Report on Lead Paint Exposure at Gale Math and Science Academy, 2009-2014

Released October 21st, 2014

Written by Chicago Light Brigade

Chicago Light Brigade is a network of community organizers and radical activists who are committed to
supporting Chicago’s grassroots struggles with creative tactics, skill sharing, and mutual aid. This year, we
are particularly focused on the defense of public education and the deincarceration of our youth.

If you would like to stand with us, collaborate on an upcoming project, or have questions about our work
please contact us at chicagolightbrigade@gmail.com.


Executive Summary:

Chicago Public Schools (CPS) administrators, over a period of at least five years, knowingly exposed up to
two thousand, mostly low income Rogers Park children and others to significant amounts of peeling lead
based paint (LBP) and lead based paint dust (LBPD) at Gale Math and Science Academy (GMSA).

CPS administrators withheld information from GMSA administrators and parents about the hazards at their
school, and refused to comply with Freedom of Information Requests filed by CLB activists, obstruction
that required the intervention by Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office to resolve.

The Chicago Department of Public Health, local Alderman Joseph A Moore (49), and CPS administrators
actively obscured information about LBP and LBPD at GMSA. CLB believes these obfuscations were
intended to curtail community awareness of the extent of the problems at Gale, and contributed to
preventing parents and guardians from learning about environmental safety hazards and health risks at their
children’s school.

According to internal CPS documents acquired by CLB, testing for lead at GMSA was first performed in
2009. Despite results showing hazards in public areas used by all students, no action was taken by CPS to
abate the LBP hazards. Additionally, parents were not informed of the health risks associated with
exposure to lead based paint.

In August 2013 a second round of tests revealed LBP hazards at fifteen locations in the school, and nine
out of ten tested classrooms. Again, no action was taken, parents were not informed, and students and
staff continued to be exposed every day they were in the building. Also exposed were groups that rented
space in the facility for community functions. Moreover, CLB and Chicago Cares volunteers who were not
informed of the LBP hazards, painted walls in the school as part of a community service project, without
the benefit of personal protective equipment required for anyone mitigating LBP. Several of these groups
also included young children.

Following years of repeated requests for remediation by GMSA administrators, Chicago Light Brigade began
a campaign to force CPS to remediate lead hazards and make other repairs to the school, including faulty
fire alarms and leaking roofs. At that time it wasn’t known how extensive the LBP issues were, only that
they existed in two locations and that any LBP is extremely hazardous, especially to young children.

While Ald. Joe Moore denied knowledge of the issue, his chief of staff and other of his agents attended
GMSA Local School Council meetings where the issues were discussed in the presence of and with
community members.

After attention was drawn to these conditions, a new round of testing was secretly performed by CPS which
proved widespread lead contamination throughout the facility. According to CPS documents, LBP was
found in multiple classrooms, offices, and hallways as well as on entry doors, railings and post caps in the
stairwells - surface areas which are touched by children’s hands everyday.

Lead is an extraordinarily dangerous poison. Exposure even in small amounts, especially in developing
young children, can cause irreversible brain damage, along with a host of other long term physical,
behavioral, emotional and cognitive consequences. GMSA’s Pre-K children are considered especially
vulnerable to these hazards.

Because of CPS’ inaction and the subsequent cover up by CPS administrators, abetted by the behaviors of
a local elected official and CDPH as detailed in this report, LBP hazards in this case were allowed to
continue unabated for almost one thousand school days. A further consequence of deteriorating LBP is the
presence of lead dust, which is spread by hand, breathed into lungs from air circulation, and transferred on
clothes by children and adults to their homes. A 2012 Chicago Reader article sums up the acute nature of
1
this hazard: ”It doesn’t take much: a sugar packet’s worth of lead dust scattered over an area the size of a
football field is enough to poison a child.”
In light of these facts, it is likely that CPS management of lead across its entire system is deeply flawed,
and CLB believes that all of the remedies recommended at the end of this report are appropriate and
necessary.

CLB further finds that CPS’ treatment of vulnerable schoolchildren in Rogers Park at GMSA has been
utterly shameful, and calls upon every Chicagoan to demand safe, healthy and fully funded learning
environments for all of our children, as well as full transparency about hazards in these environments.


Gale Math and Science Academy (GMSA)

GMSA is located in Chicago’s Rogers Park community, at 1631 W. Jonquil Terrace. GMSA serves as the
K-8 Educational Home for neighborhood children south from the Evanston border to just north of Touhy
Avenue. GMSA also has a popular Pre K program.
2

State figures report that over 97% of Gale students come from low or very low income families, that more
than 28% are learning English as a second language, and that almost 8% are homeless. Food insecurity is
so common that every school day starts with breakfast for nearly all the students. The 2013 mobility rate
was 36%.
3

1
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/high-lead-toxicity-in-chicago-public-schools/Content?oid=7819530,
retrieved 4 Oct 2014

2
http://cps.edu/Schools/Find_a_school/Pages/schoollocator.aspx; retrieved 4 October 20 14
3
http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getReport.aspx?year=2013&code=1501629902212_e.pdf;
retrieved 4 October 2014
One feature of the GMSA population is the unusually high number of GMSA students who have a
documented disability. More than 19% of the student population, at GMSA require special education
services, and have an Individualized Learning Plan (IEP) in place. Learning disorders and developmental
disabilities are known to be consequences of lead poisoning in children. GMSA has the highest number of
children with disabilities of all Roger Park schools.
4

Homicides in Rogers Park have increased by 100% in 2014 , and violent crime often comes close to
5
children throughout the community. One former GMSA student was recently killed across the street from
the school.
6

Lead poisoning causes irreversible damage to the brain. Not only does lead degrade cognitive abilities and
7
lower intelligence, it also impairs a person’s ability to make decisions by damaging areas of the brain
responsible for emotional regulation, impulse control, attention, verbal reasoning, and mental flexibility.
Lead poisoning has been associated with aggressivity, impulsivity, ADHD, and lower IQ. These behavioral
consequences of lead poisoning place exposed children at greater risk for violent behavior and some
experts think childhood lead poisoning has fueled the school to prison pipeline.
8

While tasked with providing a healthy, safe, and productive education for hundreds of Rogers Park’s most
marginalized students, GMSA staff often battle both local poverty and institutional redlining by CPS and
local government officials.

CPS has used declining enrollments to de fund arts and sports programs, and eliminated the school’s
librarian and technology teachers. GMSA also educates medically complex students who reside in local
assisted living facilities and are transported to the school on days when the heat or air conditioning is
working properly. Gale teachers and other staff function as de facto advocates for these students when
they observe health issues during school, and have intervened in cases of extreme medical neglect by
outside institutions.
9

The teaching staff, Principal, and Local School Council at GMSA are deeply committed to the school’s
students, and most can powerfully explain the vast complexities of educating diverse learners in an
underfunded environment.
4
http://illinoisreportcard.com/CompareSnapShots.aspx?id=150162990252212,150162990252203,150162990
252889,150162990252930&source=EnvironmentSnapshot&sourceID=150162990252212 retrieved 10
October 2014

5
http://www.redeyechicago.com/news/local/redeye-graphic-rogers-park-homicide-report-20140416,0,3004314
.htmlpage retrieved 15 October 2014

6

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-15/news/chi-teenage-boy-killed-in-rogers-park-shooting-20140415
_1_slain-boy-apartment-building-gale-math retrieved 10 October 2014

7
http://www2.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead#effects retrieved 10 October 2014

8
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline retrieved 10 October 2014

9
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-10-07/health/ct-met-kids-jeremiah-20101007_1_alden-village-north-a
lden-management-services-mosaic-living-center retrieved 15 October 2015


Despite the above factors, recent CPS data shows that GMSA led its network of twenty- eight schools in
growth in math and reading, according to the latest test results. While continued improvement is needed,
10
grade level math and reading scores both increased by over 13% last year. Given the numerous challenges
GMSA has faced, this is an astounding achievement for staff and students.

Enrollment:

Due to CPS’ new Student Based Budgeting (SBB) funding model, enrollment levels now determine the
11
amount of funding each school receives. SBB makes even small changes to the local education
environment impactful across the entire community education spectrum, and is considered controversial
because of its potential to undermine basic needs at some schools. SBB is so controversial that CPS
officials have suspended implementation of 2014/2015 SBB funding cuts, while notifying LSCs to plan to
integrate the aggregated amount of those cutbacks in next year.
12

GMSA enrollment has declined for several reasons, most notably gentrification, charter schools,
CPS-driven instability, and the physical condition of the school itself. It is difficult to precisely quantify how
much change in enrollments is due to any single cause.

