MONTAGUE — Three months after the Selectboard appointed Department of Public Works Superintendent Sam Urkiel to a one-year term as tree warden, a petition asking the Selectboard to reconsider the decision has received 106 signatures.
Selectboard Clerk Nate Card read the petition aloud on Monday, with the 106 residents requesting that the Selectboard’s July appointment of Urkiel to tree warden be rescinded. The residents also ask that a public tree warden be appointed, separate from the DPW.
“We deeply respect the job, respect the DPW and thank the board for their consideration of this important matter,” the petition, as read by Card, states.
Selectboard Chair Richard Kuklewicz noted that the topic could be revisited at a later date with an agenda item allowing for discussion. The petition was brought up during the agenda item to discuss a draft “Public Tree and Tree Warden Operating Protocol,” which Town Administrator Walter Ramsey said he put together following a request in July to outline what operating protocols the tree warden is expected to follow.
At the July meeting, the idea for Urkiel to take on the tree warden role as the DPW superintendent received public pushback. Although the initial proposal was to appoint him for three years, the Selectboard instead opted to appoint Urkiel for one year, with periodic check-ins after three and six months.
At the time, Card said he had concerns with keeping the tree warden position within the DPW, “due to the patterns that I have seen in town of the current status of care of the canopy,” and the conflict of interest the appointment would create, in his view.
“That constitutes a conflict of interest to me, because the work of the DPW so much revolves around the care and maintenance of the built infrastructure as well,” Card said in July, “and I would be very concerned about the needs of timely and efficient work happening on built infrastructure, superseding the priorities of the living infrastructure, that is the public trees we have in Montague.”
This concern was echoed by others at the time, including Bill Coddington of the Tree Advisory Committee, who likewise spoke of the “inherent conflict of interest” when taking care of trees that “is going to make other parts of their job harder.” Other comments reflected the workload concern for Urkiel, and whether both responsibilities could reasonably be handled by one person.
Both Card and Urkiel reviewed Ramsey’s draft protocol before it was sent to members of the Tree Advisory Committee for comments.
“We got comments back from one Tree [Advisory] Committee member, Hayden Stebbins. He gave some really good comments,” Ramsey said. “We incorporated pretty much all of those into the draft that you have here.”
Included in the 10-page document are sections dedicated to outlining the tree warden’s required compliance with laws pertaining to public trees under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 87, as well as with local bylaws; how the tree warden should interact with the Tree Advisory Committee, DPW staff, the Selectboard and town officials; and how to handle emergency and non-emergency tree removals, among other directives.
Urkiel said the draft was a “very thorough document,” but he did not comment on the petition after it was read. Resident David Detmold then spoke up to share that he had gathered signatures for the petition, saying that it was “the easiest petition to get signatures for that I’ve ever tabled on.”
While Kuklewicz reiterated that the petition couldn’t be discussed as it was not an agenda item, Detmold went on to say that it would be good to have a relationship with the tree warden whose primary focus is on public trees, as DPW employees are busy enough and short-staffed, “and there are a lot of trees that need care.”
At the end of the discussion, Kuklewicz said he’d keep Urkiel updated on when the petition will be back on the agenda.
