Institutional Governance
Leadership roles documented in Interstate Credit Union’s latest published annual report, with sources and review date.
The following leadership information is drawn from Interstate Credit Union’s latest published annual report. Source reviewed October 4, 2026.
| Name | Role documented in the report |
|---|---|
| Harley Grove | Board Chairperson; Audit Committee |
| Harriett Cooper | Board Secretary; Audit Committee Chairperson |
| Sharon Terry | Vice Chairman in the March 2025 meeting minutes |
| Delinda Pattie | Treasurer; Audit Committee; elected to a two-year director term |
| Amelia Milligan | Board Director; Audit Committee |
| Stacie Branch | President/CEO; elected to a three-year director term |
The report names Jerry Jones as chairman at the March 18, 2025 meeting, while its later leadership message identifies Harley Grove as chairperson. Jerry Jones’s continuing board membership needs confirmation.
Source: Interstate Credit Union — 2025 Annual Report, pages 2–4. Official annual-report index.
The statutory foundation
Legal Responsibilities of Credit Union Directors
A credit union’s board has a continuing responsibility to oversee the institution entrusted to it. Georgia law gives that responsibility practical substance: stewardship of funds, reliable records, accountable management, and attention to legal compliance.
Institutional oversight & financial stewardship
O.C.G.A. § 7-1-656(a) makes the board responsible for the credit union’s affairs, funds, and records. Its specified duties include setting rates, arranging required fidelity coverage, and overseeing investments other than member loans, with permitted delegation. The board must meet as often as necessary, ordinarily during at least ten months each year; a department-approved alternative cannot fall below quarterly meetings.
Records & a documented process
Directors and committee members must take written oaths to perform their duties faithfully. The credit union must retain those oaths in board minutes and keep minutes of membership, board, and board-committee meetings. These requirements create a record through which governance decisions can be examined.
Management accountability & independent checks
The board appoints audit and credit committees, which are accountable to it. No credit union employee may serve on the audit committee. These structural safeguards support oversight of management and review of financial controls and compliance; executive explanations should be evaluated through an informed oversight process.
Good faith, care & individual responsibility
Section 7-1-656(e) applies § 7-1-490 to credit union directors and officers. It requires good faith and ordinarily prudent diligence, care, and skill. Reasonable reliance on competent staff and advisers is permitted. The law presumes good faith and ordinary care in decision-making processes; rebutting that presumption requires evidence of a grossly negligent process, and business-judgment protections remain.
Board membership alone does not establish personal liability. A civil claim requires an applicable legal basis and proof of its elements, including the director’s own conduct and any required causation and harm. Oversight duties do not make every director personally answerable for every institutional error.
Independent institutional review
When Executive Leadership and Board Oversight Overlap
Stacie Branch is identified as Interstate Credit Union’s President and Chief Executive Officer and is also listed as a Director of its Board. The institution’s 2025 Annual Report identifies her executive title on page 2 and records her election to a three-year director term on page 4.
Executive leadership
Management directs institutional operations and implements decisions through the credit union’s staff and systems.
Board oversight
The board oversees institutional affairs, evaluates management, and ensures that serious concerns receive appropriate review.
When allegations concern an executive who also serves on the board responsible for oversight, an important question arises:
How is independent review maintained, and who evaluates the executive’s conduct?
The overlap makes the review process consequential. Meaningful independence may involve directors without involvement in the challenged conduct, an appropriately constituted committee, or independent advisers, with conflicts addressed and decisions documented. The appropriate arrangements depend on the circumstances, applicable law, and the institution’s bylaws.
Holding both roles does not itself establish misconduct. The accountability question is whether the institution can examine executive conduct through a process sufficiently independent of the person whose conduct is being reviewed.
Institutional source: 2025 Annual Report, pp. 2–4 · Titles rechecked October 15, 2026.
Knowledge, response, responsibility
From Awareness to Accountability
Oversight is tested by what directors learn and how they respond. These four stages illustrate how the questions can change as knowledge and involvement increase.
Unaware of a Problem
Oversight responsibilities exist, but individual liability is not automatic. Lack of actual awareness does not, by itself, resolve whether an appropriate oversight process was maintained.
Receives Credible Information
Credible information about a serious problem may call for inquiry and appropriate review. The response should reflect the concern’s substance and severity, rather than assume either wrongdoing or a satisfactory explanation.
Knows of Serious Concerns but Fails to Act
Continued inaction may raise fiduciary and oversight questions. Evaluation turns on what was known, the available response, and the applicable standards and protections—not awareness alone.
Knowingly Participates in or Conceals Misconduct
Knowing participation or concealment can make potential regulatory and civil consequences substantially more serious. Actual consequences depend on the conduct proved and the requirements of the applicable law.
A general educational framework. These stages are not statutory categories, an automatic ladder of liability, or a finding that any particular director engaged in misconduct. They explain why knowledge, independent inquiry, and the institutional response matter.
Legal foundation: § 7-1-490, applied by § 7-1-656(e). Georgia’s regulatory enforcement framework includes § 7-1-91(d)–(h); enforcement requires the statutory grounds and procedures.