_____________________
_____________________
By Brian Hews
Publisher | Follow X
May 1, 2026
The Norwalk La Mirada Sarega contract collapsed this week after public scrutiny and a failed board motion.
Last week, Los Cerritos Community News exclusively reported that the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District was on the verge of approving a $240,000-a-year legal services contract with Sarega Law, APC—handing a major public agency role to an attorney whose legal career spans less than five years but whose political baggage stretches much longer.
District documents showed the agreement would have paid Andrew Sarega $20,000 per month for general counsel services, covering litigation, liability, and personnel matters. The contract also included open-ended reimbursements for litigation costs, consultants, investigators, and travel—meaning the true cost to taxpayers could climb well beyond the base annual figure.
LCCN readers are very familiar with Sarega, who served as a La Mirada City Council member beginning in 2013. His tenure and political activity have been covered extensively in prior La Mirada City Council reporting.
In 2024, Sarega resigned as mayor of La Mirada, incurred campaign finance violations, and was connected to dark money tied to his City Council campaigns. Additional details can be found in earlier LCCN coverage of Sarega.
Earlier investigations by the Fair Political Practices Commission into Sarega’s campaign activities remained active at the time, and prior coverage detailed repeated controversies surrounding his conduct in office, including a history of missing City Council meetings.
Despite that history—and despite having only recently entered the legal profession—Sarega was being positioned as the chief outside legal advisor for a major school district.
The district’s proposed agreement also raised concerns about oversight and fiscal exposure. While marketed as a flat monthly rate, the contract explicitly allowed for additional billing tied to litigation and outside experts. In practice, those costs can escalate quickly in a district that routinely deals with labor disputes, special education cases, and potential liability claims.
In short, the $240,000 figure was only the floor.
Despite the LCCN report, the agreement—submitted by Interim Superintendent Tania Magaña and backed by Board President Dr. Robert Cancio—went before the Board of Education last Tuesday.
That’s when the fireworks started.
When the item came up, trustees Espie Free and Becky Langenwalter, who had read the LCCN article, pulled it from the consent calendar, forcing a public discussion on a contract that had been placed on teh consent calendar for quiet approval.
Cancio then attempted to move the agreement forward. But when the motion was made, it failed to receive a second from any trustee. Under standard parliamentary procedure, a motion without a second cannot proceed—killing the contract on the spot.
The abrupt collapse marked a dramatic reversal for a deal that appeared headed for routine approval just days earlier.
The lack of a second signaled that at least some trustees were unwilling to move forward once the details—and the scrutiny—were brought into the open.
For now, the contract is effectively dead, though it could be reintroduced at a future meeting. Whether the district attempts to revive the deal or pivots to a more traditional legal provider, such as ABCUSD’s Cerritos-based Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo remains to be seen.
What is clear is that public exposure played a decisive role.
A contract that was quietly placed on the consent calendar instead unraveled in open session—raising new questions about oversight, transparency, and how close the district came to approving a costly agreement without meaningful debate.
The failed contract also raises broader questions about how major financial decisions are placed on consent calendars and whether additional oversight is needed to prevent similar situations in the future.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.