Defence HR policy, Mobility Exit Mechanism, Military Skills Development System, Grievance procedure / progress

This premium content has been made freely available

Defence and Military Veterans

02 November 2010
Chairperson: Mr M Booi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The meeting was an opportunity for the department to brief the Committee on its overarching HR policy, expansion of the MSDS and the effectiveness of MEM/EISP. Also the department had an opportunity to brief the Committee on the new grievance procedure and give a progress report to the Committee on the submissions made to the Committee. The HR strategies included three themes or pillars namely: HR of appropriate quality, quantity, composition and cost; excellent and accountable human resource administration; and commitments met in pursuance of Government HR policy and strategy. The three pillars were linked to the Balanced Score Card (BSC). Theme one consisted of 59 tasks, theme two consisted of 131 tasks and theme three consisted of 13 tasks.

The MSDS was implemented in 2003 as part of the DoDMV’s HR renewal strategy to provide sufficient young, fit and trained members for force employment, especially during peace missions. The goals of MSDS were: induct members into the South African National Defence Force (SANDF); equip members with basic military skills and functional training; evaluate members’ development potential and suitability for continued service in the Regulars and Reserves; test members so that the organisation can choose individuals for a possible future career in the Military; ensure a sufficient trained pool of young and fit members to fulfil SANDF deployment needs; and feed the Reserves with trained troops and junior leaders.

The intentions of MEM were: should lead to a tangible rightsizing progress
; executed through realistic succession planning; guard against the exodus of expertise/scarce skills; advise members in respect of career progress as informed by the Transformation and restructuring imperatives; and the choice to accept/reject offer – MEM was voluntary.

Some of the features of the new grievance procedure included: it was electronically supported; was simple and easy to use; accountability of the role players were visible; was driven by the aggrieved; the Chief of the South African national Defence Force (CSANDF) and the Secretary of Defence have visibility on grievances lodged at all levels; and Grievance Committees (at all services and divisions) and a Grievance Board (at corporate level) support the grievance process. With regards to non-compliance, section 104 (17) of the Defence Act states that “any person who undermines or stifles, or seeks to undermine or stifle, any procedure for the redress of grievances, was guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years”. Also, section 104 (15) of the Defence Act states that “any member or employee of the department who , in a willful or negligent manner, contravenes or fails to comply with any regulation made under this Act, was guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year”.

21 submissions were received from the Chairperson of the Committee on the 12 May 2010. Submissions were categorised and investigated. Out of the 21 submissions received, all but, five grievances were investigated and finalised. The five outstanding submissions were being dealt with at different higher levels within the organization.

Members of the Committee raised questions on, among other issues, why some of the MSDS soldiers were first integrated into civil society and not into the reserve force; what the department was doing to close the gap between black colonels and white colonels in the defence force; when the HR plan would be fully implemented; the issue on sexual favours in exchange for promotion; the exit of skilled individuals from the defence force; employing disabled individuals and more women in the defence force; how many people left the MSDS programme in the first two years; accreditation of personnel; who appointed the Grievance Board; whether there was a detention barracks at the defence force; and clarity on what would happen to the grievances clogged up at the Human Rights Commission and defence force.


Meeting report

Human Resources matters: development of an overarching Defence HR policy; expansion of MSDS and the effectiveness of MEM/EISP
Brigadier-General Andries de Wet, Director: Strategy and Planning, Department of Defence and the Miltary Veterans (DoDMV), started by discussing the Human Resources Strategy aim, vision, mission and the mission success factors. The Human Resources strategy had three themes:
1  Human resources of appropriate quality, quantity, composition and cost;
2  Excellent and accountable human resource administration;
3  C
ommitments met in pursuance of Government’s HR policy and strategy.
Theme 1 had 59 tasks identified in order to meet these four objectives
of appropriate quality, quantity, composition and cost. Those regarded as important had been highlighted in blue in the document:
• Execute Service-specific recruitment
• Ensure remuneration appropriately aligned with the market
• Implement focused measures to attract/retain scarce skills
• Prioritise utilisation of scarce skills Reserves
• Select and appoint personnel with top quality leadership and expertise, especially in senior posts 
• Ensure effective transfer of competencies

• Personnel feeder systems to meet replenishment needs
• Continuously improve SANDF remuneration & benefits
• Ensure the socially responsible exit of members
• Ensure a sound combat vs support distribution
• Ensure person profiles match post profiles
• Maintain HR expenditure within 45% of allocation.