The two charter schools in Rogers Park include Concept and UNO. While both Concept and UNO are
13 14
under federal investigation (Concept by the FBI and UNO by the IRS and SEC) and UNO has announced it
will no longer manage its own schools after this year , it is unclear how these developments will impact
15
future enrollments at GMSA. Aggressive marketing by both school corporations, combined with
enthusiastic support for them by local elected officials appear to influence some parent’s decisions.

Because of SBB, the cumulative effect of expanding the charter footprint in Rogers Park has been to
reduce funding to neighborhood schools such as GMSA, a trend that is likely to continue.

10
CPS Spring 2014 NWEA test results report.

11

http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/notebook/2013/03/11/20875/cps-adopts-pupil-budgets-equal-charter-funding
retrieved 10 October 2014

12
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-cps-school-funding-budget-20140926-story.html
retrieved 10 October 2014

13

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/nearly-1-million-charters-went-firms-named-fbi-probe/mon-08182
014-1201am retrieved 10 October 2014

14

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/uno-charter-schools-now-target-irs-audit-over-bonds/wed-090320
14-617pm retrieved 10 October 2014

15

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-united-neighborhood-organization-no-longer-managin
g-its-16-charter-schools-20140813-story.html retrieved 10 October 2014

Recent CPS -driven instability has come in two waves. The first occured in 2012 when GMSA was
16
deemed “underutilized” by CPS in advance of announced school closures, and the other a failed effort by
the local alderman and others to co-locate a third charter school in Rogers Park on the GMSA campus ,
17
which would have almost certainly further diminished GMSA funding due to SBB.

Indisputably contributing to decision making by parents when selecting an educational home for their
children has been CPS’s orchestrated neglect of GMSA facilities.

Instead of recent dramatic improvements in GMSA Reading and Math scores leading to increased funding
and resources to further improve the GMSA success story, SBB has had the effect of pile driving GMSA
into further educational challenges, including the loss of its librarian and technology teachers. These cuts
include State and Federal reductions as well as CPS cuts.


Chicago Light Brigade at GMSA.

Chicago Light Brigade began attending Gale Local School Council meetings in 2012, and volunteering at the
school. They have since helped manage a community-wide book drive, conducted regular flyering in front of
the school to educate neighbors and parents about happenings at the school, helped secure donations of
musical instruments, held an event to touch up peeling paint in school hallways, and laid the foundation for
greater local business support for GMSA.

In the course of this work, it became clear that GMSA facilities suffered from profound neglect. GMSA’s
Local School Council reported that repeated requests over several years to CPS Facilities Management for
repairs had been ignored.

The list of issues was lengthy and greatly contributed to public perceptions that GMSA was a declining
18
institution. Because the condition of its schools connotes the value a community places on education,
GMSA’s physical plant ran counter to the messaging GMSA staff, parents, and neighbors were otherwise
providing. Further examination revealed that some of the issues posed immediate dangers to both staff and
students.

Among these were faulty fire alarms and the presence of peeling lead-based paint in numerous locations
throughout the school. While many other issues, such as leaking roofs and non-working intercoms also
posed some degree of hazard, it was felt that the lead and life safety issues constituted the greatest
immediate concerns. In addition to observed concerns, friable asbestos was also present at the school.

16

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130213/rogers-park/town-hall-meeting-called-for-underutilized-gale-eleme
ntary-school retrieved 10 October 2014

17

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130130/rogers-park/founder-of-arts-based-charter-school-eyes-rogers-par
k-despite-resistance retrieved 15 October 2014

18
http://www.chicagolightbrigade.org/gale_summary.html retrieved 18 October 2014

CLB then organized a campaign to help get needed repairs completed. This was done with the full
cooperation of GMSA’s Local School Council, whose frustration with the situation was a regular topic at
their public LSC meetings. It is important to note that many LSC comments were made in response to
questions by the public, including CLB members and that the majority of public questions and responses
are not included in LSC meeting minutes.

The CLB campaign included a report on conditions placed on their website , conventional media and social
19
media publicity, and escalating direct actions.

The website report laid out in detail, with photographs, the conditions at GMSA. Many community residents
expressed shock at the images, which garnered thousands of views on social media.

At that time, three demands were made:

1) That GMSA be repaired immediately.

2) That enrollment-driven budget cuts were unfair under the circumstances, and must be rescinded given
the hazardous state of the school.

3) That lead testing be made available at CPS expense for all persons affected by lead exposure at GMSA.

CPS initially ignored the campaign, as did local elected officials who claimed to be unaware of it. The next
escalation was to confront the local alderman, Joseph A. Moore (49), as Moore’s Chief of Staff and other
agents attended LSC meetings where repair issues were discussed, and his lack of initiative was
considered unacceptable by CLB and other concerned members of the Gale community.

Moore’s aggressive advocacy for Concept and UNO charter schools in Rogers Park, his other ties to
Concept, and his attempt to further diminish GMSA funding by co-locating a new charter school within
GMSA’s newer building caused CLB organizers to believe that without additional pressure Moore would
remain inactive.

About two dozen CLB activists confronted Moore at an event held with the local police commander to
discuss growing violence in the community . CLB felt that exposing hundreds of local children to potential
20
lead poisoning constituted institutional violence, and was thus an appropriate topic at a meeting about
violence in general.

Governance

The City of Chicago is governed by a mayor and an elected City Council comprised of individually elected
aldermen that represent each of its 50 wards. Municipal elections are held separate from all other elections
19
http://www.chicagolightbrigade.org, retrieved 20 October, 2014

20

http://chicago.everyblock.com/neighbor-events/may12-community-meeting-police-commander-waldera-set-
monday-may-6125888/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=message_email&utm_campaign=headline,
retrieved 10 October, 2014

every four years, are declared non-partisan, and occur in February, traditionally the coldest time of the year
in Chicago. Various factions of the Democratic party have controlled Chicago government since 1927.
21

Illinois school districts are generally governed by locally-elected school boards , where each district board
22
hires a superintendent, who in turn hires administrators such as principals, who then must be approved by
the school board. In contrast, CPS is headed by a Chief Executive Officer and school board appointed by
the mayor. Initiatives to place before voters a referendum calling for an elected school board have twice
been thwarted in City Council .
23
Local governance and GMSA:

CLB attention to elected officials has centered on City of Chicago government because of its direct control
over CPS. While State and Federal officials and agencies also impact CPS funding and policy, direct
management of CPS facilities is almost exclusively the purview of Chicago’s’ appointed Board of
Education.

Despite Alderman Joe Moore’s (49th) claim that “I'm going to continue to do what I can to promote and
improve ALL schools in my neighborhood,(emphasis his)” this has been undermined by his concurrent
24
support for expansion of charter schools, including the effort to co-locate a charter at GMSA . In light of
25
SBB, adding additional capacity via new institutions has reduced the amount of public funding available to
other schools, and GMSA stands to ultimately lose almost $750,000 in funding in some part due to this
practice.
26
Moore’s response when confronted by CLB about conditions at GMSA was to claim he was unaware of any
problems. Moore subsequently admitted that some of the problems documented by CLB did in fact exist,
27
while accusing CLB of “hijacking” his meeting “over a tangential issue” and lacking standing as GMSA
28
community members. It is important to note that Moore’s staffers and agents attended several LSC
29
meetings at which maintenance issues were discussed, and that these individuals now claim not to recall
these discussions.

Moore also stated: “I received over 70% of the vote in the precinct in which Gale is located. Apparently, the
true Gale community believes I am communicating with them and representing them just fine”, apparently
interpreting election results as a mandate to ignore lead safety issues in schools.
30

21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago#Government, retrieved 10 October 2014

22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Public_Schools#Operations, retrieved 10 October 2014
23

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-alderman-backs-mandatory-employer-sick-leave--20
141007-story.html, retrieved 10 October, 2014
24
Appendix D, “Aldermanic Statements on GMSA” Everyblock comment, 26 May 2014
25
ibid, 15
26
Public discussions at multiple GMSA Local School Council meetings.
27
CLB meeting notes, Loyola Park 12 May 2014, and ibid 18.

28
ibid, Everyblock comment, 26 May 2014
29
ibid, Everyblock comment, 27 May 2014
30
ibid, Everyblock comment, 27 May 2014
Moore’s office continues to downplay GMSA lead issues. As recently as September 3rd, 2014 at an LSC
meeting his staffers claimed not to be aware of multiple efforts by community members to meet with him
about lead issues in the school, and as of this writing CLB has been unable to locate any public
31
statements by Moore regarding LBP at GMSA.

