DOCUMENT: CLS-REBUILD · CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC METHODOLOGY: SYMMETRIC · STATUS: ACTIVE

← Roster

641
Adequate
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
24/40
Moderate
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 6.18 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.

Lands in the Adequate band at credit 641, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)

★ Service to Country
None · None · None

No military service on record. Career background is public health and social work (per biography) followed by New York State Senate service 2011-2024 and U.S. House service from 2024.

The 14 measures

Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.

#MeasureScoreWhy
M01 Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law 6
why?
No documented subversion of constitutional process. Seated by special election in May 2024, well after December 2020, so he could not have signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and has no fake-electors or election-overturning exposure. The record shows ordinary participation in constitutional processes (votes, committee work) rather than any documented stand at personal cost to defend them, which keeps this at a solid-middle rather than high. No criterion-class conduct. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 6
why?
In Albany he chaired the Transportation Committee and moved safety legislation (limo-safety reforms, school-bus camera law, Jay-J's Law, Jackie's Law) that cleared both houses and was signed, work that requires cross-aisle and cross-branch cooperation on non-partisan public-safety grounds. His House tenure is short and his sponsorship profile leans toward his own caucus, so the cross-aisle signal is real but not yet a top-tier federal record. Upper-middle. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 7
why?
No documented instance of denying an opponent's or constituent's standing as a person of equal worth. The public record across a long state-legislative career and short House tenure shows constituent-service and safety-legislation framing rather than dehumanizing rhetoric. Held at upper-middle for absence of documented breach rather than a documented high-mark defense of an opponent. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 7
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against rivals, no targeting of opponents through official machinery, and no criterion-8 process-subversion conduct (seated after Dec 2020). The record is ordinary use of legislative office. No criterion-class conduct. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 6
why?
Rhetoric on the public record is conventional officeholder messaging, infrastructure, public safety, constituent service, without a documented sustained pattern of inflammatory or enemy-making language. Held at solid-middle because the available record is thin on affirmative high-restraint moments rather than because of any documented drag. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 5
why?
A genuine fiduciary appearance-concern: 2023-24 reporting documented heavy spending from his New York state campaign account around the time the Higgins House seat opened, which a campaign-finance watchdog characterized as an apparent attempt to "get around" stricter federal fundraising limits. This is an APPEARANCE-concern, not a finding, no charge, no FEC determination, and his counsel argued the state funds were not spent on the federal race. Weighed as a real judgment-and-appearance drag, mitigated by the absence of any adjudicated violation. Middle. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 5
why?
No documented instance of calling out his own side at personal cost, the higher active-duty bar. His record is one of caucus-consistent participation rather than independent rebuke of his own party. Absence of the high-mark conduct, not presence of a breach. Solid-middle. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 6
why?
No documented failure of the discretion test, no instances of using office discretion for preferential self-treatment. The school-bus-safety and limo-safety work alongside victims' families reflects diligent use of legislative discretion for public ends. The state-account spending appearance-concern keeps this from rising higher, but it is not a discretion-abuse finding. Upper-middle. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 6
why?
No documented private/public contempt gap, no evidence that an off-camera posture diverges from the on-camera one. Scored at solid-middle on absence of documented inconsistency rather than affirmative proof of integrity across both settings. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 6
why?
Demonstrated constituent orientation: secured Buffalo-area infrastructure funding (lead water-line replacement, electric school buses, transportation capital plans) tied to district needs. The state-campaign spending appearance-concern is a minor donor/constituent-alignment note. Net solid-middle, leaning positive on documented district service. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 7
why?
No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue on the record. The campaign-finance appearance-concern is a fundraising/process question, not personal enrichment, and is scored under M06 rather than here. Raw wealth and donor totals are not penalized per the framework. Held just below high for the open appearance-concern in the adjacent fundraising domain. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 7
why?
Strong institutional diligence: a perfect attendance record (0 of 893 roll-call votes missed since seating, below the chamber median for absences) signals respect for the duties of the office. No documented disruption of institutional decorum. Upper-middle on demonstrated diligence. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 6
why?
No documented sustained pattern of falsehood or factual misrepresentation on the public record. Held at solid-middle on absence of a documented truth-telling breach rather than an affirmative high-mark record of candor under pressure. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 6
why?
Demonstrated substantive command in his core domain: as NY Senate Transportation Chair he authored detailed capital-plan and safety legislation drafted alongside affected families, and his House work continues in veterans, homeland-security, and transportation policy. Substance over talking points in his specialty; held at solid-upper-middle given the short federal tenure. [source]

Why not higher, the points withheld

The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.

WhereDocumented conductMitigation weighed
M06 2023-24 reporting documented heavy spending from his NY state campaign account around the opening of the Higgins House seat; a watchdog called it an apparent attempt to 'get around' federal fundraising limits
↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety in campaign finance
Appearance-concern only, no charge, no FEC finding; counsel argued state funds were not spent on the federal race
M07 No documented instance of calling out his own side at personal cost
↳ Active-duty call-out absent
Absence of high-mark conduct, not a documented breach
M11 Open campaign-finance appearance-concern in adjacent fundraising domain
↳ Fundraising-process appearance
Not personal enrichment; no office-attributable self-dealing; scored primarily under M06
Pillar III Campaign-finance appearance-concern (Stewardship) alongside genuine district-service Protection
↳ Stewardship drag
No adjudicated violation; documented constituent funding work offsets
Pillar IV Open appearance-concern asterisk on an otherwise clean legacy (Integrity)
↳ Integrity drag
No finding; long safety-legislation record weighs positive

The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?

