> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# South Carolina Ports Ratifies $923,000 Severance After Lawsuit
- URL: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/state-news-south-carolina-2026-09-24-b/
- Published: 2026-09-24T10:47:34.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-24T10:47:34.000Z
- Description: South Carolina’s ports board has ratified former CEO Barbara Melvin’s $922,780 severance package more than a year after payment, as a pending lawsuit tests state requirements for public votes on executive compensation.
- Author: News Desk
- Tags: Policy, South Carolina

The South Carolina State Ports Authority board has unanimously ratified a nearly $923,000 severance package for former CEO Barbara Melvin more than a year after she received it, taking a public vote while defending a lawsuit that alleges the original payment violated state transparency and port-governance laws.

The board acted Tuesday, according to the [Daily Gazette](https://scdailygazette.com/2026/09/23/facing-a-lawsuit-sc-ports-ratifies-former-ceos-severance-deal-a-year-later/?ref=theamericanquorum.com). The package consisted of $822,780 in salary continuation and a $100,000 retirement contribution. Melvin resigned in August 2025 after more than three decades at the authority, including three years as chief executive.

Frank Heindel, a retired utility executive and former chairman of the South Carolina Ports board, sued the authority in August. His complaint argues that the severance required a public vote and that the board’s executive-session practices failed to give the public sufficient notice of the subjects discussed. An earlier [lawsuit report](https://scdailygazette.com/2026/08/19/lawsuit-argues-sc-ports-payout-to-former-ceo-violated-state-law/?ref=theamericanquorum.com) said the case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief rather than repayment from Melvin.

The dispute turns partly on a port-specific provision of state law. South Carolina [Section 54-3-103](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/query.php?search=DOC&searchtext=54%203%20103&category=CODEOFLAWS&conid=117785004&result%5Fpos=0&keyval=1087&numrows=10&ref=theamericanquorum.com#:~:text=SECTION%2054%2D3%2D103,severance%2C%20and%20vehicle%20allowances.) says the board must approve in a public vote the compensation of the executive director and division directors, including severance and vehicle allowances. The lawsuit contends that language applied when the authority paid Melvin.

The authority denies wrongdoing. In its [court response](https://docviewer.charlestoncounty.gov/PublicIndex/Index?viewertype=cms&ctagency=10002&casenumber=2026CP1004396&docseq=P2A2&ref=theamericanquorum.com), it argues that a separate public vote was not required and rejects the allegation that it violated the state Freedom of Information Act. Board Treasurer James Burns said Tuesday that Melvin’s severance was already part of an employment agreement the board had approved, while presenting the new vote as a way to ratify the payment and move forward.

Tuesday’s action does not by itself resolve the legal question. Timing matters because public review after payment offers less practical oversight than notice and a recorded vote before funds leave the agency. Ratification may strengthen the authority’s argument that the board has now publicly approved the package, but the court can still decide whether the law required a vote before the money was paid and whether earlier meeting notices complied with open-meetings requirements. A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 19.

The case has significance beyond one former executive’s compensation. The Ports Authority is a state agency overseeing infrastructure central to South Carolina’s trade economy, and its board’s decisions involve public assets and statutory duties. A ruling could clarify how specific a state board must be when announcing closed-door discussions and when compensation decisions must return to open session for a recorded vote.

For now, the public record contains a formal vote that was absent when the severance was paid. The remaining issue is whether that later action cures the alleged defect or confirms that the vote should have occurred earlier — a question the court, rather than the board, will answer.