Theme 2 had 131 tasks identified for its 9 objectives dealing with generic HR functions and its 6 objectives dealing with transversal HR functions. (See document for outline of these objectives and tasks with the most important ones highlighted in blue).

Theme 3 on a
ppropriate defence-related social responsibility aligned with government’s strategic intent for national human resource development) had the objective of ensuring the development, empowerment and upliftment of the youth, women and the physically challenged within the context of supporting the execution of the Department’s core business and occurring within the Department’s means. There were 13 tasks with two tasks highlighted as most important:
• Ensure the socially responsible re-entry of MSDS members into civil society
• Empower military veterans through dedicated skills programmes.


Brig-Gen de Wet spoke on the expansion of the Military Skills Development System (MSDS). The MSDS was implemented in 2003 as part of the DoDMV’s HR renewal strategy to provide sufficient young, fit and trained members for force employment, especially during peace missions. The goals of MSDS were: induct members into the South African National Defence Force (SANDF); equip members with basic military skills and functional training; evaluate members’ development potential and suitability for continued service in the Regulars and Reserves; test members so that the organisation can choose individuals for a possible future career in the Military; ensure a sufficient trained pool of young and fit members to fulfil SANDF deployment needs; and feed the Reserves with trained troops and junior leaders.

The MSDS was one of several Service/Contract Systems in the SANDF. It essentially served as a probationary period during which the SANDF assessed new recruits for their performance, discipline, conduct and development potential for continued military service. The MSDS was not a separate system or project that stood apart from the mainstream recruitment for the SANDF – it was the mainstream recruitment process and entry service system for the SANDF.
The “Skills” part of the term MSDS referred to basic and fundamental military skills imparted to new recruits to lay the foundation for further advanced training, utilisation and rank progression as career military practitioners (soldiers, airmen, sailors, medics) or as reserves. The envisaged end state for post-MSDS employment entailed the seamless migration of former MSDS Reserve-stream members to receiving employers (Government departments and the private sector) and the effective, efficient and economical utilisation of such Reserve members in terms of their contractual obligations.

The National Treasury allocation to the department for the next three financial years was shown with breakdowns for each of the Services.

The main achievements of the MSDS were
30 207 young members had joined the system since its implementation in 2003; SANDF received good publicity with this rejuvenation and youth development initiative; the system presented a new avenue of HR Development for South African youth; SANDF had succeeded placing more than 2000 former MSDS members into the civilian labour market; currently 8 509 MSDS members were undergoing training (further rejuvenation potential for Regulars and Reserves); It was a more affordable feeder system for the Regulars; Regular Force mission readiness improved by 45% in terms of rank age compliance of privates: in 2000 only 10,8% of Regular Privates were between 18 and 24 years of age whereas today 55,9% of Regular Privates were between that age; 15 648 Ex-MSDS members joined the Regulars: 1 438 members were in Officers rank with the highest being Captains and 8 403 members were in Non-Commissioned ranks with the highest being Staff Sergeant. A graph was shown of the age distribution of privates as at 1 November 2010.

Brig-Gen de Wet
identified the main challenges as being:
▪ SANDF training providing basic and functional skills applicable for specific mustering
The provision of specific portable skills for the general labour market of the SA economy in a relatively short space of time remained a challenge;
  Feeding for reserve System was not sufficient:
4 063 out of a potential total of 4 744 joined the Reserve System; and 5 Officers and 534 Non-Commissioned Officers
▪ Remained difficult to attract youth from minority population groups and university graduates;
▪ Seamless integration of former MSDS members into civilian employment as Reserve members
Members looking for permanent job opportunities and limited civilian job opportunities in the labour market were available. Employment agreements with major employers in the SA labour market not yet successful.
▪ Accreditation of all MSDS training remained a challenge;
▪ The MSDS as a total system (including the five years reserve part) was not appropriately funded;
  When called up, the force levels of Reserves cannot be guaranteed due to its voluntary nature
▪ Medium Term Expenditure Framework planning provided for 11 140 MSDS members in the system.