Chicago Department of Public Health

CLB activists attempted to contact the Chicago Department of Public Health’s Lead Division, but no
response was received to messages left on their voicemail.

CLB then reached out to University of Illinois at Chicago’s School of Public Health and asked for
assistance enlisting help from CDPH officials. UIC professors succeeded in a contacting a CDPH physician
about GMSA, but were told by him that CPS administrators “basically said that CPS was dealing with paint
testing and remediation.”
32

When asked about testing lead levels in exposed children CDPH recommended that lead levels “be
checked by the kids’ own docs.” CLB attempted to pass news about LBP hazards on to parents via flyers
33
and neighborhood outreach, but found this to be ineffective due to the large number of people involved and
the lack of accurate official information about the extent of the hazards.

CLB believes that CDPH failed in its responsibility to provide oversight once it was informed of LBP
conditions at GMSA. CLB further alleges that CDPH’ decision to accept without question CPS’ claims that
hazards were being appropriately handled, its subsequent failure to assess how extensive the exposure
was, and its offhand recommendation to tell low income parents to get their own kids tested constitute a
gross abdication of CDPH’ responsibilities.

Media Coverage and Chicago Cares volunteers

On May 13th, 2014, a CBS Chicago news show briefly detailed the problems at GMSA. Also on May 13th,
34
a DNA Info article reported on concerns about GMSA.
35

On June 2nd, 2014 Chicago Tonight education reporter Elizabeth Brackett aired an in depth report that
36
included video of what was believed to be lead- based paint literally falling from the ceilings and of paint
chips on children’s schoolwork.

31
CLB notes, GMSA Local School Council meeting, 3 September 2014
32
CLB in-house email archives, 11 June 2014.
33
ibid
34
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/05/22/rogers-park-school-is-crumbling-around-students-parents-tell-cps/
retrieved 10 October 2014

35

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140513/rogers-park/gale-schools-peeling-lead-paint-faulty-fire-alarms-uns
afe-for-kids-lsc retrieved 10 October 2014

36
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2014/06/02/rogers-park-school-struggles-survive retrieved 10 October
2014

On June 3rd, 2014 CLB did a “Light Action” in front of Gale, using their light boards to spell out the
message: “CPS- GET THE LEAD OUT”. This image was shared via social media by Light Brigades and
their allies across the United States.

On June 8th, 2014 volunteer group Chicago Cares came to GMSA with approximately 175 volunteers and
painted twelve classrooms and the playground. Many of the volunteers stated they had decided to come to
GMSA after seeing the June 2nd “Chicago Tonight” report.

Remediation progress and extent of LBP contamination

On May 21st, 2014 CPS issued a letter to parents and employees stating that LBP remediation in six
bathrooms had been scheduled for summer.
37

In June, 2014 it was reported to CLB by the LSC that CPS had stated it intended to make repairs to the
entire facility, including remediation of LBP and other repairs. To date, no official communication specifying
which of those repairs have been completed has been issued by CPS, and it is not known whether all LBP
has been addressed.

At that time the precise extent of the LBP and LBPD contamination remained unknown, making it unclear
how many children had been potentially exposed. The period of time CPS delayed repairs was also unclear,
but its management of the situation appeared to violate all four of CPS facilities guidelines for LBP. Those
include:
38

a: “Comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding lead-based paint in its schools,
including hazards that may be created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based
paint.

i: In all buildings constructed in 1978 or earlier, it must be assumed that all paint products are lead based.

b: identify damaged lead-based paint that could present a health hazard through periodic surveys, including
building assessments.

c: Repair or remove surfaces with lead-based paint that is damaged in areas occupied by students or is
subject to damage in areas occupied by students and staff.”

CPS actions at GMSA also appear to have violated parts of State Lead law which govern management of
“exposed surfaces of structures frequented by children.”
39

CLB requested the Lead Reports from GMSA staff, which were expected to be found at the school. CLB
was told at the LSC meeting that the reports were not present at the school, and thus could not be
provided.
37
Appendix C- CPS notice to Parents, Faculty and Staff, dated 21 May 2014.
38
http://www.cps.edu/About_CPS/Policies_and_guidelines/Documents/FacilityPerformanceStandards.pdf,
Environmental Hazards, page 2. retrieved 10 October 2014
39
http://www.leadsafeillinois.org/uploads/documents/benchbook-3-illinois-laws-with-summary.pdf, summary
of Purpose, page 1. Retrieved 10 October 2014


CLB then filed a request to CPS under the Freedom of Information Act for all records of lead testing, to
which CPS responded by providing a link to the CPS general website and by claiming no other information
existed in their records.
40

CLB’s legal counsel advised that because CPS’ response was clearly incomplete that CLB should enlist the
Public Access Counselor of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office (AG) to compel CPS to follow
the law and provide the requested documents. With the added force of the AG, the documents were
delivered and are included in Appendix A.

What the documents show

1) The first recorded test for lead at GMSA was in 2009, and it must be noted that no LBP testing is
recorded as being performed prior to 2009. The tests showed that peeling lead paint was found in six
bathrooms utilized by students, on walls, ceilings, and radiators. Testing was limited to these six areas by
the narrow instructions of CPS officials. However, 100% of the reported tests showed positive results for
hazardous levels of lead contamination. It is not known why testing was so limited, or why the results failed
to trigger a wider scope of investigation.

Over the next several years, numerous requests for remediation were reportedly made by GMSA staff, and
ignored. Further, the 2009 testing results document states:

“Wight/GSG recommends that prior to initiating any renovation work, a project design must be prepared by
a Project Designer of the Managing Environmental Consultant (MEC) and the project should be addressed
by an IDPH-licensed abatement contractor under the field monitoring of an Environmental Consultant (EC).”

No evidence has been provided by CPS that this Project Design was initiated prior to CLB’s campaign,
almost five years later.

2) The next tests were done more than four years, or approximately 720 school days later, on September
13th, 2013. These tests expanded the monitored areas. LBP was found this time in nine out of eleven
rooms tested, in fifteen locations. Again, no action is reported taken subsequent to these results.

3) Following CLB’s actions and news coverage of the conditions at GMSA, a third round of testing was
conducted in June and July of 2014, an additional 180 school days later. These tests showed widespread
contamination of the school resulting in part from previous maintenance requests being ignored and other
deterioration. It is likely that numerous lead positive sites were missed due to inadequate or incomplete
lead testing over the course of the previous years, and that the volume of deteriorating paint resulted in
substantial LBPD, which was scattered throughout the school.

A total of 22 rooms and public areas were tested, showing a total of 39 positives for LBP in 13 of those
locations. Tests revealed that handrails, entry doors, post newels, stairwells, numerous classrooms, and
the walls of hallways tested positive for lead contamination.

Cover up by CPS and allies of LBP issues at GMSA

40
Appendix A- CPS FOI responses, 19 June 2014
CLB alleges that the pattern of official denial of information, coupled with minimizing of hazards by CDPH
and concurrent efforts to discredit whistleblowers/activists by Alderman Joe Moore constitute a grave
breach by CPS and government officials of the City of Chicago of their official duties, and an effort to cover
up policies that endangered or harmed children and staff at GMSA. This assertion is based on the following
actions:

By CPS:
1) CLB’s lawful FOI requests were denied by CPS, which claimed the relevant documents did not
exist.

2) On May 13th, 2014 a DNA info article reported that: “When asked whether the school was safe for
41
young students, (CPS spokesman) Joel Hood stated that the district was “looking into concerns
raised by the community to ensure that students and school personnel have a safe and secure
learning environment.” When Hood made this statement CPS had already been aware of hazardous
lead issues at GMSA for at least five years.

3) On May 21st, 2014 CPS sent a letter home with students telling parents that LBP remediation
would commence on June 13th, in six bathrooms only. CPS omitted any reference to the 2013
42
tests, which showed that in fact LBP hazards existed throughout the building and not solely in
these bathrooms. The letter made it appear that LBP and LBPD were primarily located in the
bathroom areas, and implied that parents should feel secure in the knowledge that all LBP at Gale
was to be removed.
4) On September 12, 2014 news reports revealed that the Better Government Association and NBC5
43
news filed a lawsuit alleging that CPS is systematically refusing to respond to Freedom of
Information requests, and asking the Court to compel CPS to begin following the law. Behaviors by
CPS alleged by the plaintiffs in their complaint closely resemble CLB’s experience in this matter.


