GREENFIELD — The city is reviewing proposals for two new ordinances that would “protect and affirm the gender of all individuals” and require elected officials to “review and attest the accuracy of property record cards on their own properties.”
No votes were taken by the Appointments and Ordinances Committee on either proposal on Monday; however, committee members held cursory discussions on both ordinances and what they would like to see changed in the language before moving forward. Both ordinances would need to be adopted by the full City Council to take effect.
Protecting and affirming the gender of all individuals
“This is the first time this is coming to this committee,” Appointments and Ordinances Chair Katherine Golub said. “There’s been a team of people working on this for the last year, since we passed the trans protection resolution about a year and a half ago.”
In April 2025, city councilors passed a resolution declaring Greenfield as a “sanctuary city” for transgender and gender-nonconforming people; now the council is looking to define how this will be implemented.
The draft ordinance states its purpose is “to affirm Greenfield’s commitment to upholding the dignity, equality and rights of all individuals to live as their full, authentic selves, regardless of gender; to protect access to essential services by LGBTQIA+ individuals without fear of discrimination, criminalization or legal repercussion; and to clarify that our city will not participate in any civil or criminal action related to health care provisions originating in other states or expend city resources related to such aim.”
The ordinance explains that all city agents, including staff and elected officials, shall treat employees, applicants, contractors and members of the public with dignity and respect, regardless of gender, gender expression, gender identity, biological sex or sexual orientation. It includes language requiring the city to seek health insurance plans for employees that include gender-affirming care options, create transition plans to support any staff who are transitioning and respect pronouns. Under the ordinance, city agents would be barred from providing anyone with information about gender-affirming care being given or that has been given to people.
The language also calls for the creation of a Gender Protection Implementation Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Greenfield City Council’s Appointments and Ordinances Committee, among other action items.
During public comment, community members voiced their support for the ordinance.
“Recent history has shown us that rights that are not protected by law are vulnerable, and so I urge the City Council to do everything in their power to protect the rights of everybody in our community,” Davis Bannister said.
“I’m a proud member of Greenfield’s queer community, and I think it’s just imperative that we do all we can as a community to protect the rights of trans and gender-nonconforming people, as well as the health care providers who are treating them,” resident EJ Baker said. “Especially in this era of really increasing existential threats from the federal level and other states.”
During initial discussions on the ordinance, however, councilors said the wording needs work. For example, Precinct 7 Councilor Sarah Bolduc said the definition of gender should be adjusted.
The current draft defines gender as “a socially constructed system that gives meaning to masculinity and femininity and which unevenly distributes power and opportunity according to cultural interpretations of sex. As an element of personal identity, a person’s gender is developed through the interaction of social roles and expectations, one’s response to those expectations, one’s physiology and one’s internal sense of self.”
“I think it weakens the structure. I think if we define gender solely on masculinity and femininity, I feel like we’re accidentally excluding things like agender people,” Bolduc said, referring to people whose gender identity is genderless or neutral.
The draft also includes a definition of gender-affirming care as “all supplies, care and services of a medical, behavioral health, mental health, surgical, psychiatric, pharmacological, therapeutic, diagnostic, preventative, rehabilitative or supportive nature relating to the treatment of gender dysphoria.”
Precinct 9 Councilor Max Webbe added that gender-affirming care is not just for trans or gender-nonconforming folks, but is also provided to some people following medical procedures, such as women who get reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy.
The committee is expected to continue discussion on the ordinance at a future meeting.
Reviewing property cards
Another ordinance proposal came from the Board of Assessors, which said that having elected city officials review and attest to the accuracy of their property cards would set a good example for city residents. Having accurate information is essential for setting property assessments and tax bills in the city.
In an email included in the Appointments and Ordinances Committee’s meeting materials, Mayor Ginny Desorgher said she believes the ordinance would be a good idea, but the proposal would need more discussion on its practicality.
“As I recall, the reasoning behind this was to ensure elected officials checked the
accuracy of their own property record cards. We should lead by example. It will be difficult to get every member of every board to complete this, and as we saw with ethics,
compliance is challenging,” Desorgher wrote. “I think the proposed ordinance needs more discussion regarding oversight of the members of the 50 boards. Rolling it in over a few years might be necessary for board members. There are so many folks that I am thinking of who may have no idea how to find their record card.”
Bolduc said the proposal “makes sense” and is “very straightforward.” However, other councilors said they would like to see the ordinance include language that would detail how it would be enforced.
“I like the intent of this — and as you all know, I’m a real stickler for how do we enforce this and make sure it’s really thorough — and I have a lot of questions about enforcement,” Golub said. “It’s straightforward in intent, but I don’t see anything about enforcement, and I don’t like to create ordinances without anything to enforce them or implement them.”
The committee agreed to discuss the proposal further with the Board of Assessors.
