Until Brown County moves out of red-level COVID-19 restrictions, Brown County parents will not be allowed to attend home sporting events, including the first home boys basketball game this Saturday.

That’s what Judge Mary Wertz ruled this afternoon in response to a civil lawsuit from a Brown County High School basketball parent.

Richard Stanley Jr., an attorney, filed suit Jan. 11 against Brown County Schools and the Brown County Health Department. He asked the court to determine if those agencies have the authority to restrict attendance at K-12 events beyond what Gov. Eric Holcomb has ordered.

Holcomb’s executive order 20-50 says that if a county is designated as “red” by the Indiana State Department of Health, then attendance at social gatherings and events “shall be limited to participants, support personnel and students’ parents, guardians, siblings and other minor children of a parent or guardian of students.”

School districts around the state have made their own rules from that order. BCHS basketball parents have been allowed to watch their children play this season at some games hosted by other schools.

Brown County Schools’ plan says that when the county is under red status, admission to home games and practices is limited to 35 people, and only participants and support personnel are allowed to attend.

Because of the limits on spectators, the school district has been live-streaming games on YouTube.

Stanley requested a ruling from the court prior to the varsity boys team’s first home game, which is tomorrow, Jan. 23.

Wertz’ answer was that Brown County Schools’ basketball season plan is not unreasonable.

Citing Holcomb’s executive orders 20-50 and 20-53, Wertz wrote that the governor had given “broad authority” to local government entities, like school districts, to impose stricter requirements based on local conditions.

“The school district could go a step further, if it chose to do so, and cancel games when the county is designated red or cancel the entire winter sports season,” she added.

The limits will loosen up as COVID spread decreases. As of Jan. 20, Brown County has moved to “orange” on the state’s COVID metric map, and if the county can remain at orange for two weeks, attendance at boys and girls basketball games will be increased to 50 people with parents and guardians allowed to attend, according to the district’s plan.

Stanley did not believe BCS’ limits were warranted, and he didn’t see how they’d make any difference in Brown County’s level of COVID spread. He said that because players live with parents, their families will be exposed to whatever any player might have whether they attend a game or not, since the players all practice and play on the court together. He also noted that shopping and eating at restaurants are still allowed in Brown County.

Stanley claimed that if he is not allowed to attend his son’s home games in person, he will “suffer irreparable harm that cannot be cured with financial damages or any form of recovery after his son’s games have already been played,” as this will be the last season his senior will be playing organized basketball.

Wertz heard oral arguments from Stanley, health department attorney John Reames and school district attorney Caren Pollack on Jan. 19.

Reames argued that language in Holcomb’s executive orders gives power to the department and the school district to impose more stringent attendance restrictions, including phrases like “allow state and local officials to make targeted adjustments.”

Brown County Health Officer Norman Oestrike reported that the health department has a committee to review and consider event plans. It includes Brown County Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Corey Frost, environmental health specialist Jennifer Heller and Brown County Emergency Management Director Susan Armstrong. The committee considers a number of factors, Oestrike wrote: The county’s color on the metric map; the size of the venue, proper social distancing at all times in the venue, the use of masks and available hand sanitizer; the fact that 60 percent of COVID infections are the result of exposure to people who have no symptoms; and that Brown County does not have a hospital.

“This means that those cases requiring hospitalization must go to hospitals in other areas,” Oestrike wrote.

“Those hospitals’ ability to accept and adequately treat COVID patients may already be stretched to the limit or may be short-staffed to the point that they are unable to provide adequate care.”

Oestrike wrote that changing the policy to allow parents, siblings and minor children to attend games “would present a dangerous health risk to those in attendance, and those not in attendance but to whom the attendees may later expose themselves.”

He said that the promise of social distancing in the gymnasium does not address social distancing in hallways, near concession stands or while using the restrooms. Taking people’s temperatures prior to entry would not prevent exposure from people who are not symptomatic, and those people could then unknowingly expose others to the virus, he wrote.

“The effect on and/or inconvenience to those who might otherwise attend is outweighed by the disservice that attending may place on the general public, those who are especially susceptible and the healthcare system,” Oestrike wrote.

Stanley argued that the health department was acting on an outdated executive order.

Wertz disagreed with his interpretation of the governor’s language, saying that “if the governor intended to mandate that parents and other family must be permitted to attend, he could have so stated.

“The executive order is an order of limitation, not permission,” she wrote. “It clearly and unambiguously states that attendance is limited to those certain types of individuals. It does not mandate that those types of individuals must be permitted to attend.”

Pollack argued that regulating spectators at sporting events is “well within the purpose and operational power of a school corporation.”

She said that if the district allows parents to attend games in person and the spread of COVID-19 is increased, the district would “be damaged in a much more profound way than the plaintiff would be if the injunction were denied.”

“If the spread of the highly contagious virus can be controlled by not allowing parents to personally observe the sporting events of their children, that must take priority,” Pollack wrote.

“It would almost certainly have a detrimental effect on the public interest, which is to contain and control the virus.”

One of Stanley’s arguments was that the health department did not have the authority to reject the school district’s initial plan for the basketball season, which included allowing parents to attend. Superintendent Laura Hammack was called to testify at the Jan. 19 court hearing. She confirmed that the district did submit an initial plan for review to the health department that allowed parents to attend home basketball games, but an “important component of this whole equation is that we are in a public health emergency” and that because of that, the school district has to work with the health department to get plans approved.

Pollack said Stanley’s lawsuit and motion were “emotion-driven” and not legally based. She said that the restricted attendance plan is for the greater good, while Stanley argued that the harm he will experience by not attending the games “outweighs any speculative harm to the school.”

“We’re following Oestrike’s advice,” Pollack said. “He’s the scientist in the room. We are not.”