By Alderman Moore:

1) Ald. Moore’s behavior has been to completely ignore LBP issues at Gale, to harshly criticize CLB,
and to ignore evidence of serious misconduct by his staff and CPS officials. Moore’s strategy to
diminish concern and distract from the LBP issue can only be viewed as intentional.
2) Moore’s statement of May 30th, 2014 states : “Unfortunately, a few people under the guise of
44
trying to help Gale have made some very disparaging remarks about the condition of the school,
leaving the impression this it is some sort of "third world school." Obviously, the school faces
some needed repairs, but anyone who has taken the time to actually visit the inside of the school
should know that the vast majority of the physical plant is in good condition. In the future, please
don't hesitate to contact my office if you need a little push from us when dealing with the CPS
administration.”
41
ibid, 33
42
ibid, 35
43
http://www.bettergov.org/bga_nbc_sue_cps_for_violating_open_records_law/ retrieved 10 Ocotber 2014
44
ibid, 22, Everyblock comment, 30 May 2014
3) Moore’s above assertion implies that concerns about GMSA conditions are overblown, and
combined with his overall failure to acknowledge lead paint in his writings suggests that concerns
about potential LBP poisoning are not credible.
4) Moore’s staffers attended LSC meetings where the ongoing maintenance issues, including LBP
were discussed. In one post , he claims to have consulted a longtime ally (Individual A) about
45
whether maintenance issues were discussed at an LSC meeting at which his staffer was not
present, and despite the fact that the issues were discussed, he claims this person has no
recollection of them.


By CDPH:

1) CDPH failed to acknowledge phone calls by CLB to report LBP concerns at GMSA.
2) Once made aware of significant concerns about LBP at GMSA by officials at UIC’s School of
Public Health, CDPH deferred to CPS claims that remediation was in progress without following up
to ensure the remediation was actually performed.
3) Despite being made aware of the significant risk of LBP exposure to an entire grade school’s
students, CDPH chose not to notify parents of possible exposures or to ensure follow up testing or
care.

Combined Impact of Official Denial:

The three-pronged approach of CPS’ refusal to provide information about their building, CDPH’ lack of
concern and action regarding the lead problems, and a local elected official demonizing those that sought to
bring attention to the issue constitutes a uniform effort to hide information about LBP at GMSA from
parents and the community. While this coordination may or may not have been formal, its object was to
drown out the voices of CLB and others by making it appear their concerns were fringe in nature and not
supported by any of the parties responsible for safeguarding vulnerable populations from LBP conditions in
schools.

Conclusions:

~Up to two thousand children and staff were exposed to LBP and LBPD at GMSA between 2009 and 2014,
based on GMSA enrollment figures and student mobility rates.

~Allowing the physical plant at GMSA to deteriorate so dramatically undermined community confidence and
impacted enrollments, which in turn reduced funding to the school.

~Due to the lack of appropriate LBP testing regimen and timely abatement, it is likely that significant
concentrations of LBPD accumulated and were circulated throughout the GMSA old building. Transfers of
students from old to new buildings may have contaminated new building facilities as well.

45
ibid, 22 Everyblock comment, 1 June 2014
~CPS covered up LBP conditions and their severity at GMSA. CPS officials were aided in this by other City
of Chicago agencies and officials whose efforts formed a united front that helped mask their conduct.

~Management of LBP at GMSA constitutes Educational and Medical Neglect of an already vulnerable
population of low and very low income students.

~CPS’ official’s behavior, including that of Network Chief Craig Benes, likely violates child endangerment
laws.

~Claims by the local alderman that he wasn’t aware of any aspect of the conditions at GMSA cannot be
reconciled with the presence of his staff at meetings where those issues were discussed.

~Chicago Department of Public Health is not meaningfully engaged in CPS LBP monitoring or management,
an absence that contributes to the perception that the problems are not serious and allows CPS
mismanagement to go unregulated.

~CPS LBP management at facilities throughout Chicago is likely similar to that of GMSA.

~CPS employees at GMSA were not provided with information about hazardous materials in their
workplace.

~Parents and guardians were not informed of hazards to their children at GMSA.

~Because of mis-managed LBP hazards in some old buildings in Rogers Park, it is possible that some
children may have faced LBP hazards in both their homes and their school.

~CPS’ recent policy of contracting out cleaning services at schools will require an additional layer of
supervision in facilities where LBP is present. It is not known whether lead safety is even mentioned in
CPS’ contract with Aramark, its cleaning vendor or whether Aramark is taking appropriate steps to protect
its employees.

Recommendations:

~CPS must locate every individual, parent, or guardian that was present or had children in GMSA during the
period 2009-2014, and inform them of possible exposure to LBP and LBPD.

~An independent investigation, by medically trained personnel not employed or connected to CPS, CDPH,
or other non- federal governmental bodies in the State of Illinois should be undertaken into management of
LBP at all CPS facilities.

~A formal complaint should be lodged with the United States Environmental Protection Agency- Region 5
regarding CPS management of hazardous lead in all of its facilities.

~Because it is impractical to reliably measure total body burden of lead in so many cases after such a
lengthy period of time, blood testing needs to be augmented by additional resources that will remain
available for potentially lead- impacted families until children reach the age of majority. This support should
include additional testing, developmental assessments, counseling, tutoring, and behavioral, developmental
and/or cognitive therapy, as needed and determined by children’s physicians.

~An independently administered fund must be created to provide ongoing medical support for families
impacted by lead exposure at GMSA.

~Because all LBP is at least thirty -six years old, exposed paint at all CPS locations must be considered a
hazard and abated as soon as possible.

~All relevant information about the presence of LBP must be made available to all employees and
contractors of CPS who work in facilities where LBP is present, including test results, immediately.

~Chicago Light Brigade should immediately provide test results obtained through FOI requests to staff and
parents at GMSA.

~Chicago Light Brigade should liaise with advocacy organizations across the city of Chicago to make them
aware of possible LBP hazards at CPS facilities in their communities.

~Enrollment based funding cuts to GMSA must be rescinded to restore GMSA to resource parity with
institutions that were not burdened by extreme facilities mismanagement.

Appendices

Appendix A- CPS responses to Freedom of Information requests

Appendix B- Map of area served by GMSA

Appendix C- CPS parent letter

Appendix D- Statements by Ald. Joe Moore (49)

















J oint Venture

J uly 28, 2009


Ms. Bilqis J acobs-El
Portfolio Manager
Chicago Public Schools
125 South Clark Street, 17
th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60603

RE: Gale Elementary School
Unit 3480, Region 1
1631 West J onquil Tr.
Chicago, Illinois 60626
WO#10-1-31741

Dear Ms. J acobs-El:

Wight/GSG AJ V was requested by the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to inspect the Boys & Girls
Bathroom Walls and Ceiling for the presence of Lead-based Paint at the above referenced facility. GSG
dispatched Brandon Wilson under the supervision of Santiago Garcia, a licensed IDPH inspector, visited
the site on J uly 23, 2009. GSG’s observations and recommendations from this survey are summarized
below.

Lead Issues:

1
st
, 2
nd
, and 3
rd
Floor Boys & Girls Bathroom: X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing indicated that all
Walls and Ceiling tested Positive for Lead-Base Paint (At or above the 1.0 mg/cm2 threshold level for
LBP). Damage was observed. The Radiators in the 1
st
, 2
nd
, and 3
rd
Floor Boys Bathroom also tested
Positive for Lead-Base Paint (At or above 1.0 mg/cm2 threshold level for LBP). Damage was
observed.

Recommendations:

Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Wight/GSG recommends that prior to initiating any renovation work, a project design must be
prepared by a Project Designer of the Managing Environmental Consultant (MEC) and the project
should be addressed by an IDPH-licensed abatement contractor under the field monitoring of an
Environmental Consultant (EC).


Respectfully submitted,
Wight/GSG AJ V





Michael Holvay
Project Manager


LIMITED LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY REPORT


Project Site:

Stephan F. Gale Community Academy
1631 W. Jonquil Tr
Chicago, Illinois 60626



Prepared For:


Stephan F. Gale Community Academy
1631 W. Jonquil Tr
Chicago, Illinois 60626


September 18, 2013



GSG Project No.: WO# 14 –NW-0036350


Prepared By:
















TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2.0 METHOD 2

3.0 FINDINGS 3

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5


APPENDICES

A. XRF FIELD DATA SHEETS

B. LEAD INSPECTOR LICENSE AND CERTIFICATIONS





1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On August 6, 2013 GSG Consultants, Inc. (GSG) conducted a limited Lead Based Paint
(LBP) survey at the Stephan F. Gale Community Academy located at 1631 W. Jonquil,
Chicago, IL 60626. The LBP survey was conducted by an Illinois Department of Public
Health (IDPH) licensed inspector Roberto Rivera of GSG. The purpose of this survey
was to determine the presence of LBP surfaces/components associated with project
number WO#14-NW-0036350. Please refer to Table 1 for XRF testing results of
surfaces/components tested for LBP.