The strategy on the way forward included:
▪ Separate intake for Regulars and Reserve from January 2012
- Regular intake: Appoint members directly in the Core Service System. First year would be for training and also serve as a probationary period; and size of intake would be driven by Regular Force attrition (current three year average was 2 750 members per year).
- Reserve intake: Appoint members into the Reserve for one year full-time training and one year full-time utilisation followed by 5 year part-time reserve utilisation; The full system of 7 years for the Reserve system must be fully funded to ensure optimal training and utilisation of Reserves;
▪ Establish partnerships with business and public sector communities for formal employment of former MSDS members with Reserve commitment when called-up;
▪ Establish service level agreements (SLA) with Department of Labour for SETA training and involve future employers in this concept; and
▪ Establish the concept of compulsory service when called-up for Reserve (Defence Amendment Bill currently in the process).

The effectiveness of the mobility exit mechanism (MEM) was dealt with next starting with its l
egal basis. The intent of the MEM was that it:
Should lead to a tangible rightsizing progress
▪ Be e
xecuted through realistic succession planning
Guard against the exodus of expertise/scarce skills
Advise members in respect of career progress as informed by Transformation and Restructuring imperatives
▪ Allow c
hoice to accept/reject offer – MEM was voluntary.

Guidelines for succession planning in respect of the mobility exit mechanism:
Are functional groups/musterings constrained by critical shortages
Status of ETD and learner throughput
Maintenance of expertise
Contribution to rightsizing (MTEF & longer)
Contribution to race-rank distribution correction
“Old” Service System contract expiries and renewal justified
Succession planning: Role of Services and Divisions.

Employees initiate their separation via the Employee Initiated Severance Package (EISP) which was introduced by DoDMV with effect from 31 May 2006.
 

A table was shown of the rank, race and gender breakdown of the Mobility Exit Mechanism as approved by the Minister of Defence on 1 October 2010 (see Slide 33). The statistics were shown for the rank, race and gender breakdown for Employee Initiated Severance Packages (Slide 34). The MEM/EISP statistics per five-year age group was provided (Slide 35) as well as a table showing the average age in rank and average age at exit of military personnel (Slide 36). The MEM/EISP per service and division was also detailed (Slide 37).

Brig-Gen de Wet
concluded that steady results were being achieved on stated objectives, for example,  representivity and age profiles with the implementation of the MEM:
>
36.22% of all exits were in the rank group Col, Lt Col, WO1 and WO2
>
30.44% of all exits were white males in the rank group Col, Lt Col, WO1 and WO2
>
67.13% of all exits were White
It was d
ifficult to forecast the exact rightsizing results as the MEM/EISP was voluntary. The tempo of implementation for both the MEM and EISP determined their success in the DOD. There was continual (monthly) monitoring of progress. There was continued emphasis on succession planning efforts in terms of the MEM application.

Discussion

Mr A Mlangeni (ANC) asked why were some of the MSDS soldiers who were already trained, were first integrated into civil society and not into the reserve force.

Brig-Gen de Wet referred to slide 25. He commented that approximately 700 individuals were not interested in serving in the reserves but that the majority were interested. The policy of the department was to build the reserves. The reserves were not in full-time service, but were only called when the need arose. The reserves would therefore need to seek employment somewhere else. The department would rather have an employed reservist than an unemployed one. The department assisted 2000 reservists to find job opportunities.

Mr A Maziya (ANC) commented that it seemed that only whites were actively involved in the army throughout the years. He mentioned the graph on page 17 that showed that there were only 13 Black colonels but 136 White colonels. He mentioned that there did not seem to be any integration of blacks into the army and asked what the department was going to do in order to close the gaps that existed.

Brig-Gen de Wet referred to slide 33 on representivity. He commented that the gap was much bigger in 2005 as opposed to 2010 in terms of colonels. As of 1 October 2010 there were 429 black colonels and 423 white colonels. Slide 33 showed the macro scenario of representivity currently in the department.

