Lily Huynh/The Cougar
Editor’s note: There is no court ruling or legal entity that states UH has broken a law. This is an interpretation of the law by the author.
As students adjust to the semester, some worry if they’ll find a parking spot during busier hours or if they’ll be able to pass their difficult classes.
However, a new worry emerges as the UH administration appears to have meddled in the process of who gets to have a seat in our Student Fees Advisory Committee, an essential form of student representation that gets to make recommendations on how millions of our student fees will be spent.
What’s the Student Fees Advisory Committee?
The Student Fees Advisory Committee is a state-mandated, nine-person committee composed of five Student Government Association representatives and four university-appointed members.
SFAC is tasked with making allocation recommendations and suggesting any changes to the university-wide Student Service fees, which each student pays $260 into every semester.
SFAC was established by state law in 1991 through the Texas Education Code Section 54.5062, which requires universities to form a student advisory committee for student service fee allocations.
It is a majority student-controlled advisory committee with the legally protected right to provide recommendations on student fee allocations.
For fiscal year 2026, the projected revenue from student fees was expected to be about $25.4 million. Assuming the student fee rates and enrollment numbers stay the same, this is what’s at stake for students this upcoming fiscal year.
How do students get on SFAC?
In previous years, the SGA president has had the power to appoint students they deem fit for the position, who then have to be approved by the Senate, according to the SGA constitution that was supposed to be revised last year but failed to win the student vote twice.
Despite this being a longstanding practice of our SGA, this year is very different.
Regularly held elections were postponed from spring to fall, and just several days before school began, the University went back on its word and postponed SGA elections from September 2025 to February 2026.
The move made it impossible for an SGA to be formed before SFAC began its business early in the fall semester, making SGA appointments impossible.
It also triggered a need for an election for SFAC seats as outlined by state law. Based on the text of Section 54.5062(b), it appears that UH is legally required to hold this election.
“If a student government does not exist, the students shall be elected by the students enrolled in the university,” reads an excerpt from Section 54.5062(b).
According to this text, wouldn’t that mean that an election should have been held so UH students could vote on who would be on SFAC?
Well, not according to the actions of the UH administration.
What happened?
In fall 2025, there were two students, Mohammad Sami Tabbara and Dulce Otero, already in place for two-year terms. That left three seats open, which should have been appointed by the SGA president. Since there is no SGA, an election should have been triggered by Section 54.5062(b).
Instead of holding an election as mandated by the state of Texas, the UH administration did something else.
The students included former SGA President Diego Arriaga, former Metropolitan Volunteer Program Director Omar Castanon, Residence Halls Association President Yhoalibeth Guerrero Becerril, Orientation Team Captain Alex Inzar, The National Residence Hall Honorary President Zainab Khimji, Interfraternity Council for Greek Life President Alex Koennecke and Commuter Assistant Skyla Spence.
Now, the question is, how were the students chosen to be in the “student-involved working group?” Did the student body have any say in who was representing them? As no student-wide election including all eligible students was held, I think not.
From this, former SGA President Diego Arriaga, along with students Juan Gonzalez and Kathreen Hookfin were appointed to SFAC. My concerns lie with the legitimacy of these appointments, and as written in the state law, should have been an election. UH students did not elect any of the individuals in the “student-involved work group,” therefore, how could that be considered a valid form of student representation?
It is important to note that Section 54.5062(d) does state that “In the absence of student government or if the vacancy is in a position appointed by the president, the president of the university shall appoint a new member to serve for the remainder of the term.” However, my interpretation of the code suggests that an election should have been held.
The seats filled had expired terms, and were not any of the four seats UH administration annually appoints. UH should not have jumped straight to a “student-involved work group” in which we, as students, had no say in the selection of students. Under what authority did UH decide to rely on the work group, rather than holding an election?
Instead of respecting the voice of the little representation we still have left as a student body, UH appears to have acted in conflict with Section 54.5062‘s requirement. Concerns raised by SFAC members Mohammad Sami Tabbara and Dulce Otero, and Student Regent Adrian Caraves were dismissed.
Our voices are being trampled by denying students an election over who would fill the three vacancies left on our SFAC.
The movement to “Get Back SFAC”
In response to the seemingly non-compliant actions taken by UH admin, a new student movement led by several concerned students brought together student organizations and over 30 students to join Get Back SFAC.
Get Back SFAC plans to bring back the legally required democratic process of SFAC appointments, save SFAC from an allocation and budget stalling and hold UH admin accountable for what appears to be an overstep in the appointment process of our newest SFAC.
How will this affect budget recommendations?
When three out of the five student representatives on the SFAC were placed by UH administration due to a lack of democratic processes, what effect does that have on the decisions the entire committee makes?
Are recommendations still valid when over half of our student representation is not elected by students, but by a UH administration-backed working group? If it’s not, what does that mean for student fee-funded units in the next fiscal year if a budget gets passed?
Might this be grounds for a mandatory budget redo in the event that a budget does get passed? Every fee-funded unit should be worried about this, and a list is available online to see if you or your favorite campus organizations might be affected.
This shouldn’t be happening: elections must be held.
The Bottom Line
I love our university.
We are one of the most diverse campuses in the country. We enjoy the status of being a majority-minority institution and a Hispanic-Serving institution. We cherish that 43% of our student population are first-generation college students, and we are proud to invite international students who help make this campus as beautiful as it is.
These are the very same students who are paying $260 every semester. These are students likely already stretched thin, juggling long work hours alongside their full course load or depending on parental financial support.
These students, like me, scramble to afford the rising costs of parking, food, housing and tuition. SFAC was established because our money, labor and voices matter.
To be represented by people we choose on our SFAC isn’t just a favor granted by UH; it’s a right protected by state law.
UH should not remain reactionary like it did on the lighting project last semester, or like it has with mental health.
For the sake of student rights, UH needs to reverse these appointments and hold fair elections that put student voices first.
Joshua Sambrano is an honors public policy junior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com