2
2.0 METHOD

LBP testing was conducted using an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) spectrum analyzer. The
LPA-1 Lead Paint Analyzer, a state-of-the-art analytical instrument used in quantitative
analysis of lead in paint for various substrates used in commercial, industrial, and
residential facilities, was utilized for testing during this survey. Radioactive material is
used as the radiation source in this device for a non-destructive method of sample
analysis.


3
3.0 FINDINGS

Lead Based Paint (LBP)
Please refer to Table 1 for XRF testing results of surfaces/components for LBP. Please
refer to Appendix A for all XRF field data sheets.

TABLE I: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components for LBP
Gale Community Academy

Room/
Location
Component Substrate Color Test
Results
XRF Readings
(mg/cm
2
)
Room 301
Lower Walls Plaster Beige Negative -0.1, 0.0, -0.1, -0.2
North & East Upper
Walls
Plaster Pink
Negative -0.1, -0.2
South & West
Upper Walls
Plaster Pink
Positive 3.6, 3.8
Ceiling Plaster White
Negative -0.1
Top Walls Plaster White Negative -0.1, -0.2, -0.0, -0.0
Room 303
Lower Walls Plaster Beige
Negative -0.1, -0.2, 0.1, -0.2
Upper Walls Plaster Pink Negative 0.1, 0.0, -0.1, 0.0
Top Walls Plaster White
Negative 0.1, 0.0, 0.2, 0.1,
Ceiling Plaster White
Negative 0.3
East Wall (Above
Shelving)
Plaster Pink
Positive 3.5
Room 305
Lower Walls Plaster Beige
Negative -0.3, -0.3, -0.3, -0.0
Upper Walls Plaster Yellow
Negative 0.1, -0.0, 0.2, 0.1
Top Walls Plaster White
Negative 0.1, -0.0, -0.1, 0.0
Ceiling Plaster White Negative -0.0
East Wall (Above
Shelving)
Plaster Yellow
Positive 4.3
Room 201
Lower Walls Plaster Egg Shell
Negative 0.2, 0.1, 0.1, 0.0
Upper Walls Plaster
Light Egg
Shell
Negative 0.3, 0.0, 0.1, 0.1
Top Walls Plaster White
Negative 0.2, 0.1, 0.0, 0.3
Ceiling Plaster White
Negative 0.3




4



TABLE I: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components for LBP
Gale Community Academy (Continued)

Room/
Location
Component Substrate Color Test
Results
XRF Readings
(mg/cm
2
)
Room 203
Lower Walls Plaster Green Negative 0.1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.2
Upper Walls Plaster Tan
Negative 0.2, 0.0, 0.1, 0.3
Top Walls Plaster White Negative -0.1, -0.0, -0.2, -0.0
Ceiling Plaster White
Negative 0.1
2
nd
Floor Boy’s
Toilet
All Walls Plaster Off White
Positive 9.9, 9.9, 9.9, 9.9
Ceiling Plaster Off White
Positive 9.0
2
nd
Floor Girl’s
Toilet
All Walls Plaster Off White
Positive 9.9, 9.9, 9.9, 9.9
Ceiling Plaster Off White Positive 5.0
3
rd
Floor Girl’s
Toilet
All Walls Plaster Off White
Positive 9.9, 9.9, 9.9, 9.9
Ceiling Plaster Off White
Positive 9.9
3
rd
Floor Boy’s
Toilet
All Walls Plaster Off White
Positive 9.9, 9.9, 9.9, 9.9
Ceiling Plaster Off White
Positive 9.9
1
st
Floor Girl’s
Toilet
All Walls Plaster Pink
Positive 9.9, 9.9, 9.9, 9.9
Ceiling Plaster Pink
Positive 9.9
North and South
Walls
Cinder Block Pink Negative 0.2, 0.0
1
st
Floor Boys Toilet
All Walls Plaster Blue
Positive 9.9, 9.9, 9.9, 9.9
Ceiling Plaster Blue Positive 9.9













5
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

LBP was identified on some surfaces/components during this survey. GSG recommends that
prior to any demolition/renovation activities in which LBP surfaces may be impacted or
disturbed, a lead mitigation/abatement project design/work plan shall be prepared. The
design/work plan shall include information regarding lead-based paint locations, exposure
assessment, and lead-based paint waste handling, removal, and disposal. Also, all LBP
mitigation/abatement work shall be performed and supervised by properly trained workers and
supervisors, along with using industry accredited contractors specializing in this type of LBP
abatement under the monitoring of managing environmental consultant (MEC). The
mitigation/abatement work shall be performed in accordance with applicable local, state, and
federal regulations, including but not limited to: IDPH Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (Title 77,
Part 845); Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS); Occupational Safety and Health
Regulations (1926.62); EPA Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP), and Municipal Codes of
Chicago (Title 11, Chapter 11-4).

For the surfaces/components that tested negative during this survey, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) Lead in Construction Standard states that “negative” readings,
i.e. those below the HUD/EPA definition of what constitutes LBP (1.0 mg/cm2), DO NOT
relieve contractors from performing exposure assessments (personal air monitoring) on the their
employees per the OSHA Lead Standard, and should not be interpreted as lead is not present.

Although a reading may indicate “negative”, airborne lead concentrations still may exceed the
OSHA Action Level or the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) depending on the work
activity. GSG recommends that prior to any renovation activities in the building, engineering
control measures be implemented in the renovation area to minimize the generation of dust, and
site worker and occupant exposures to lead.

For the surfaces/components that are not listed in either Table I (positives) or Table II
(negatives), were not tested during this limited survey. Such surfaces/components shall be
assumed and treated as LBP until tested.

Please contact our office should you have any question regarding this report.


Respectfully submitted,
GSG CONSULTANTS, INC.

Michael Holvay
Michael Holvay
Project Manager




6








APPENDICIES


APPENDIX A

XRF Field Data Sheets














APPENDIX B

Lead Inspector License and Certifications




































1

LIMITED LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY REPORT


Project Site:

Stephen Gale Community Academy
1631 West J onquil Terrace
Chicago, IL 60626





Prepared For:

Stephen Gale Community Academy
1631 West J onquil Terrace
Chicago, IL 60626



Survey Date: July 9, 2014



GSG Project No.: 15-NW-0486559

Prepared By:















TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2.0 METHOD 2

3.0 FINDINGS 3

4.0 RECCOMENDATIONS 5





APPENDICES

A. XRF FIELD DATA SHEETS

B. LEAD INSPECTOR LICENSE AND CERTIFICATIONS



1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On J uly 9, 2014 2014 GSG Consultants, Inc. (GSG) conducted a limited Lead Based
Paint (LBP) survey at the Stephen Gale Community Academy located at 1631 West
J onquil Terrace, Chicago, IL 60626. The LBP survey was conducted by an Illinois
Department of Public Health (IDPH) licensed inspector J oseph Hennigan of GSG (IDPH
License #014003). The purpose of this survey was to determine the presence of LBP
surfaces/components associated with project number 15-NW-0486559. Please refer to
Table 1 for XRF testing results of surfaces/components tested for LBP.

2

2.0 METHOD

LBP testing was conducted using an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) spectrum analyzer. The
LPA-1 Lead Paint Analyzer, a state-of-the-art analytical instrument used in quantitative
analysis of lead in paint for various substrates used in commercial, industrial, and
residential facilities, was utilized for testing during this survey. Radioactive material is
used as the radiation source in this device for a non-destructive method of sample
analysis.

3

3.0 FINDINGS
Lead Based Paint (LBP)
Please refer to Table 1 for XRF testing results of surfaces/components for LBP. Please refer to
Appendix A for all XRF field data sheets.

