What will be the record of the Kansas governor over the next four years – or possibly a shorter period?

How will Gov. Kathleen Sebelius perform in her second term? Will she serve the full four years or leave midway in her term for a senior Democratic appointive position in Washington or a spot on the Democratic presidential ticket in 2008?

Sebelius has attracted significant national attention since her election four years ago in what once was looked upon as a solid Republican state. She is a skilled campaigner and she makes a favorable appearance. She is tough, smart and a good speaker. She was able to claim credit for several legislative successes, brought the state through tough economic times, and, helped by a good state and national economy, improved the state’s fiscal condition.

She had major help from the GOP-controlled Kansas Legislature and a favorable assist from the Kansas Supreme Court, but, in the long run, the governor can, and will, claim credit for most anything good that has happened to Kansas during the past four years – whether it is justified or not.

But now she is about to enter her second term, and the big question is what she will do with this opportunity to lead the state for the next four years. It is hoped she will do more than former GOP Gov. Bill Graves did in his second term.

Graves had every opportunity to set high goals for the state and its people. He won re-election by a wide margin, enjoyed big GOP majorities in the House and Senate and didn’t have to worry about re-election. He didn’t have to worry about stepping on toes or offending someone. He could challenge Kansans and their representatives in the Legislature to aim high, achieve excellence and have the state be a national leader in many areas.

For one reason or another, however, he didn’t make the most of this unique opportunity.

Bill Graves is a good person and he conducted himself in a manner that brought respect to the office and to the state. He didn’t do anything bad, but, in the eyes of many, he muffed the opportunity to try to get the state to do some great things. He also did not do a good job of whipping the state’s Republican Party into shape. In fact, he did a poor job.

That was eight years ago. Now Sebelius is about to start her second term. Will she focus on the needs and opportunities of the state, or will she have one ear tuned to what is going on with the Democratic Party at the national level. Will the lure of being on a national ticket or considered for a cabinet position if Democrats should win the 2008 presidential election be so attractive that she pulls back from some of her most challenging, and perhaps controversial, opportunities here in Kansas to avoid weakening her national stature?

If that should be the case, she is blowing a wonderful opportunity to try to do great things for the state. Kansans – Democrats and Republicans – should hope she has a highly successful four years in office.

Politics being what it is, some in the Republican Party may be more interested in playing politics, perhaps trying to make Sebelius look bad rather than performing in a way to benefit the state.

Those in this partisan political world need to realize there will be two new faces seeking the governorship in 2010 and, in a way, Sebelius is not a part of the picture. Granted, her lieutenant governor, Mark Parkinson, a Republican turned Democrat, may have hopes of moving into the governor’s chair, but a lot of maneuvering and fighting can occur between now and the 2010 election. True, a strong Sebelius performance in her second term will help state Democrats, but Republicans far outnumber Democrats, and they have the great political power if they can unite. (That’s a big IF.)

There are many important issues in the state such as health care, taxes, the environment, K-12 education, post-secondary education, the economy, how to generate attractive jobs to hold young Kansans in the state and many other issues.

Here in Lawrence, as well as in Manhattan, Wichita, Emporia, Hays, Pittsburg and Kansas City, Kan., the state of affairs at Kansas Board of Regents universities is becoming increasingly intense. There is no justification for anyone in Kansas, whether in the governor’s office or elsewhere, to think Kansas can rest and be assured its universities always will be academically competitive.

Something needs to be done to revitalize interest and concern about state universities. It is wrong to generalize about the entire system, but many Kansas University supporters are concerned about their school and what they sense is a lack of excitement, vision and leadership. They also question the emphasis on raising money for sports rather than for teaching, research, faculty salaries and academic excellence.

There also is great concern about the image, role and respect of the Kansas Board of Regents and how this impacts state universities. Sebelius should give serious thought to the importance of her appointments to this body and even consider the wisdom of revamping the Board of Regents, along with its responsibilities.

For instance, the state faces an estimated bill of more than $700 million to address long overdue and costly maintenance at state universities. Millions of dollars have been appropriated to the schools over the years, but obviously, little if any of this money has been spent on maintenance. Why weren’t the regents on top of this? Why didn’t the chancellors and presidents set aside some of these millions for maintenance? What if a private businessman operated his company with the idea he could pay salaries, buy supplies and equipment and market his product and services but pay no attention to fixing a hole in the roof or a broken window? He wouldn’t stay in business very long. The regents are not doing the job and not demanding better performance by their chancellors and presidents.

This is just one area in which the governor could make some meaningful changes.

The big question is what Sebelius’ goals are and what she wants to accomplish in her next term. Will she be able to focus her attention on Kansas or will she be walking a tightrope, trying to look progressive and innovative in Kansas while not causing political waves that could damage her national marketability?