Will Vision Australia appoint its first blind CEO? Here’s the truth

Vision Australia, the country’s largest provider of blindness services, is facing significant pressure to appoint its first blind or vision-impaired chief executive officer (CEO) from the broader community. This follows the organization’s decision to limit its search for a new CEO to internal candidates, sparking backlash and calls for a more inclusive recruitment process.

The controversy began when Vision Australia announced it would restrict the search for its next CEO to internal expressions of interest, following the resignation of Ron Hooton in early August after more than 11 years in the role. This move has drawn criticism from prominent figures in the blind and vision-impaired community, led by Graeme Innes, Vision Australia’s founding chair and a former disability discrimination commissioner.

On Monday, Innes launched a public petition urging Vision Australia’s board to prioritize the appointment of a blind or vision-impaired CEO from outside the organization. The petition was supported by an open letter signed by 34 representatives of the blind and vision-impaired community, including influential advocates such as Ron McCallum, former chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities, and Mark Riccobono, president of the United States’ National Federation of the Blind.

In the open letter, the signatories expressed deep concern over Vision Australia’s decision to limit the search internally, calling it a missed opportunity for the organization to truly reflect the lived experiences of the community it serves. “As Australia’s largest provider of blindness services, Vision Australia has a responsibility to ensure its leadership reflects the lived experience of our community,” the coalition wrote. They emphasized the importance of conducting an external search, particularly to find a candidate who could bring a fresh perspective and lived experience to the role.

The letter also highlighted the broader context of employment challenges faced by blind Australians. A 2019 survey by the World Blind Union revealed that only 24% of blind Australians were in full-time employment, a statistic that underscores the limited opportunities for leadership roles within the community. Innes and the other signatories argue that Vision Australia’s current approach contradicts its longstanding public advocacy for the employment of blind people, pointing out the hypocrisy in not extending the search beyond internal candidates.

“They’re not really walking the talk if they don’t give blind people the opportunity to apply for the key role,” Innes told Guardian Australia. He criticized the organization for failing to align its recruitment practices with its public stance on promoting employment opportunities for the blind and vision-impaired.

The petition and open letter have garnered significant attention, with over 400 signatures at the time of writing. This growing support reflects a wider dissatisfaction within the blind and vision-impaired community, who feel that Vision Australia’s current recruitment process is not only limiting but also fails to represent the inclusive values the organization claims to uphold.

In response to the mounting criticism, Vision Australia issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to supporting people who are blind or have low vision. A spokesperson for the organization acknowledged the public commentary surrounding the recruitment process but stated that the board remains committed to the internal search process it has initiated. The spokesperson also denied claims that Vision Australia had paused new memberships or membership renewals, which had been suggested as a tactic to suppress dissent ahead of the organization’s annual general meeting in October.

However, concerns about transparency and inclusivity within Vision Australia’s leadership have only deepened with reports of alleged attempts to stifle discussion about the recruitment process. Innes expressed alarm that Vision Australia may be suppressing criticism, including cancelling an episode of Blind Citizens Australia’s podcast, New Horizons, which was set to feature an interview with him about the issue. The episode was replaced with a repeat, further fueling suspicions that Vision Australia is trying to control the narrative around its leadership search.

The backlash against Vision Australia’s decision is not only about the appointment of a single individual but also about the broader implications for representation and leadership within the organization. The signatories of the open letter and the wider blind and vision-impaired community are calling for a leadership that truly embodies their experiences and can advocate for their needs at the highest level. They argue that limiting the search to internal candidates could result in a leadership that lacks the necessary perspective and experience to effectively represent the community Vision Australia is meant to serve.

As the pressure mounts, Vision Australia’s board will need to carefully consider the growing calls for an external search and the potential long-term impact of its decision on the organization’s reputation and relationship with the community. The petition led by Innes and supported by numerous prominent figures in the disability sector highlights a critical moment for Vision Australia—a moment where the organization must decide whether it will fully commit to the principles of inclusion and representation that it has long championed.

The outcome of this controversy could set a precedent for how disability-focused organizations approach leadership appointments in the future, particularly in ensuring that those who lead are not only advocates for but also members of the communities they serve. As Vision Australia moves forward with its recruitment process, all eyes will be on the board’s next steps and whether they will heed the call for a more open and inclusive search for their next CEO.