TABLE 1: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components for LBP
Stephen Gale Community Academy

LOCATION / ROOM
NUMBER *
SURFACE/
COMPONENT
SUBSTRATE COLOR XRF RESULT
3
rd
Floor Room Between
Corridors
North and East Lower
Walls
Concrete Beige Positive
South and West Lower
Walls
Concrete Beige Negative
All Upper Walls Plaster Off White Positive
Ceiling Plaster
White Positive
Wall Above Top Rail Plaster
White Positive
Window Wood
Brown Negative
Window Frame Wood Brown Negative
Window Sill Wood Brown Negative
#312 Counselor’s Room
North, East and West
Lower Walls
Plaster Yellow Positive
South Lower Wall Drywall Yellow Negative
All Upper Walls Plaster White Positive
Ceiling Plaster White Positive
All Doors Wood Varnish Negative
All Door Frames Wood Varnish Negative
Baseboard Wood Varnish Negative
#312 Counselor’s Storage
Room
Lower Walls Plaster Yellow Negative
Upper Walls Plaster White Negative
Floor Wood Varnish Negative
Baseboard Wood Varnish Negative
Built-in Shelving Wood Varnish Negative
Gymnasium Office
North and West Wall
Concrete
Block
Tan Positive
All Walls Plaster Orange Negative

4

TABLE 1 Continued: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components for LBP
Stephen Gale Community Academy

LOCATION / ROOM
NUMBER *
SURFACE/
COMPONENT
SUBSTRATE COLOR XRF RESULT
Gymnasium Office
East Wall Fiber Board Tan Negative
South Wall Drywall Tan Negative
South Wall Drywall Orange Negative
Window Sill Wood
Blue Negative
Window Frame Wood
Blue Negative
Door Wood
Varnish Negative
Door Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Ceiling Plaster White Negative
3
rd
Floor Corridor North-
South
Ceiling Plaster White Negative
Lower West Wall
Concrete
Block
Light Blue Positive
Upper West Wall Plaster White Negative
Picture Rail Wood Varnish Negative
3
rd
Floor North-East
Stairwell
Lower Walls
Concrete
Block
Light Blue Positive
Upper Walls Plaster White Negative
Ceiling Plaster White Negative
Heat Vent Metal White Negative
Newell Post Metal Brown Positive
Newell Post Cap Metal Brown Positive
Hand Rail Metal Brown Positive
Pickets Metal Brown Positive
Stringer Metal Brown Positive
Hand Rail Supports Metal Light Blue Positive
3
rd
Floor North-West
Stairwell
North Lower Wall
Concrete
Block
Light Blue Positive
South and West Lower
Walls
Concrete
Block
Light Blue Negative
All Upper Walls Plaster White Negative


4

TABLE 1 Continued: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components for LBP
Stephen Gale Community Academy

LOCATION / ROOM
NUMBER *
SURFACE/
COMPONENT
SUBSTRATE COLOR XRF RESULT
3
rd
Floor North-West
Stairwell
Heat Vent Metal White Negative
Hand Rail Metal Brown Positive
Hand Rail Support Metal Light Blue Positive
Newell Post Metal
Brown Positive
Newell Post Cap Metal
Brown Positive
Pickets Metal
Brown Positive
Stringer Metal Brown Positive
Picture Rail Wood Varnish Negative
Window Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Window Sill Wood Varnish Negative
Window Skirt Wood Varnish Negative
1
st
Floor Vestibule #2
All Lower Walls Glazed Brick White Negative
All Upper Walls Plaster White Positive
All Upper Walls Wood Green Positive
Entry Door Metal Brown Negative
Entry Door Frame Metal Brown Negative
Entry Door Skirt Metal Brown Negative
Hand Rail Metal Brown Positive
Hand Rail Post Metal Brown Positive
Hand Rail Support Metal Brown Negative
Step Kick Plate Concrete Brown Negative
Crown Molding Wood Green Positive
Ceiling Plaster White Positive
Door Wood Varnish Negative
Door Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Picture Rail Wood Varnish Negative
North Corridor Bay
Windows
Ceiling Plaster White Positive
All Upper Walls Plaster White Positive

4

TABLE 1 Continued: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components for LBP
Stephen Gale Community Academy

LOCATION / ROOM
NUMBER *
SURFACE/
COMPONENT
SUBSTRATE COLOR XRF RESULT
North Corridor Bay
Windows
All Lower Walls
Concrete
Block
Light Blue Positive
Window Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Window Sill Wood Varnish Negative
Window Skirt Wood
Varnish Negative
Built-in Seating Wood
Brown Negative
Classroom #105
North Wall Drywall
White Negative
All Lower Walls Plaster Beige Negative
East and West Upper Wall Plaster White Positive
South Upper Wall Plaster White Negative
#105 Office Area
All Lower Walls Plaster Yellow Positive
All Upper Walls Plaster White Negative
Ceiling Plaster White Negative
#105 Bathroom
All Lower Walls Plaster Light Green Positive
All Upper Walls Plaster White Positive
Picture Rail Wood Varnish Negative
Door Wood Varnish Negative
Door Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Window Frame Wood Brown Negative
Window Sill Wood Varnish Negative
Window Skirt Wood Varnish Negative
1
st
Floor Corridor
East Wall
Concrete
Block
Light Blue Positive
Ceiling Plaster White Negative
All Upper Walls Plaster White Negative
Lower East Wall
Concrete
Block
Light Blue Positive
Lower West Wall
Concrete
Block
Light Blue Negative


4

TABLE 1 Continued: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components for LBP
Stephen Gale Community Academy

LOCATION / ROOM
NUMBER *
SURFACE/
COMPONENT
SUBSTRATE COLOR XRF RESULT
Classroom #107
All Lower Walls Plaster Light Blue Negative
North Upper Wall Drywall Light Blue Negative
East, South West Upper
Walls
Plaster Light Blue Negative
Ceiling Plaster
White Negative
Window Frame Wood
Brown Negative
Window Sill Wood
Brown Negative
Window Skirt Wood Brown Negative
Baseboard Wood Brown Negative
Door Wood Varnish Negative
Door Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Heat Vent Metal Wire Light Blue Negative
Heat Vent Frames Wood Light Blue Negative
Classroom
#108
All Lower Walls Plaster Off White Negative
Ceiling Plaster White Negative
All Upper Walls Plaster Off White Negative
Baseboard Wood Varnish Negative
Heat Vent Metal Wire Off White Negative
Heat Vent Frame Wood Off White Negative
Window Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Window Sill Wood Varnish Negative
Door Wood Varnish Negative
Door Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Classroom #204
Ceiling Plaster White Negative
North, East and South
Lower Walls
Plaster Off White Negative
West Lower Walls Plaster Off White Positive
All Upper Walls Plaster Tan Negative
Window Frame Wood Varnish Negative

4


TABLE 1 Continued: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components for LBP
Stephen Gale Community Academy

LOCATION / ROOM
NUMBER *
SURFACE/
COMPONENT
SUBSTRATE COLOR XRF RESULT
Classroom
#204
Window Sill Wood Varnish Negative
Door Wood Varnish Negative
Door Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Baseboard Wood
Varnish Negative
Classroom #202
All Lower Walls Plaster
Off White Negative
All Upper Walls Plaster
Off White Negative
Ceiling Plaster White Negative
Window Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Window Sill Wood Varnish Negative
Baseboard Wood Varnish Negative
Door Wood Varnish Negative
Door Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Classroom #304
Ceiling Plaster White Negative
All Lower Walls Plaster Pink Negative
All Upper Walls Plaster Green Negative
Window Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Window Sill Wood Varnish Negative
Baseboard Wood Varnish Negative
Door Wood Varnish Negative
Door Frame Wood Varnish Negative
3
rd
Floor Corridor Ceiling Plaster White Negative
Classroom #307 Ceiling Plaster White Negative
Classroom #103
North and South Walls Drywall Beige Negative
East and West Walls Plaster Beige Negative
Ceiling Plaster White Negative
Window Sill Wood Varnish Negative
Baseboard Wood Varnish Negative


4

TABLE 1 Continued: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components for LBP
Stephen Gale Community Academy

LOCATION / ROOM
NUMBER *
SURFACE/
COMPONENT
SUBSTRATE COLOR XRF RESULT
Classroom #103
Door Wood Brown Negative
Door Frame Wood Brown Negative
Room #103 Toilet Room
All Walls Vinyl White Negative
Window Sill Wood Brown Negative
Door Wood Varnish Negative
Door Frame Metal
White Negative


Any building material that is not listed in above table was not sampled during the survey. Such
material shall be assumed and treated as LBP containing building material until tested and
proven otherwise. GC shall contact GSG to sample such material prior to any disturbance to the
material.


5

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

LBP was identified on some surfaces/components during this survey. GSG recommends that
prior to any demolition/renovation activities in which LBP surfaces may be impacted or
disturbed, a lead mitigation/abatement project design/work plan shall be prepared. The
design/work plan shall include information regarding lead-based paint locations, exposure
assessment, and lead-based paint waste handling, removal, and disposal. Also, all LBP
mitigation/abatement work shall be performed and supervised by properly trained workers and
supervisors, along with using industry accredited contractors specializing in this type of LBP
abatement under the monitoring of managing environmental consultant (MEC). The
mitigation/abatement work shall be performed in accordance with applicable local, state, and
federal regulations, including but not limited to: IDPH Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (Title 77,
Part 845); Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS); Occupational Safety and Health
Regulations (1926.62); EPA Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP), and Municipal Codes of
Chicago (Title 11, Chapter 11-4).

