Minnesota State Senator Omar Fateh finds himself embroiled in controversy over allegations of potential conflict of interest and ethical violations.
The accusations stem from his legislative efforts to expedite approvals for the state's Housing Stabilization Services (HSS) program, a taxpayer-funded Medicaid initiative aimed at aiding the elderly and disabled in securing housing. At the heart of the issue is the fact that Fateh's wife, Kaltum Mohamed, was listed as an owner of a housing stabilization company at the time he introduced the legislation.
As reported by The Post Millennial, Fateh introduced Senate File 2741 on March 24, a bill intended to streamline the approval process for HSS. The proposed legislation sought to shift the responsibility for approving housing stabilization assistance for individuals with disability waivers from the Department of Human Services (DHS) personnel to county waiver case managers.
During a March 2025 hearing, Fateh emphasized the urgency of the matter, stating that the bill aimed to "address a critical delay in access to Housing Stabilization Services, also known as HSS," and described HSS as "a lifeline." He further argued that existing delays were "putting people at risk of eviction, extended homelessness and service lapses."
The timing of Fateh's legislative push coincided with an investigation that uncovered widespread fraud within the HSS program, including instances of Medicaid billing for services not rendered and clients being enrolled without their consent. Although KARE 11's investigation revealed that Mohamed did not receive Medicaid payments, legal experts have raised concerns about the transparency of the situation.
David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University and the University of St. Thomas, remarked, "It raises lots of red flags," regarding Mohamed's company, Community Development Services LLC, which actively solicits clients and referrals.
Schultz further commented, "This is a situation where I think almost anybody schooled in, I don't know, Government Ethics 101 would know that you can't introduce legislation that benefits yourself," highlighting the ethical implications of Fateh's actions. Fateh's campaign staff has countered these claims by asserting that Mohamed no longer owned the company when the legislation was introduced.
However, records filed with DHS on May 5 indicate that Mohamed transferred ownership to a business partner after the bill's introduction, suggesting she was indeed the owner at that time.
In response to the controversy, Fateh's campaign issued a statement clarifying the intent behind the bill: "Constituents came to me with this bill, which would have empowered counties to actually meet people where they are, with direct, one-on-one in-person support and real oversight. That means more people housed, and county staff empowered to catch the fraudsters and bad actors earlier, which DHS has proven unable to do."
The unfolding situation raises questions about the intersection of personal interests and public service, as well as the broader implications for government ethics and accountability.
Login