The departure of Richard Norton Smith from the Dole Institute later this year means that a search will be undertaken for a permanent successor. Smith did a remarkable job during his short tenure. He built a building for the Institute, organized a marvelous inaugural program last summer and initiated and oversaw visiting lectures that enriched both the university and the community. But now, as he moves on to Illinois and the Lincoln library, we must find someone to carry on the work.

This will not be a simple task and how it is undertaken will determine the future of the institute. I want to suggest that before the search for a new director is begun, the university, the community, Sen. Dole, and all those concerned with the success of the institute pause to think about what the future of the institute should hold.

There are some basic issues which must be considered before a new director should be hired. First, of course, Sen. Dole’s concerns must be addressed. The institute, after all, bears his name and would not exist but for his and his admirers’ support. Second, the interests of the university also must be considered. Should the institute be a fully integrated member of the university community or should it be something physically located at KU but otherwise separate? There are arguments to be made on both sides.

Third, the community’s interests also are of vital importance. To the extent that the institute will be a center for outreach to Kansas and the nation, it can play an increasingly important role in the cultural, intellectual and financial life of Lawrence and Douglas County.

Finally, the interests of the institute itself must be considered. What functions can such an institution best fulfill? Certainly, it should be an archive for Sen. Dole’s records. But how much more of an archival role should it play? How will it function in cooperation or in competition with other historical and archival bodies? How much of an educational role should it play? Will it work collaboratively with various university units such as political science or law or the Hall Center for the Humanities? The proper level of cooperation and collaboration and competition is a vital aspect of the institute’s potential integration into the university.

The role of the institute as a community and state asset also requires much thought and planning. Certainly, the departing director wished the institute to play a major role as a center of policy analysis and outreach to the state. He has made a great start in this direction. The acting director, Steve McAllister, has indicated that he, too, wants to expand the outreach efforts of the institute and make it a center for such efforts. But how best to achieve this? And how best to fund this? Again, the new director will be charged with raising a substantial additional amount of endowment funds for the institute. The extent to which the institute will fulfill community and state needs may well help or hinder such efforts.

As the time for Richard Norton Smith’s departure draws near, perhaps, it is also time for the parties who care about the Dole Institute to restart discussions of the institute’s future direction and to determine what they want the institute to be doing five, 10 and even 25 years from now. The creation of a new strategic plan for the institute, one that is formulated with input from all interested parties and in the light of what has been learned during Richard Norton Smith’s tenure, should be a first priority and should be implemented before a search for a new director is begun.

Mike Hoeflich is a professor in the Kansas University School of Law.