A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.

#PillarScoreWhy
I Trust & Loyalty
  • Would I follow them into uncertainty or adversity?
  • Would I trust them with my life or reputation?
  • Would I trust them to lead others honorably when the stakes are high?
6
why?
Attributes: Steadiness, Diligence, a perfect roll-call attendance record and sustained legislative service signal reliability to the duties of office. No documented Courage-at-cost moment and no documented Self-Interest breach; solid-middle.
II Aspiration & Integrity
  • Do I admire their values and how they live them?
  • Do they reflect the kind of person I hope to become?
  • Do I feel challenged to be better because of their example?
6
why?
Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, a consistent public-safety and infrastructure focus across state and federal office. Held at middle by an open campaign-finance appearance-concern (a Consistency/Temperance question) that has no adjudicated finding.
III Protection & Influence
  • Would I trust this person to protect what I love most?
  • Would I trust them to influence someone I care deeply about?
  • Would those under their authority be safer and better for it?
6
why?
Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, used legislative power to deliver district infrastructure and to draft safety law alongside victims' families. The fundraising appearance-concern is a minor Stewardship drag, not an Exploitation finding.
IV Legacy & Virtue
  • Would I be proud if my child grew up to be like them?
  • Do they embody the virtues I want carried into the future?
  • If their influence continued in others, would the world be better or worse?
6
why?
Attributes: Integrity, Justice, a durable safety-legislation legacy in Albany. The open campaign-finance appearance-concern places a real but unadjudicated asterisk on the record; it tempers without erasing.
TOTAL: Moderate 24/40

Total 24/40, Adequate. An honest middle: a diligent, substantive legislative record with one genuine but unresolved fundraising appearance-concern and no documented high-mark conduct-at-cost yet on the federal record.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“After U.S. Attorney's call for revoking corrupt politicians' pensions, Senator Kennedy urges Albany to support urgently needed pension forfeiture legislation.”

Press release supporting pension-forfeiture for convicted corrupt officials · NYSenate.gov press release · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite

“Drafted limousine-safety and school-bus-safety reforms alongside the families of victims of the Schoharie and Cutchogue crashes; both houses passed them and the Governor signed them into law.”

Transportation Committee chairmanship, public-safety legislation · NYSenate.gov · CIVIC · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Timothy M. Kennedy (born 1976). U.S. Representative for New York's 26th Congressional District (Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Western New York) since May 6, 2024, after winning a special election to fill the vacancy left by Brian Higgins. Previously served in the New York State Senate 2011-2024, representing the 63rd District, where he chaired the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Capital Investment Committee. Background in public health and social work. Serves on the House Committees on Homeland Security and Veterans' Affairs.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Short federal tenure (seated May 2024) with a long state-legislative record. As NY Senate Transportation Chair he led a $32.8B DOT five-year capital plan and a $54.8B MTA capital plan, authored limousine-safety and school-bus-camera reforms drafted with victims' families, and sponsored Jay-J's Law and Jackie's Law. In the House he has sponsored ~30 bills focused on veterans, homeland security, transportation, and health, with a perfect roll-call attendance record (0 of 893 votes missed, 2024-2026). His federal sponsorship profile leans toward his own caucus; policy positions are NOT scored in either direction per the framework.

3. Constitutional Moments

No documented institutional-fidelity moments at personal cost on the federal record yet, and no documented process-subversion conduct. Seated in May 2024, he had no role in the December 2020 election-certification disputes or the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and is therefore outside any criterion-8 exposure. His state-level support for pension-forfeiture legislation against convicted corrupt officials is a modest pro-accountability signal.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Conventional officeholder messaging centered on infrastructure, public safety, veterans, and constituent service. No documented sustained pattern of inflammatory or enemy-making rhetoric, and no documented high-mark defense of an opponent's dignity. Net solid-middle on absence of documented breach.

5. Fiduciary Profile

No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. The one genuine fiduciary appearance-concern is 2023-24 reporting that he spent down a New York state campaign account around the opening of the Higgins House seat; a campaign-finance watchdog characterized it as an apparent attempt to circumvent stricter federal fundraising rules. This is an appearance-concern, not a finding, no charge, no FEC determination, and his counsel argued the state funds were not applied to the federal race. Weighed honestly under M06, mitigated by the absence of any adjudicated violation.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. He was seated in May 2024 and thus could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus or participated in fake-electors or election-overturning conduct (no criterion-8). No documented pattern of enemy-making or incitement (no criterion-10). The campaign-finance reporting is an unadjudicated appearance-concern, not a criterion-class finding. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

An honest middle. Kennedy presents a diligent, substantive legislative record, a long Albany tenure built on transportation and public-safety law drafted with affected families, perfect federal attendance, and clear district-service delivery. Against that is one genuine but unresolved fundraising appearance-concern and a thin federal record so far on the high-mark conduct-at-cost the standard rewards most. Nothing approaches criterion-class conduct. Adequate: a clean-enough record without yet a defining stand for the oath.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · U.S. House Clerk member profile · FEC candidate record

Tier 2: GovTrack report card · Ballotpedia · Investigative Post, campaign-finance reporting · OpenSecrets

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · OpenSecrets · Wikipedia

Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: