As the FAMU Board of Trustees prepares to vote Thursday on a substantial enhancement to President Marva Johnson’s compensation package—just six months into her tenure—they are relying on a salary comparison that critics describe as a deeply misleading apples-to-oranges justification.
The proposed amendment would grant Mrs. Johnson a $25,000 relocation payment and a $5,000 monthly housing allowance, supplements to a contract that already includes a $650,000 base salary, a $150,000 annual retention bonus, and a car allowance. To persuade trustees, university administrators provided a chart comparing presidential pay across Florida’s State University System (SUS).
But the comparison, obtained by Rattler Nation, presents a selective portrait. It aligns Mrs. Johnson’s compensation with leaders of behemoth institutions like the University of Florida and Florida State University (46,000 students), while omitting the stark contextual reality: FAMU, with just over 9,300 students, is a fraction of their size. This discrepancy renders the comparison not just imperfect, but fundamentally skewed, raising questions about the rationale for the increase.
The University of Florida educates more than 60,000 students; the University of Central Florida, over 70,000. Their sprawling operations, massive budgets, and immense revenue streams from tuition, research grants, and state allocations exist on a completely different plane from FAMU’s. By this metric, FAMU’s true peers are institutions like the University of North Florida or Florida Gulf Coast University, which have enrollments closer to 17,000.
The flawed comparison appears designed to justify the additional compensation. Mrs. Johnson’s current base salary alone places her in the upper echelon of public university presidents nationally for an institution of FAMU’s size. The addition of a $60,000 annual housing stipend—a benefit typically associated with luring a candidate to a high-cost city, not supporting one already in place—further distances her package from those of her true institutional peers.
“This isn’t a comparison; it’s a justification in search of evidence,” said a higher education policy expert who reviewed the document and spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing professional relationships. “You cannot compare the budgetary pressures and compensation structures of a major research university with a student body larger than many towns to that of a much smaller, more tuition-dependent institution. It’s a false equivalency that masks the real opportunity costs.”
Those costs are a central concern for faculty and student advocates. They argue that every dollar directed toward executive perks is a dollar not spent on pressing campus needs: increasing financial aid, raising adjunct professor wages, modernizing laboratories, or maintaining facilities.
Furthermore, the justification for the new $25,000 payment remains murky. Mrs. Johnson’s original contract, approved last June, already included a $25,000 allocation for moving expenses. University officials have not clarified if this new payment is an addition, potentially doubling the relocation sum, or merely a reallocation of the original funds.
The board’s vote will serve as a test of its fiscal oversight and its priorities. Will it approve a significant new expenditure based on a comparison that ignores fundamental differences in institutional size and resources, or will it demand a more transparent and relevant analysis? The decision will signal whether the board views its role as a steward of the university’s entire mission or merely a rubber stamp for executive benefits.