Mr P Groenewald (FF+) commented that the HR plan was quite comprehensive. However, he had three questions for the department. Firstly, how long was it going to take the department to fully implement the HR plan? What time period would the department be looking at? Secondly, what would the department be doing to get the best-of-the-best out of MSDS and what criterion was present so that joining the regulars did not involve sexual favours. Thirdly, 2500 out 3718 people who left the army were white. Most of these individuals were warrant-officers and staff sergeants who formed the backbone of the defence force. Could we be assured that we did not lose vital skills in the MEM operation with the exit of these members?

Brig-Gen de Wet replied that the strategy was a revised strategy and the department took what was learned since 2002 and applied it to 2010. The strategy must serve the department for at least the next ten years and at least 60% of the main objectives must be achieved within the next five years. In terms of getting the best-of-the best out of MSDS, the policy of the defence force was not to take on job seekers but to select people who really wanted to join the defence force and who fit the profile of the defence force. The department should start tagging individuals from grade ten already so that these individuals could join the defence force when they finished high school. Also, the defence force must be marketed correctly to attract suitable individuals. In terms of individuals exiting the defence force, the biggest exit was in 2003. The exiting of warrant officers for example was done in a controlled manner. The skills level was also looked at when staff want to exit the defence force.

Dr Mary Ledwaba, Chief Director: HR Policy and Strategy, DoDMV, wanted the Committee to give the department more time to get the facts with regards to the issue of sexual favours. She commented that the department had a division on transformation management that could answer the Committee and make a presentation to the Committee.

Mr P Groenewald (FF+) said that he would provide the information to Dr Ledwaba about the sexual favours issue.

The Chairperson asked from the Member if he had proof of these sexual favours.

Ms N Mabedla (ANC) asked what was the capacity of the HR unit. The table on page 17 did not reflect individuals with disabilities. This meant that the department was not complying. One of the challenges was that the department was not attracting younger individuals of the minority population groups. What about other population groups not addressed on page 13?

With regards to the capacity of the HR unit, Brig-Gen de Wet replied that there was approximately 1700 individuals in the HR unit. On increasing the number of women in the defence force, he replied that the department was very proud that over the last three intakes in the MSDS system the percentage of women taken in was greater than 30%. In terms of people with disabilities, the department did not recruit disabled people into the military because they need to be medically fit but if they became disabled they would be retained by the department in one way or another.

Mr D Maynier (DA) said that according to Defence policy and White Paper on Defence, there should be a small regular force and a larger reserve force. Currently there was exactly the opposite. At what point was the defence policy abandoned and changed and how many regular and reserve force soldiers were required? Secondly, in terms of expertise, it seemed as if the MEM routed skill levels if one looks at the statistics on page 17. He needed clarification on this. Thirdly, in terms of reserves, he was concerned about the number of individuals who had left the MSDS programme during the first two years. He asked what was the attrition rate and why did it occur.

Brig-Gen de Wet replied that the policy was still small regular and large reserve force but that the policy would be reviewed in the future to increase the regulars and have a reserve force of just over 50 000 individuals. The reserves were downsized from 101 000 people in 1998 to the current complement of 76 000. In terms of reserves, the aim was to feed the reserves. The current reserve strength was 25 000. He could not give an exact figure for individuals who left in the two-year period, but that it was less than 200. He would provide the Committee with the exact figure in the future. 

Dr Ledwaba added that the Defence White Paper and Defence Review were still the policies that guided the department. 

Mr J Masango (DA) asked what was wrong with the previous system. What was the department doing about attracting youth from the minority groups? In terms of accreditation, what was the problem with accrediting all MSDS personnel? They were not full-time employees and it would be good for them to be accredited when they leave the defence force to seek other employment. Referring to page 19, at what age were the whites leaving the defence force?

In terms of attracting more whites, Brig-Gen de Wet replied that more effort must be made at school level.

With regards to the accreditation programme, Dr Ledwaba replied that in the presentation of the annual report the previous week by the Secretary of Defence, she highlighted the accreditation programme as one of the challenges faced by the department. The facilities were not in good shape hence the failure of most of the programmes.

Mr A Maziya (ANC) asked if complaints were lodged against those individuals who were involved in the sexual favours issue and whether disciplinary steps were taken against those individuals?

