Section 1951. Continuity of operations

(a) Responsibility for Continuity of Operations and Emergency Planning.

(1) The Court Administrator shall establish minimum standards and procedures for continuity of operations and other emergency plans. The standards shall include procedures for periodic review, including the procedures for conducting exercises to ensure the efficacy of the plan.

(2) The president judge has primary responsibility for planning for the continuity of operations in the event of an emergency, and for implementing such plans in his or her judicial district.

Official Note

See also Pa.R.J.A. No. 1954.

(b) Continuity of Operations Plans.

(1) Pursuant to the standards and procedures established by the Court Administrator in Rule 1951(A)(1), the president judge, in conjunction with the district court administrator and any other relevant individuals designated by the president judge shall, in consultation with county emergency service agencies and other governmental entities, develop a plan to provide for the continuity of court operations during and following the occurrence of an emergency.

(2) The continuity of operations plan shall provide for the continuation or immediate resumption of court business by the most expeditious and practical means possible, consistent with continuity of operations standards as established by the Court Administrator.

(3) The president judge shall be responsible for ensuring that the continuity of operations plan is accurate and updated as needed.

(4) On an annual basis, the president judge shall review the continuity of operations plan and shall certify on a form prescribed by the Court Administrator that the review has taken place and that the plan is accurate and meets the requirements established by the Court Administrator.

Comment

Fires. Floods. Hurricanes, earthquakes and tornados. Terrorist attacks. Pandemics. Nuclear and biohazardous accidents (and attacks). The experiences from other states and countries around the world have shown that if any of these events should occur in Pennsylvania, the results could be catastrophic.

State and local governments, and in particular chief judges and court administrators, have learned from the experiences of governments in places where natural and human-made disasters haveoccurred, for example: the state and city of New York in the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks; the city of Toronto in Canada’s Ontario Province after the 2003 SARS outbreak; the Gulf Coast states, such as Louisiana and Florida in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other devastating storms; and California, among other states, coping with calamitous wildfires and earthquakes. One lesson learned is that many of the difficulties citizens face during and after an emergency or disaster can be ameliorated if the court system is operational and providing at least its essential functions.

In an attempt to plan and prepare for a wide variety of emergencies that could strike Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court has adopted new Rules of Judicial Administration Nos. 1950—1954. Rules 1951—1953, designed to become operational only in the event of a significant emergency that causes or threatens the disruption of court operations, were derived in part from ‘‘judicial emergency’’ rules and statutes developed in other states such as Florida, California and Louisiana. The Rules specify that the primary authority and responsibility for continuing court operations rests with the Supreme Court and with the president judges of Pennsylvania’s 60 judicial districts. Rule 1954 consolidates judicial security practices and directives developed over the past several years.

Rule 1951 formalizes the requirement that each judicial district in Pennsylvania develop and practice emergency and continuity of operations plans. Under this Rule, the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania is responsible for establishing standards and procedures for emergency and continuity of operations plans, and the president judges of Pennsylvania’s judicial districts, with the assistance of the district court administrators, are responsible for developing plans for their respective judicial districts. Continuity of operations plans must provide for the continuation or immediate resumption of court business—or at least essential functions—during and immediately following an emergency. The Rule calls for these plans to be reviewed and updated annually.

The provisions of Rule 1951 are adopted December 28, 2009, effective immediately, 40 Pa.B. 218.