For the surfaces/components that tested negative during this survey, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) Lead in Construction Standard states that “negative” readings,
i.e. those below the HUD/EPA definition of what constitutes LBP (1.0 mg/cm2), DO NOT
relieve contractors from performing exposure assessments (personal air monitoring) on the their
employees per the OSHA Lead Standard, and should not be interpreted as lead is not present.
Although a reading may indicate “negative”, airborne lead concentrations still may exceed the
OSHA Action Level or the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) depending on the work
activity. GSG recommends that prior to any renovation activities in the building, engineering
control measures be implemented in the renovation area to minimize the generation of dust, and
site worker and occupant exposures to lead.

For the surfaces/components that are not listed in Table 1, were not tested during this limited
survey. Such surfaces/components shall be assumed and treated as LBP until tested.

Please contact our office should you have any question regarding this report.


Respectfully submitted,
GSG CONSULTANTS, INC.





J oseph Hennigan
Lead Inspector



APPENDIX A

XRF Field Data Sheet Material



APPENDIX B
Lead Inspector License and Certifications



LIMITED LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY REPORT




Project Site:


Gale Academy – Annex
7650 N. Marshfield Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60626




Prepared For:

Gale Academy – Annex
7650 N. Marshfield Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60626




June 25, 2014



Project # 2015-31081-MCR




Prepared By:



TABLE OF CONTENTS


Section Page


1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2.0 METHOD 2

3.0 FINDINGS 3

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4



APPENDICES

A. XRF FIELD DATA SHEETS

B. LEAD INSPECTOR LICENSE AND CERTIFICATIONS



1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On June 24, 2014 GSG Consultants, Inc. (GSG) conducted a limited Lead-Based Paint
(LBP) survey at Gale Academy “Main Building” located at 1631 W. Jonquil Terrace, in
Chicago, Illinois. The LBP survey was conducted by an Illinois Department of Public
Health (IDPH) licensed inspectors Roberto Rivera (IDPH License # 003649) of GSG.
The purpose of this survey was to determine the presence of LBP surfaces/components
associated with project number 2015-31081-MCR. Please refer to Table I for XRF testing
results of surfaces/components tested.



2
2.0 METHOD

LBP testing was conducted using an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) spectrum analyzer. The
LPA-1 Lead Paint Analyzer, a state-of-the-art analytical instrument used in quantitative
analysis of lead in paint for various substrates used in commercial, industrial, and
residential facilities, was utilized for testing during this survey. Radioactive material is
used as the radiation source in this device for a non-destructive method of sample
analysis.



3
3.0 FINDINGS

Lead Based Paint (LBP)

Please refer to Table I for XRF testing results of surfaces/components tested. Please refer
to Appendix A for all XRF field data sheets.


TABLE I: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components tested

Room/
Location
Component Substrate Color Test
Results
Roof Cooling unit support frame Steel Off white Negative


4
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

For the surfaces/components that tested negative during this survey, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) Lead in Construction Standard states that “negative” readings,
i.e. those below the HUD/EPA definition of what constitutes LBP (1.0 mg/cm2), DO NOT
relieve contractors from performing exposure assessments (personal air monitoring) on the their
employees per the OSHA Lead Standard, and should not be interpreted as lead is not present.

Although a reading may indicate “negative”, airborne lead concentrations still may exceed the
OSHA Action Level or the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) depending on the work
activity. GSG recommends that prior to any renovation activities in the building, engineering
control measures be implemented in the renovation area to minimize the generation of dust, and
site worker and occupant exposures to lead.

For the surfaces/components that are not listed in Table I, were not tested during this limited
survey. Such surfaces/components shall be assumed and treated as LBP until tested.

Please contact our office should you have any question regarding this report.


Respectfully submitted,
GSG CONSULTANTS, INC.



Roberto Rivera
Senior Project Manager





APPENDICIES





APPENDIX A

XRF Field Data Sheets



APPENDIX B

Lead Inspector License and Certifications
LIMITED LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY REPORT




Project Site:


Gale Academy – Main Building
1631 W. Jonquil Terrace
Chicago, Illinois 60626




Prepared For:

Gale Academy – Main Building
1631 W. Jonquil Terrace
Chicago, Illinois 60626




June 25, 2014



Project # 2015-31081-MCR




Prepared By:



TABLE OF CONTENTS


Section Page


1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2.0 METHOD 2

3.0 FINDINGS 3

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4



APPENDICES

A. XRF FIELD DATA SHEETS

B. LEAD INSPECTOR LICENSE AND CERTIFICATIONS



1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On June 24, 2014 GSG Consultants, Inc. (GSG) conducted a limited Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
survey at Gale Academy “Main Building” located at 1631 W. Jonquil Terrace, in Chicago,
Illinois. The LBP survey was conducted by an Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH)
licensed inspectors Roberto Rivera (IDPH License # 003649) of GSG. The purpose of this survey
was to determine the presence of LBP surfaces/components associated with project number 2015-
31081-MCR. Please refer to Table I for XRF testing results of surfaces/components tested.



2
2.0 METHOD

LBP testing was conducted using an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) spectrum analyzer. The LPA-1
Lead Paint Analyzer, a state-of-the-art analytical instrument used in quantitative analysis of lead
in paint for various substrates used in commercial, industrial, and residential facilities, was
utilized for testing during this survey. Radioactive material is used as the radiation source in this
device for a non-destructive method of sample analysis.



3
3.0 FINDINGS

Lead Based Paint (LBP)

Please refer to Table I for XRF testing results of surfaces/components tested. Please refer to
Appendix A for all XRF field data sheets.


TABLE I: XRF Testing Results of Surfaces/Components tested
Room/
Location
Component Substrate Color Test
Results
Roof
Vents Metal Beige Positive
Roof hatches Metal Beige Positive
Gutters Metal Beige Negative
Downspouts Metal Beige Negative
Ladders Metal Red Negative
Entry/Exit Vestibule Door 3
Walls
Glazed
brick
White Negative
Walls Plaster White Positive
Ceiling Plaster White Positive
Picture rail Wood Varnish Negative
Door and Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Door frame Metal Brown Negative
Entry/Exit Vestibule Door 2
Walls
Glazed
brick
White Negative
Walls Plaster White Positive
Ceiling Plaster White Positive
Decorative frame Plaster Green Positive
Crown molding Plaster Green Positive
Door and Frame Wood Varnish Negative
Hand rail Metal Brown Negative
Picture rail Wood Varnish Negative
Exterior door frame Metal Brown Negative
Exterior decorative transom Wood Brown Positive
Entry/Exit Vestibule Door 1
Walls
Glazed
brick
White Negative
Walls Plaster White Positive
4
Room/
Location
Component Substrate Color Test
Results
Entry/Exit Vestibule Door 1
Ceiling Plaster White Positive
Decorative frame Plaster Green Positive
Crown molding Plaster Green Positive
Door and Frame Metal Brown Negative
Hand rail Metal Brown Negative
Picture rail Wood Varnish Negative
Exterior decorative transom Wood Brown Positive
Entry/Exit Vestibule Door 7
Walls
Glazed
brick
White Negative
Walls Plaster White Positive
Ceiling Plaster White Positive
Picture rail Wood Varnish Negative
Door and frame Wood Varnish Negative
Door and frame Metal Brown Negative
Exterior door frame Metal Brown Negative


5
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

GSG recommends that prior to any demolition/renovation activities in which LBP surfaces may be
impacted or disturbed, a lead mitigation/abatement project design/work plan shall be prepared. The
design/work plan shall include information regarding lead-based paint locations, exposure assessment,
and lead-based paint waste handling, removal, and disposal. Also, all LBP mitigation/abatement work
shall be performed and supervised by properly trained workers and supervisors, along with using industry
accredited contractors specializing in this type of LBP abatement under the monitoring of environmental
consultant. The mitigation/abatement work shall be performed in accordance with applicable local, state,
and federal regulations, including but not limited to: IDPH Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (Title 77, Part
845); Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS); Occupational Safety and Health Regulations
(1926.62); EPA Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP), and Municipal Codes of Chicago (Title 11,
Chapter 11-4).

