At their February 18th JEA Compensation Committee meeting, they unanimously recommended a massive salary increase for CEO Vickie Cavey, raising her annual compensation from $560,000 to $700,000—a nearly 25% increase in less than a year. While the board argues that JEA is a high-performing organization and that Cavey’s pay should reflect market standards, the data suggests this raise is both premature and unjustified. Here’s why.

1. No Full Performance Cycle to Justify the Raise

One of the most glaring issues with this decision is that Cavey has not yet completed a full year as CEO. Typically, executive compensation increases are tied to long-term performance metrics, yet the board is recommending this significant raise without the benefit of an established track record.

By contrast, former CEO Jay Stowe underwent multiple performance evaluations before any salary adjustments. The previous CEO had a structured performance-based compensation plan, while Cavey is granted a significant increase without meeting similar benchmarks.

Additionally, no detailed performance report outlining specific achievements under Cavey’s leadership has been presented. Without measurable progress on key initiatives like infrastructure improvements, customer satisfaction, and financial stability, approving this raise is premature and fiscally irresponsible.

2. Lack of Transparent Market Comparisons

JEA Board Chair Joseph DiSalvo justified the raise by claiming that JEA is a top 80% performing organization, yet Cavey’s salary is in the 40% quartile compared to industry peers. But where is the data?

• Diane Moser, JEA’s Chief Human Resources Officer, provided salary benchmarks showing that similarly sized public utilities pay their CEOs an average of $600,000–$650,000 annually.

• Cavey’s proposed salary of $700,000 exceeds this industry range, making it one of the highest salaries in the sector despite her limited tenure.

• No clear rationale has been provided for exceeding the market median when JEA itself does not rank in the top tier of utility providers nationwide.

Additionally, public utilities operate differently from private corporations. Factors like ratepayer impact, budget constraints, and operational efficiency must be considered when determining salary adjustments. If JEA truly compares its CEO’s salary to private-sector equivalents, then other financial factors, such as profitability and return on investment, should also be included in the analysis.

3. Concerns from Board Members About Rushed Decision-Making

Not all board members were convinced that such a salary jump (compared to Cavey’s initial pay package) was appropriate at this stage.

Board member Kawanza Humphrey highlighted that previous CEOs had to go through multiple review cycles before significant raises were considered. The fact that Cavey is receiving such an increase before undergoing a full performance review raises concerns about due diligence.

Furthermore, public input on this decision has been minimal. With JEA being a publicly owned utility, such a major compensation change should have undergone a more transparent review process with stakeholder engagement and public hearings before final approval.

4. Public Sector Responsibility and Fiscal Optics

JEA is a publicly owned utility, meaning it operates with a responsibility to ratepayers and taxpayers. Approving a $140,000 raise in under a year, especially during a time when many Jacksonville residents are struggling with rising utility costs, sends the wrong message.

If Cavey’s leadership is truly exceptional, a more incremental, performance-based approach to salary adjustments would be more appropriate—rather than an upfront windfall that lacks proper justification.

Additionally, this raise sets a precedent for future salary decisions. If the board approves such a large increase for a CEO with less than a year’s tenure, it could lead to expectations of similar raises for future executives, regardless of performance.

5. The Financial Impact on JEA and Its Customers

With JEA being a public utility, every financial decision affects customer rates and service quality. An unnecessary raise at this time could lead to:

• Higher utility rates for Jacksonville residents as executive compensation costs increase.

• Reduced investment in critical infrastructure projects, such as grid upgrades and storm preparedness.

• A shift in organizational priorities that favors executive pay over operational efficiency.

A more responsible approach would be to allocate these funds toward improving service reliability, reducing costs for customers, or investing in sustainable energy projects.

Unjustified Raise

The data simply does not support Cavey's $700,000 salary at this time. Without clear market comparisons, a full performance cycle, and a transparent evaluation process, this raise appears to be driven more by board preference than sound fiscal management.

JEA customers and stakeholders deserve a compensation decision that is based on long-term performance and accountability—not rushed decisions that lack supporting data. Before the board finalizes this decision, they should consider delaying the raise until a full performance evaluation has been completed. Anything less would be a disservice to JEA’s financial integrity and the public trust. The board will have a public meeting before voting on the raise on Feb. 25.