Mr L Diale (ANC) asked when the plans were going to be implemented because the veterans of the liberation movements were old and some of them were dying without receiving any benefits. The process was very slow and he recommended that it be changed so that the veterans could be assisted as soon as possible.

Dr Ledwaba responded that there used to be a small directorate that dealt with military veterans but now a dedicated department had been established to deal with the military veterans so as to address their issues better. She commented that the Director General of Military Veterans would present a progress report to the Committee since the establishment of the department.

Ms S Ndabeni (ANC) wanted clarity on the accreditation of MSDS. She was of the understanding that the department would be running a programme jointly with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. She asked whether it was aligned to the MSDS programme or separate. Also, in terms of medical tests, did the department provide medical treatment for personnel who were ill and had diseases so that the threat to others could be minimised. She commented that it was not the first time she heard about the sexual favours issue. Most senior personnel of the defence force were committing these acts and things were being made very difficult for junior personnel who reported to these senior members.

Brig-Gen de Wet replied that the department would be running a programme called the National Youth Service which was not related to the MSDS programme. There might be a link in the future but not at this stage. In terms of medical testing, he replied that individuals did undergo medical tests and medication was provided to individuals who required treatment. The Surgeon General would be able to give more information to the Committee on this matter.

Mr E Mlambo (ANC) referred to slide 27 and asked why the department wanted a separate intake for the regulars and reserves and what informed the department that the time (January 2012) would be correct and why it was taking so long.

Brig-Gen de Wet replied that the biggest intake happened in January each year and the intakes arriving in January 2011 had already been recruited.

Mr L Tolo (COPE) commented that something must be done for those individuals who fought for the liberation of South Africa. Many of those people made huge sacrifices when they fought against the apartheid regime. Those individuals from the rural areas were not eating well, but those who did not fight in the struggle for liberation were eating very well.

Brig-Gen de Wet agreed that something must be done for the military veterans to address their health issues.

The Chairperson referred to page six on the issue of discipline and morale. He asked whether there was lack of discipline in the defence force and whether the top leadership was ill-informed as the slide suggested. Also, on slide 14, the task of “empowering military veterans through a dedicated skills programme”, he wanted more information on this issue.

Brig-Gen de Wet replied that this did not suggest that there was not a good command line. There was room for improvement though and the use of bulletins and the latest technology would improve the situation. The use of information technology must support the process. In terms of morale, a morale survey was being conducted to address this matter but that there was still room for improvement.

Mr A Mlangeni (ANC) commented that there was a difference between sexual harassment and sexual favours. He asked what the position was.

The Chairperson clarified the issue and said that they were talking about sexual favours and not sexual harassment.

New grievance procedure
Mr Mandla Zwane, Director: Labour and Service Relations, DoDMV, said the term “Tshwaraganang” was the term used to market the new grievance procedure. The definition of the term means, “let’s work together to achieve workplace harmony”. The New Grievance Procedure was approved by the Minister on the 8 June 2010. The regulations for the grievance procedure was promulgated on the 30 June 2010 and implemented in the department with effect from 1 July 2010.

Features of the new grievance procedure included: it was electronically supported; was simple and easy to use; the accountability of the role players was visible; it was driven by the aggrieved; the Chief of the South African National Defence Force (CSANDF) and the Secretary of Defence had visibility on grievances lodged at all levels; and Grievance Committees (at all services and divisions) and a Grievance Board (at corporate level) supported the grievance process.

The steps to follow to lodge a grievance were as follows: once the manager becomes aware of the grievance, the manager would determine the relevant facts of the grievance; investigate the grievance; assess the facts and compare it to the regulatory framework; once the investigation was finalised, the manager should notify the aggrieved of the outcome within 30 days. If the aggrieved was not satisfied with the outcome, it may be referred to the Formation. If the aggrieved was still not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation, the grievance would be referred to the Chief of Service or Divisional Head. The Service Chief would attempt to resolve the grievance through the established Grievance Committee. The designated officer within the Grievance Committee must assess all the facts and compare these to the regulatory framework and present the grievance to the Grievance Committee. The aggrieved must be notified of the Committee’s decision within 30 days. If the aggrieved was still not satisfied with the outcome of the Grievance Committee, the aggrieved may refer the grievance to the Grievance Board within five working days. The Grievance Board was the final stage of the process within the DoDMV. The DoDMV Grievance Board was mandated and appointed to act on behalf of the DoDMV as employer. It was also mandated to consider condonation for late lodging of grievances. Each grievance would be allocated to a case manager (secretariat) to investigate, prepare and present the grievance for a final decision at the DoDMV Grievance Board.

