Hara — a striking image, given her earlier criticism of the chief only months ago. The mailer projects unity with law enforcement, yet Cashman was among the council’s progressive bloc that rebuked O’Hara for his comments in a New York Post interview describing Minneapolis as having a “very detached, bourgeois liberal mentality.”
In that May 2025 article, O’Hara lamented the ideological rigidity he encountered in Minneapolis politics — remarks that drew sharp responses from several council members. Cashman at the time accused the chief of showing “disdain” for city residents and said his words “do the opposite” of rebuilding public trust. Her statement aligned with other progressive members who viewed O’Hara’s comments as condescending and counterproductive.
Fast-forward to the fall campaign season, and the same council member now presents herself literally shoulder-to-shoulder with O’Hara — the very official she had publicly condemned. The juxtaposition is hard to miss: a politician distancing herself from the chief when progressive sentiment demanded it, then embracing his image when appealing to moderate voters.
This episode fits a pattern that critics say reflects a broader credibility problem for Cashman — one in which rhetoric shifts with the political winds. On public safety, as on several other issues, her campaign materials appear crafted less around consistency than around convenience.
Whether this is simple political calculation or something deeper, voters will have to decide. What’s clear is that authenticity matters in Minneapolis politics, especially after years of public mistrust and polarized debate over policing. And when elected officials rewrite their own narratives — even in something as small as a campaign photo — residents notice.
Minneapolis Code 15.110 (c) leaves little room for interpretation: “A local official, employee or candidate for elective office shall not use city facilities, property, funds, personnel, the city logo, the city seal or other city resources to engage in political activity.”
- Cashman is a local official and a candidate for elective office.
- O’Hara is, without question, city personnel.
- A campaign flyer, distributed by the campaign, constitutes political activity.
If those facts hold, the photo isn’t just ironic — it is unambiguously a violation of both the spirit and the letter of city ethics ordinance.
My issue with this article is that it does not include the whole of the story. Katie Cashman voted in favor of a much larger police budget (Which passed!). I am someone who believes that when you are in elected office, you should be allowed to have disagreements, but still collaborate and work together. It seems here, when you focus on Katie’s comments on the chiefs interview, presents a good example of that. While she may disagree with his statements, she still materially helped him and his department by the tune of 19 million dollars. I myself, have been to several community forums with Katie where she AND representatives from the MPD have discussed strong partnerships they have developed to help Ward 7.
It is dangerous to fall down the rabbit hole of writing someone off for a comment they make, without looking at their material actions.
Regarding the DSA point, saying “She votes in line with DSA council members 80% of the time” makes a good headline – but can we get a breakdown of what those votes look like? What is the substance there? Being tuned into city politics, it is pretty obvious that a lot of votes that the council holds are on benign things, day to day business, or bureaucratic necessities. How much of that 80% is actually, substantive, policy that promotes the “DSA Agenda”? And how much is just regular council business? I’d sure like to know. Numbers are easy to manipulate.
Good evening a lot to unpack there. I have just a couple of observations..
Cashman did vote for the contract, but remember MPD had been without a contract for over a year and had fallen behind the metro area. The contract brings them to the top tier of the metro. However, over the next three years, other contracts will be settled and MPD will drift back. I can’t say at the moment, but for years Eden Prairie paid the best. I don’t deny Eden Prairie deserves an excellent police department, but the challenges MPD faces in terms of unsustainable staffing, public support gradually rebounding, and just plain old workload, calls for top end wages. The state pension is portable, another department that provides better support, better working conditions and better compensation can lure the officers we train, with the best experience in the state, away from Minneapolis. MPD is now about the same size as SPPD, but has 130,000 more residents and 100,000 more 911 calls.
Cashman and the council did not provide MPD 19 million,. The mayor and chief asked for this state public safety earmarked funding for hiring and retention bonuses, as above, in this very competitive market. The council declined and appropriated the the money to alternative public safety initiatives. In addition, the council, including Cashman, clawed back 1.5 million previously appropriated for the successful MPD recruiting campaign, in this competitive environment.
I listened to the LWV recording of the Cashman/Shaffer forum. Cashman handled herself well and was likeable, I just didn’t hear substance. If you read David Tinjum’s piece in today’s Minneapolis Times, DSA stalwart CM Wonsley, reveals she still represents defund/abolish policing, just wants to keep it secret on the down low. Does Cashman agree? It is hard to get a clear read what she believes.
You make a good point though, the 80% included votes all 13 council members agreed upon. The council has a “consent” agenda that usually passes unanimously without discussion and a “discussion” agenda, where the disagreements reveal themselves.
Has O’Hara filed a complaint? A lawsuit? I would like to believe he has a strong opinion on the use of his image in this manner and hope his preference would be to rebut the council person’s actions and make his position very clear.
Good morning Steve. I filed a complaint, I doubt O’Hara has much spare time to respond to a misuse of his image by this council member.
This happened to me once. While a Deputy Chief, I spent quite a bit of time on police and mental health response. Mindy Greiling, a Roseville legislator I believe and I think a very good person, invited me to speak at a press event concerning upcoming mental health legislation. I got a call later from a friend asking if I knew my photo while speaking while in uniform was in her campaign mailer. I did not and was not asked. That was a somewhat different set of facts that would not put Greiling under the Minneapolis ethics code, if it even existed back then.
Many people remember Chief Arradondo forbidding then union president Bob Kroll from speaking on stage at a rally for candidate Trump in his Minneapolis PD uniform. He followed that up with a public policy statement. Once I had an officer call me and say he was on his way to get his picture taken with David Lillehaug, running for some office. I asked if he was in uniform and on duty. He said yes. I said, then no. I think he knew it was stinky.
My point is, a council member should be aware of and abide by the ethics code. The Kroll matter made the issue very public.
There is more than just an ethical issue. It is illegal in Minnesota to use the photo of anyone without their written permission.
MN State Statute 211B.02 FALSE CLAIM OF SUPPORT.
A person or candidate may not knowingly make, directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying that a candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of a major political party or party unit or of an organization. A person or candidate may not state in written campaign material that the candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of an individual without first getting written permission from the individual to do so.
Cashman is ethically-challenged, to put it mildly. Like her DSA compatriots (yes, I know technically she’s not DSA but in practice she might as well be, voting with her DSA colleagues over something like 90% of the time).