For the surfaces/components that tested negative during this survey, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Lead in Construction Standard states that “negative” readings, i.e. those below
the HUD/EPA definition of what constitutes LBP (1.0 mg/cm2), DO NOT relieve contractors from
performing exposure assessments (personal air monitoring) on the their employees per the OSHA Lead
Standard, and should not be interpreted as lead is not present. Although a reading may indicate
“negative”, airborne lead concentrations still may exceed the OSHA Action Level or the OSHA
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) depending on the work activity. GSG recommends that prior to any
renovation activities in the building, engineering control measures be implemented in the renovation area
to minimize the generation of dust, and site worker and occupant exposures to lead.

For the surfaces/components that are not listed in Table I, were not tested during this limited survey. Such
surfaces/components shall be assumed and treated as LBP until tested.

Please contact our office should you have any question regarding this report.


Respectfully submitted,
GSG CONSULTANTS, INC.



Roberto Rivera
Senior Project Manager





APPENDICIES





APPENDIX A

XRF Field Data Sheets



APPENDIX B

Lead Inspector License and Certifications
Appendix D- Statements by Ald. Joe Moore (49)

24 May 2014: I am not going to let you get away with that statement. Your assertion that Gale School "has
been neglected for years" is simply not true. Over the last 20 years, literally tens of millions of dollars, both
private and public, have been invested in the physical plant and the curriculum at Gale. As soon as the
most recent problems were brought to my attention, I made sure they got addressed.
Gale has its challenges to be sure, and we could always use more investment, but to state that we haven't
paid attention to and and invested in Gale is patently false.
24 May 2014: Several commentators on EveryBlock have expressed concern with some maintenance
issues at Gale School. As soon as I learned of the problems, I reached out to the Chicago Public Schools
adminstrators. Here is the latest status on the repairs:
1. Ceiling in some of the 3rd floor classrooms are peeling
Paint peeled in rooms 301 and 303 due to steam leaks, which were fixed with trap replacement. Corridor
ceiling damage near Room 310 is due to the roof hatch being left open.
The ceilings will be painted over the summer.
2. Fire Alarm
The fire alarm control panel is operational, but there are no strobes and a few indicator lamps on the panel
are not working.
Strobes will be added and the system replacement will be evaluated for completion this summer.
3. Water spigot
A maintenance project to extend the water line to a hose bib in a convenient location has been initiated.
This work will be completed by mid- June.
4. Roof on the Gale annex
There are several roof leaks. Major roof work needs to be done.
The roof is the original 1998 modified bitumen and is near the end of its life. Recent patching of the
multipurpose room roof failed to stop the leaks and areas below are roped off to prevent student injury.
A roofing consultant was dispatched to assess the condition of the overall roof. It was confirmed that annex
roof has indeed reached the end of its useful life. A CIP project will be initiated and this will be evaluated for
completion in either the summer of 2014 or the summer of 2015.
5. The camera system in the building does not record.
CPS recently received a $35,000 grant to upgrade to a new, modern system.



26 May 2014:
JMG,
You say the pubic schools in Rogers Park are "languishing?" I beg to differ. At New Field School, nearly
90% of the students are testing at or above grade level. The principal at Field School, Brian Metcalf, has
been recognized as one of the most innovative principals in the CPS system and the school is making
incredible strides in test scores. Sullivan and Kilmer have dynamic new principals, who are taking their
schools by storm, initiating innovative new programs and instilling a spirit of discipline and order.
All this is taking place while the Chicago Science and Math Academy continues to offer a quality education
and is now rated as a Level 1 school, which belies the assertion that a well-run charter school in the
neighborhood is a death knell to traditional neighborhood schools. There is room for both. You all can feel
free to continue the false debate between neighborhood public schools and charters. I'm going to continue
to do what I can to promote and improve ALL schools in my neighborhood.
Kyle,
Now that I've been made aware of the issues at Gale--which I had not been aware of until a group attempted
to hijack my community meeting with the Commander--I will of course follow up with the CPS
administration, including the HVAC issues you raise.
27 May 2014:
Monica,
You ask "how do you hijack a community meeting?" It's not that difficult. You and your group of friends
attend a community meeting designated for a specific topic and you ignore that topic and instead
repeatedly ask questions and/or make statements about something not germane to the topic at hand. The
vast majority of people in attendance were there to hear from the Police Commander and talk about crime
and public safety. Instead, their time was taken up by individuals who insisted on talking about a topic that
was at best tangential to the issue at hand.
That is not to say the topic of the condition of the physical plant at Gale School is not important. It is. But if
the 25 or so activists who attended the meeting to engage with me on the topic of the conditions of Gale
School had instead simply contacted my office and expressed their concerns, my staff and I would have
gotten to work on it right away.
It would be one thing if I had not been responsive and they had no recourse but to use the community
meeting as a forum to engage with me on Gale School, but that was not the case. Up until that evening, no
one had ever approached me or my staff to ask for our intervention in the Gale School issues.



27 May 2014:
JMG,
In addition to Rob's query, I have an additional one.
You state, "if the community at Gale feels like the best way to get your attention is to show up as a group
at a community meeting you have a problem." How do you define the "community at Gale?" Is it the
parents? The students? The faculty? The principal? The LSC members?
Of the group of 25 or so people who showed up with their Gale agenda at the community meeting the other
night, just how many fall into one of the above categories? I recognized one LSC member who was at the
community meeting and I'm not even positive he was part of the group. Other than that one possible
exception, the group consisted of young people who have no discernible connection to Gale other than the
fact that some of them may live in Rogers Park.
Don't get me wrong. I think it's great they are taking an interest in the school. But when you say
"community at Gale," let's be clear you are using a very broad definition of the word "community."
If you look at the aldermanic election results, not only from the previous election, but from every election
I've been in, the precincts surrounding Gale School are my top precincts. In the last election, I received
over 70% of the vote in the precinct in which Gale is located. Apparently, the true Gale community believes
I am communicating with them and representing them just fine.

30 May 2014:
GMSA,
Thank you for posting this. Unfortunately, a few people under the guise of trying to help Gale have made
some very disparaging remarks about the condition of the school, leaving the impression this it is some
sort of "third world school." Obviously, the school faces some needed repairs, but anyone who has taken
the time to actually visit the inside of the school should know that the vast majority of the physical plant is
in good condition. In the future, please don't hesitate to contact my office if you need a little push from us
when dealing with the CPS administration.

1 June 2014:
Moncia,
You offer the following suggestion to me. "The alderman or one of his staff could attend LSC meetings to
stay in touch and ensure systems are working, or even call the principal once a month to check in."
In fact, my chief-of-staff frequently attends the LSC meetings at every school in the Ward, including Gale.
Because of time constraints and other demands on her time, she cannot attend every meeting every
month. However, she has attended at least two LSC meetings at Gale in the last four or five months and
was not made aware of any maintenance issues that were severe enough to require my intervention.
My chief-of-staff was not able to attend last month's Gale LSC meeting, but community activists Dorothy
Gregory and Merylk Cook, who head up the organization Our Schools Rogers Park, did attend. I contacted
Dorothy after the "Light Brigade" crashed my meeting with the Commander and asked her if she recalls the
issue of the needed repairs being discussed at the LSC meeting. She told me she has no recollection of the
issue coming up.
I'm an alderman, not a building inspector. My small office staff and I try our best to respond to every
community concern brought to our attention, but we simply do not have the resources to visually inspect
every school classroom or conduct monthly "wellness checks" with every principal.
I'm pleased Gale's outstanding maintenance issues are finally being addressed. However, the Light
Birgade's action at the Commander's community meeting last month and the persistent attempt by some on
this site to lay the blame at my doorstep for the failure of CPS to address them sooner, leads me to believe
that perhaps something else is going on here.

1 June 2014: I've reminded both the Gale principal and the LSC members I've talked to that if they have
any problems with CPS response on any issue of concern, all they have to do is pick up the phone and call
me or my staff.

Nine public schools either fall within or are very close to the geographical boundaries of the 49th Ward.
Over the years, I've attended countless school events and graduations, successfully advocated for school
constructions and intervened on behalf of the schools when they needed assistance from City agencies and
the CPS Administration. All the principals, past and present, can attest to my advocacy.
1 June 2014: I appreciate the lecture from the folks at the Chicago Light Brigade on how to do my job, but I
have way too much on my plate to become Co-Principal of Gale School. If Ms. Washington, the principal of
Gale School, needs some assistance from my staff and me, she knows we are only a phone call away and
will do all we can to help her, as we have helped her and other principals in the past. My response to the
problems at Gale School is just the latest evidence.
As "Sangyal," noted, we seem to have a lot "street theater and political performance art" taking place on
this thread. I am bowing out of this theater performance and going out and enjoying this beautiful day. I urge
the rest of you to do the same.