With regards to non-compliance, section 104(17) of the Defence Act stated that “any person who undermines or stifles, or seeks to undermine or stifle, any procedure for the redress of grievances, was guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years”. Also, section 104(15) of the Defence Act stated that “any member or employee of the department who, in a willful or negligent manner, contravenes or fails to comply with any regulation made under this Act, was guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year”. In terms of Regulation 8, an aggrieved may not be victimized or prejudiced, directly or indirectly, as a result of lodging a grievance. Formal training of all users of this system was being conducted by representatives from Services and Divisions who had been trained on the Grievance IT System by SITA. The Secretariat to the Grievance Board established a Grievance Information Desk and fax line with effect from 1 July 2010.

Progress Report on the individual submissions to the Committee
Mr Zwane said that  21 submissions were received from the Committee Chairperson on 12 May 2010. Submissions were categorised and investigated. Out of the 21 submissions received, all but, five grievances were investigated and finalised. The five outstanding submissions were being dealt with at higher levels within the organization. An additional 35 grievances were received from MP David Maynier on the 26 August 2010. All grievances had been referred to the Services and Divisions for investigation and response. They had until the 5 November 2010 to submit their outcomes.

The nature of the grievances were as follows:

Nature of grievance

Number of grievances

Staffing and promotion

8

Re-instatement

4

Dismissal

1

Misconduct appeal

2

Claim for compensation

4

Non-statutory pension

1

Statutory pension payment

2

Court case

1

Collective dispute

1

Bursary application

1

Withdrawal from a course

1

Request for a medical card

1

Request for salary/rank information after retirement

1

Enrolment on a NCO course

1

Alleged unfair suspension

1

Request by Khoisan Military Veterans to be integrated into SANDF

1

Harassment

1

Request for medical records

2

Recalculation of the Voluntary Service Application (VSA)

10

Reimbursement of legal costs

1

Discrimination

1

Payment of allowances

2

Unfair treatment/ Special pension

1

Payment of Medical account

1

War veterans pension

3

Recalculation of pension benefits

1

Assault

1

Claim for Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF)

1

Non-approval for course

1


In terms of grievances per service please see the table below:

Service

Number of grievances

SA Army

32

SA Navy

2

SA Health Military Support

3

SA Air Force

1

Reserve Force

1

Other

14

Military Veterans

3


Discussion
Mr A Mlangeni (ANC) asked who appointed the Grievance Board. Secondly, he asked if there was a detention barracks at the SANDF and if so, who got sent there.

In terms of the appointment of the Grievance Board, Ms Ledwaba replied that the Secretary of Defence and the Chief of the SANDF were responsible for appointing members to this board. However, the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) had to concur with the Secretary of Defence and the Chief of the SANDF. The individuals appointed to the board had to be competent and committed and have a thorough knowledge of the grievance procedure so that the correct decisions could be made. In terms of detention barracks, the team present could not answer this question, but promised the Committee that the department would get back to the Committee with an answer.

Mr D Maynier (DA) asked what would be the correct procedure to follow in the future when Portfolio Committee members wanted to lodge complaints with the department. He asked if both the Committee and individual Committee Members could receive regular feedback on the status of the complaints submitted.

The Chairperson commented that whatever response was given must be shared amongst all committee members.

Ms Ledwaba appreciated all the grievances that had been received but in future all grievances received by the Committee must come through the Chairperson, then to the Ministry and then to the department. 

Mr Maynier wanted clarity on grievances that were clogged up in the defence force and South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). Had the grievances being pooled or what was the situation?

Dr Ledwaba replied that many of the grievances had been pooled. Grievances received from the Public Protector and the Presidency had been received and analysed by the department and would be investigated.

The Chairperson thanked all the officials of the department and commented that he could see the work-in-progress. He also thanked the Members for their respective comments and input.

The meeting was adjourned.


Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: