AN INTERVIEW WITH JEAN MORDO

For the people who haven't yet met you, could you introduce yourself briefly?

Sure... I wish I could tell you that it all started in a little log cabin and that I walked 5 miles to school barefoot in the snow. But that is not the case.

All kidding aside - after graduating from Stanford with an MBA, I worked for a number of companies and eventually retired after serving as the CFO of several large multinational corporations. Our kids having left the nest, my wife Barbara and I decided that of all the places we have lived and visited around the world, Los Altos Hills was where we wanted to plant our permanent roots. I served as a Planning Commissioner before I was elected to the City Council in 2004. Barbara and I are both active in the community - among others I serve on the Boards of Palo Alto Area Red Cross, the Los Altos Community Foundation, The Bus Barn Stage Company and the Los Altos Rotary Endowment Fund.

Why did you decide to run for a second term on the Town Council?

Six years ago, we had an election campaign where the issues at stake were truly critical to the Town's future, and frankly it scared the heck out of me that those issues could even be up for question. Luckily our residents voted to protect the Town as we know it, but at that time I resolved to become part of the solution rather than a bystander.

Now, after six good years of a balanced and fair Council, which has brought significant improvements to the Town, I would like to continue in this spirit. We have had several successes, including the reopening of Gardner Bullis School, a greatly strengthened and customer friendly Town staff, substantial investments in our recreation facilities and a beautiful new Town Hall. But the most satisfying achievement is the cooling of the passions in Town. A new atmosphere of moderation and respect is prevailing, and I would like to keep it this way.

So what are your priorities going forward?

My priorities are to:

• Increase our preparedness for disasters such as earthquake or fire
• Promote energy and water savings
• Improve our infrastructure and
• Continue to protect the semi rural beauty of our Town.

The issue of property owner's rights has come up in past elections. Could you expound a little on your philosophy there?

The easy way out is again a bland assurance that of course property rights are a bulwark in our society and take priority. But it isn't as easy as that. One of the reasons we (and I suspect most residents in the Town) moved here is because we value its amenities - in particular the open space and rural environment. As such the latter is part of our common ownership - in a metaphorical sense it takes the place of the "commons" as they existed in the villages of medieval Europe. The problems came in those days when a resident would over-graze the commons with his sheep - to his own advantage perhaps - but to the detriment of the other owners of the commons. And we have a similar tension today. One resident may claim that it is his right to build the biggest house possible under our codes and on a prominent hillside, even if it significantly detracts from others' enjoyment of their properties and their rights.

So the simple assurance that "a property owner's rights are paramount" is too easy to gloss over. By the very same token we can say that "the neighbor's property rights are paramount" - because the neighbor, after all, is just as much a property owner.

It is an issue that requires thoughtfulness and a balancing of everybody's rights. And sometimes nobody is happy with the result - but that's the way it is.

Another thing you mention is disaster preparedness. Isn't the Fire District doing a good enough job?

My concern has to do with being prepared not only for disasters like fire but also earthquakes and other potential calamities. We all know that it is more a question of "when" something is going to happen than "if". In the business world where risk evaluation and contingency planning is common, I am concerned that we haven't done enough in our Town along these lines. Some work has been done, and there are some plans in place. But I worry that this is not enough - at least to the extent that I as an average citizen don't know about it. Have we carefully identified what we think might be the most likely scenarios and developed plans to re-act to them?

What do we do if the southern part of the Town is isolated because some or all of the Highway 280 overpasses have collapsed and blocked access to and from over half of our Town? How long can we go with the water in the Town's storage tanks if power is out for some days - or do we have mobile generator back-up to take care of that? What can we do if the water supply to our Town is interrupted maybe for weeks?

These are of course matters for various agencies like the Fire District, Sheriff, Red Cross, and Purissima Hills Water District. But our Town also has a responsibility to perform due diligence and know what role it is expected to play. This is especially true because it is understood that in case of a major earthquake, the focus of primary providers will be on densely populated areas rather than our Town.

I have, over the last six months, undertaken some formal training in Emergency Management in Monterey, and I have worked with the Town staff to organize CERT training classes for residents. We have also formed a group of trained volunteers to assist in case of disaster.

This is a good start, but there is more we can - and should - do.

Infrastructure - that's another item you have highlighted. Besides under-grounding, what are the others you have in mind?

Yes - the various pieces of infrastructure that contribute to the smooth running of a Town and our quality of life have an unfortunate tendency to be upstaged by higher- visibility issues. They tend to drop in priority as we focus our attention on more immediate issues. Three others in particular I want to draw attention to:

• Sewers: Our Town still relies to a large extent on septic tanks. And as long as they don't fail, there isn't a problem. But as more and more of our housing reaches the 40 or 50 year old mark, septic failure can really get your attention.

Building additional sewer mains so that more residents can connect is necessary, but is extremely expensive due to the topography and low dentity of the Town. One way to make progress is to encourage the formation of Sewer Assessment or Reimbursement Districts, where residents voluntarily share the cost of building new sewer mains. This is the approach that we have taken for the West Loyola neighborhood, an area recently annexed to the Town.

• Roads and Pathways: In the last couple of years, we have begun upgrading our roads and have approved a multi-year program to do the job. We have also obtained funds from State grants and the VTA to help complete our pathway system.

