The Tazewell County Board continued a strategic planning discussion that centered on board member education, public-facing budget information and potential improvements to the county website and budget software.

Board members spent the session outlining goals for the next four years and several proposed action items aimed at making county operations easier for both elected officials and residents to understand. The discussion included proposals for a semiannual “board college” or training series, clearer budget summaries, and expanded use of the county website to host explanatory material about departments and levies.

The chair, identified in the meeting as Chairman Grama, opened the session by urging the group to keep the strategic plan simple and “work the plan” rather than creating a complex document that goes unused. Participants repeatedly returned to the idea that board members benefit from recurring, focused briefings on county functions — finance, transportation, human resources and other departments — so that elected officials can make more informed votes.

Several board members who identified themselves by first name during the meeting described a steep learning curve for newly elected members. One board member suggested a recurring training program every four to six months to cover specific topics, including how levies and department budgets are built. Another asked for department heads to give short, role‑specific briefings so board members could better understand operational details before budget deliberations.

The county health director (identified in the meeting as Amy) told the board that she has been maintaining the county cemetery for “a decade, 2 decades now,” noting the cemetery is county property though the health department is not its statutory owner. That example was raised to illustrate gaps in institutional knowledge among board members.

Finance staff participation was invoked repeatedly: a finance staff member named Mindy was noted as working on more comprehensible budget materials, and a board member asked that the county consider adopting budget software to publish clearer summaries and project pages for residents. The transportation department was mentioned as an example of a department that could brief the board at a future meeting.

No motions or votes were recorded on these topics in the transcript provided. The meeting produced multiple suggested directions — training series, more digestible budget documents, better website content, and a request to explore budget software — but none were shown as formally adopted during the excerpt.

The conversation concluded with board members saying public education about what the board does and how assessments and levies work should be part of the plan so residents can better understand county finances and services.