Here is the text we could read:
EXPLANATORY REPORT
AMENDMENTS TO THE ELECTRONIC CASE RECORD PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY
OF THE UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA
Effective January 1, 2022, upon the recommendation of the Administrative Office
of Pennsylvania Courts, the Court amended Sections 1.00, 3.00, 3.10, 6.00, and 7.00 of
the Electronic Case Record Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of
Pennsylvania (ECR Policy) to incorporate electronic case record information residing in
the Guardianship Tracking System (GTS). GTS is a statewide application for courts to
manage guardianship cases and track guardian compliance with annual reporting, and
an online means of filing required reports by Pennsylvania guardians. The
amendments are detailed below.
Section 1.00 has been amended to include a definition for GTS. The definitions
for “electronic case records” and “office” were also amended to include GTS. In
addition, the office of the clerk of the orphans’ court division has been added to the list
of entities that are not included in the definition of “public.”
Section 3.00 has been amended to provide that information maintained in GTS is
not accessible by the public, except for aggregate, statistical, and/or other data that
does not identify an incapacitated person, as determined by AOPC. Information that
would be accessible under the ECR Policy includes, for example: the name of
guardians, whether a guardian has been paid, and when a guardian is terminated. The
release of aggregate, statistical data that does not identify incapacitated persons
reflects the general philosophy that detailed information in these sensitive cases should
be safeguarded, while reinforcing the Judiciary’s commitment to open and accessible
case records. See also the provisions in the Case Records Public Access Policy of the
Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania (Case Records Policy) regarding individual
cases. Given the extensive financial, medical, and related sensitive information
provided to a court in guardianship matters, these records are generally inaccessible
pursuant to the Case Records Policy and other relevant legal authority. See, e.g., 20
Pa.C.S. § 5511(a) and In re Estate of DuPont, 2 A.3d 516 (Pa. 2010) (Proceedings
related to the appointment of guardianship for incapacitated persons shall be closed to
the public upon request of the alleged incapacitated person or his/her counsel). The
amendments also include a reorganization of Section 3.00 for clarity.
The abbreviation of “IRB” appearing in Section 3.10(B)(2)(e) was replaced with
“relevant Institutional Review Board.”
Section 6.00(C) has been amended to clarify that requests to correct an alleged
error in an electronic case record in GTS must be submitted to, and responded to by,
the clerk of the orphans’ court division. When the ECR Policy was originally
implemented in 2007, the “Commentary” to Section 6.00 provided in part:
An important aspect of transparent electronic case records and personal
privacy/security is the quality of information in the court record. The
information in the UJS electronic case records should be complete and
1
accurate, otherwise incorrect information about a party to a case or court
proceeding could be disseminated….
The power of the court to correct errors in its own records is inherent. Equity
enjoys flexibility to correct court errors [emphasis added] that would
produce unfair results…
…[T]his section permits a party to “fix” information that appears in an
electronic case record which does not, for one reason or another, correctly
set forth the facts contained in the official court record….
It is anticipated that those reviewing alleged errors [will] compare the
information set forth in the electronic case record against official court
record. If the information in the electronic case record and official court
record is consistent, the request to correct the electronic case record should
be denied. If the information is not consistent, the reviewer should
determine, what, if any, corrections are needed to the electronic case
record.
Reports and inventories filed by the guardian with the court, even when
containing errors, are a part of the court’s official record. A party cannot use Section
6.00 to amend a party-filed document with the court which is a part of the court’s official
record.
“Court errors”, such as data entry mistakes made by a member of the court staff
which are readily apparent when reviewing the information in the electronic case record
with the information residing in the court’s official record, are the focus of Section 6.00.
When such an error is alleged by a party or party’s attorney, a review of the official
record is necessary. Hence, the proper entity to perform a review of an error in GTS is
the clerk of the orphans’ court division that maintains the official court record.
In addition, Section 7.00 has been amended to include that a copy of the ECR
Policy shall be continuously available for public access in every court or office using
GTS.
2