• Broadband Internet and cell phone coverage: We have made significant progress in this regard, thanks to actions by the current Council. We must continue, as many in our Town are still not covered - while living at the very epicenter of high technology in Silicon Valley. The Town does not directly control this issue, but on the one side we can push the priority with the providers, and on the other side we can pull by ensuring that we remove as many hurdles as possible that are within our control.

You were Chairman of the Town's Finance Committee for nearly 4 years. In your judgment, are we in good shape?

I am glad that you bring up this topic! The short answer is: YES! We are lucky that we are not facing the difficulties that some other cities are facing. We are running a surplus every year, and have around $12 million in the bank. We recently sold an unused lot for $1.4 million, which helps finance our investments in recreational assets. We also recently reformed the way we deal with health insurance for retirees, which controls the cost of this expensive benefit. We have also restructured the presentation of the Town's financial reports and budget to increase transparency and understanding.

We have also been successful in having legislation passed in Sacramento to rectify an injustice that dated back to the adoption of Prop 13. Los Altos Hills and a handful of other cities was penalized for having lower (or no) Property Taxes at the time, and received a smaller share of Property Tax revenues. This effort has resulted in our town receiving an additional $400,000 a year, every year, from now on.

This Council seems to have committed to spending a lot of money on recreation facilities. Is it wise, and can we afford it all?

The town population is evolving, with many more families with young children. In addition to the welcome re-opening of an elementary public school, we need to provide recreation for children in our community. The cost of land is prohibitive in Los Altos Hills, but we are lucky that the Town already owns such great properties as the Little League Fields and Westwind Barn. This allows us to provide wonderful sports facilities for youngsters in Town and in Los Altos. We have approved $1.3 million to improve the Little League fields, and we are partnering with a non-profit to share the cost of a seismic retrofit and restoration of Westwind barn. The Town will match private dollars up to $880,000 for this project. While Little League serves approximately 250 kids, mostly boys, the year-round riding program at Westwind Barn served about 250 kids and adults last year, mainly female. An expansion of this 3-year old program is under way, with an increase in the number of participants. In addition about 40 kids take advantage of the Westwind 4H Riding For The Handicapped program, a program that has therapeutic benefits for children with special needs. Further, a number of young riders take part in the Pony Club riding program, which is also hosted at Westwind barn and makes use of its facilities.

We are lucky that this wonderful facility with its surrounding 13 acres was donated to the Town by Countess Margit Bessenyey in the 1970s. It is a gem, unique to Los Altos Hills. It allows us to offer recreation programs that are not matched anywhere else on the Peninsula, and they are in keeping with the equestrian tradition of the Hills. After all, our Town was incorporated in great part, because residents wanted the space to have horses and other farm animals on their properties. Ruth McMahon was one of the legendary gatherers of signatures for the incorporation petition and she rode around the Town on her horse collecting those signatures.

We are also investing about $500K in our pathway system, with several new critical walking paths.

The Town used a small amount of its substantial reserves, proceeds from the sale of a vacant lot, money obtained from the VTA, and grants from State bonds to pay for these investments.

Are we not investing for the benefit of a small number of people, half of them non-residents, who board their horses at the Barn?

Not really! Boarders essentially pay their way. They are charged with the costs of operating the barn and taking care of the horses (feeding, manure removal, etc.). There is a small deficit budgeted for the first half year that the Town is managing the barn, but the objective is to break even on the barn operations. In fact, having boarders pay to run the barn allows us to host other equestrian programs for the residents economically. We could never afford to run a barn with only 6 or 8 horses, dedicated to Town programs.

Aren't we spending residents' tax money to run parks and recreation programs for non-residents?

All Parks and Recreation programs enroll both residents and non-residents. The Little League participation for example, is 30% residents. The equestrian programs are about 35%. Non-residents are charged a slightly higher fee. Program fees attempt to recover the bulk of the costs, although some receive a modest subsidy. Other cities also offer their recreation programs to non residents.

What else do you think voters should know about you or be aware of?

Frankly, I'm always concerned at how election campaigns are driven by the current high-profile issues and the proportion of voters who seem to limit their decision-making based purely on a candidate's stated positions. If Joe is in favor of A, B, and C, and we like A, B, and C, then we vote for Joe and that's it.

Of equal or greater importance I think, is to have confidence in how Joe will handle issues that haven't surfaced yet. Inevitably new situations arise and circumstances change. So of equal or possibly greater importance is confidence that an elected official is equipped not only with experience and integrity, but can work with staff and other council members and lead by seeking compromise where necessary but not caving in when it would be wrong to do so.

This quality is an intangible and cannot be evaluated as easily as a simple statement of positions on various issues.

Let's say you are about to set out on a voyage into the unknown (and the future is always unknown) and you are asked to choose between two captains, each with his own ship. Would you choose the captain whose ship happens to already be pointing in the direction you want to go, or would you look a little bit more closely at what navigation equipment each has on board and an indication of the captain's navigation skills?

Do you have confidence in your elected official as a skilled navigator who steers always for the public good? That to me is actually more important than a simple recitation of positions that you happen to be in favor of.

It's tough to measure in a candidate, I know. But to the extent possible, I hope that voters will look beyond simple statements of position and try to get some feel for how a given candidate measures up in this aspect.

Thank you Jean for your time and for giving us some insights in to where you stand and what makes you tick.

Thank You! Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity.