Florida A&M University’s Board of Trustees has approved a $650,000 salary for president-elect Marva Johnson—the largest presidential compensation package in the university’s history. The decision passed in an 8–3 vote, despite sharp criticism from students, alumni, and several trustees who questioned the university’s financial priorities.
Trustee Craig Reed voted against the compensation plan. He called for a motion to make sure the foundation's budget aligns with the potential approved salary first. That motion was denied.
The board’s Chair, Kristin Harper also voted against the agreement, citing concerns about performance expectations, long-term costs, and transparency. She’s especially concerned about a provision to reward Johnson if she fills out the full term of the 5-year contract.
“It’s 70% higher to reward retention versus performance,” Harper said. “And I’m just concerned, you know, about what matters more to this board — occupying a seat or delivering against outcomes for student success.
What’s in the contract
Johnson’s contract includes a $650,000 annual salary, with only $200,000 paid by the state. The rest will come from university partners like the FAMU Foundation. She’ll get a 3% raise each year, $25,000 for moving, a $1,200 monthly car allowance, and free housing.
She’s also eligible for an $86,000 yearly bonus if rated “Exceptional” or “Outstanding.” If she stays the full five years, she’ll receive two retention bonuses of $150,000 each, bringing in an extra $300,000.
Support and pushback
Some trustees defended the contract, arguing it aligns with national benchmarks for executive compensation and is necessary to secure strong leadership. Supporters call the compensation package “competitive” and say it’s an important part of ensuring the school can retain top talent.
Others are worried the deal relies too heavily on money from the FAMU Foundation. But Trustee Nicole Washington says if the foundation doesn’t have the funds, that raises concerns for her about how their money is being managed.
“I took a look at the foundation budgets over the last several years, and I do have some questions,” said Trustee Nicole Washington. “For example, somehow the foundation has stopped recording actual expenditures on the budgets that we approve. We have approved... over $1 million in foundation board support over the last six years, almost $1 million in software maintenance, and upwards of half a million dollars on renovations.”
Washington continued, “The foundation’s job is to use its resources to support the best interests and mission of the university. That is determined by this board.”
Washington says if the Foundation doesn’t come up with a budget that includes the $450,000 from Johnson’s salary that won’t be covered by the state, the trustees could move to decertify the foundation.
Foundation response
Chekesha Kidd, a FAMU Foundation Board member, calls decertification of the foundation a “nuclear option.
“If we go down that path, it harms the university. And the decertification process is a process that takes time,” Kidd said. “You’re going to blow up and decertify the foundation and still not have the ability to make those payments in a timely fashion to this incoming president.”
Kidd told WFSU a more measured approach is needed.
“So, it’s hard for us as a small endowment, relatively small endowment, to shift money around without it having a material impact on other areas of the university,” Kidd said. “So, I think that will be a conversation if and when we’re asked to have a Foundation Board meeting discussion about that.”
Hours after the meeting, a group of FAMU stakeholders and donors sent a letter admonishing the Board of Trustees for what they say “appears to be a coercive attempt” to force the FAMU Foundation to “redirect funds in a way that may conflict with donor restrictions, IRS regulations and fiduciary responsibilities.”
What’s next
Marva Johnson’s appointment is not yet final. She must still be confirmed by the Florida Board of Governors at a scheduled meeting on June 18. Another university meeting is expected ahead of that vote.
Until then, debate continues over whether the new contract represents bold leadership or a costly disconnect from student-focused values.
