Blind people are being passed over to lead the agencies who serve us. Why it matters, and what we can do about it

A few weeks ago, I heard that the CEO of Vision Australia, Ron Hooton, had resigned his position after 11.5 years in the role.

My reaction to the news was the same as when I heard that the CEO of Blind Low Vision NZ had resigned in 2023, and the CNIB President and CEO had resigned earlier this year. Surely, at last, this was our time. They must appoint a dynamic, experienced, capable leader as their CEO who also happens to be blind.

Apparently it doesn’t go without saying, so I’ll state this clearly. Merely being blind doesn’t make you CEO material, just as merely being sighted doesn’t make you CEO material. But when we’re thinking about the leadership of a blindness organisation, knowledge of blindness is a significant attribute, and it is something no sighted person possesses. Nothing can substitute for living every day with our abilities, barriers, tips, techniques, technology, and tackling  the biggest problem of all, other people’s low expectations of what life as a blind person is like.

Indeed, in my experience, some of those low expectations are not only shared, but perpetrated, by senior leadership teams of blindness agencies dominated by sighted people with a strong corporate culture. They have value to contribute, perhaps in a specific discipline such as finance or human resources, but they require guidance in areas that will be new to them, and which are critical, whether they are in customer-facing roles or not. I often find that these leaders are uncomfortable around blind people. They must be led and educated by a strong blind leader, steeped in the values of independence and self-determination. If they are not, the organisation will lose its sense of direction and its soul.

I’ll come back to the Blind Low Vision NZ CEO role shortly.

Some years ago, CNIB removed its Constitutional requirement that the CEO had to be blind. They appointed a sighted person to the role in 2009, and have just done so again. In fairness however, the new CEO does have considerable experience of the organisation and blindness. Nevertheless, I don’t believe anything substitutes for firsthand lived experience.

Soon after I learned of the vacancy at Vision Australia, (a name which incidentally reflects the war on the word “blind” that so many of these agencies are now waging), I started to hear chatter that the agency’s Board was not going to go to market, instead opting for an internal expression of interest (EOI) process.

Like many, I was incredulous. We covered it on my Living Blindfully Podcast in a pre-emptive way, hoping some publicity before an official announcement would resonate with the blind Board members and get things back on track to a more open, transparent process. It did not.

In solidarity with blind Australian leaders, I am proud to have put my signature on an open letter to Vision Australia’s Board, urging them to change course, along with NFB President Mark Riccobono, and former San Francisco Lighthouse CEO Bryan Bashin.

There is a public version of this open letter. If you share our view that paternalism and exclusion in 2024 must not stand, that as is often the case with minorities today, organisations that serve us must be led by us, I encourage you to sign the petition.

There has been plenty of discussion about this on Living Blindfully. There will be more. There was also discussion about it on Blind Citizens Australia’s radio show, “New Horizons”. Vision Australia used their control of some of the audio information services in Australia to censor the programme. This egregious abuse of power smacks of the paternalism the organised blind movement has fought against for decades. There must be accountability for powerful interests stifling the voices of blind people. Blind people are not children, and Australia is a country that permits freedom of expression.

Yesterday, Emma Bennison published a brilliant piece on LinkedIn. If you are having difficulty accessing it, her article appears further down this page.

Emma is a strategic thinker, an effective leader, and someone with CEO experience inside and outside this sector. She is also blind. I have no idea if she wants the role, but if she does, she would make an outstanding CEO of Vision Australia. Of course, whether she wants the role or not is irrelevant right now, because Vision Australia’s Board is preventing her from applying. They have chosen to do a suboptimal job of the most important task a board has, to appoint a CEO.

So, we have a situation where three CEO roles of the dominant blindness agencies in Commonwealth countries have been filled in the last year, and not one of them is blind. What do capable, qualified blind leaders, who are constantly being ignored and passed over by the very agencies that we should expect to believe in and celebrate us, do in a situation like this? If you blow the whistle, if you protest loudly, there is always the risk that the powers that be will write you off as too much trouble. So the temptation is to keep playing the game, wait, and perhaps there’ll be another opportunity where a Board will do the right thing. But as we’ve seen three times over the last year, our silence is bought off with the promise of a tomorrow that never comes. It is time for the silence to stop.

One of the problems is that there are blind people who themselves have been conditioned by the constant low expectations we are exposed to. There are those among us who truly think that there is no qualified blind person who could do these complex roles, despite blind people already doing similar roles elsewhere.

Then there is the elephant in the room. There are blind people who are jealous. In a small community like ours, it is easy to hold grudges, or resent those who are successful, so there are blind people in governance roles who don’t want to appoint specific people despite the suitability of those people.

We must confront this, because not doing so is holding us back. Several blind leaders from around the world have in recent months commented to me about this sabotage from our own community.

It took courage for Emma to publish her post. I know all too well from personal experience that when you put yourself out there, it can be lonely. People who you expected would be allies get cold feet. People admire what you’re doing, but don’t say so, and don’t want to risk rocking the boat themselves. I value Emma too much as a leader, and I feel so passionately about this issue, that I will not let that happen. Not this time.

Emma’s article has emboldened me to speak candidly about my own experience applying for the Blind Low Vision NZ CEO role in 2023, which was the most inadequate, amateurish CEO process I have been a part of. One day, I will chronicle the many defects of the process in detail, but I received advice that it would have been legally challengeable. It also had elements of inaccessibility.

I provide the following background not to toot my horn, but to give context for those who don’t have it.

I have compelling credentials for a role such as this. I am a former Board Chair and senior manager of that organisation. I was a key figure in the governance reform that put in place the current constitutional arrangements for the organisation.

The position description stated that the Board wished to turn the organisation into a modern disability provider. I have CEO experience in a disability service provider with offices right across the country, that operated in the current fee-for-service contracting environment. I undertook significant, effective restructuring to make the organisation more viable in such an environment, and diversified revenue streams.

I am internationally recognised as a leader in the blind community, and have an in-depth knowledge of this sector.

I am considered an expert in the critical area of technology as it effects blind people, an area which is transforming our lives and has the potential to do so much more. Technology is one of several areas where it is my view that there is no western country serving blind people more poorly than New Zealand.

I have strong consumer credentials, having been a leader of New Zealand’s blindness consumer organisation.

I have decades of government relations experience specifically in the blindness sector, including getting over the line ground-breaking Copyright legislation that started the ball rolling for the Marrakesh Treaty. My political networks are extensive and current.

I also possess an unusual qualification for these specific times. As a child, I was a victim of abuse by this organisation. I gave testimony to the Royal Commission on Abuse in Care, and I am involved with ongoing work in this area. Having a CEO who was himself a victim of abuse fronting the apology that it was always clear the organisation would be required to give, and speaking firsthand of the anguish and pain survivors would have endured, would have been empowering. Instead, the organisation seemed caught unawares by the Commission’s final report and the situation is not being handled well.

Not only was I not successful, I was not one of the final candidates that got to appear before the full Board. Did they appoint a more qualified, experienced blind leader with relevant experience? Or maybe a sighted person who has worked with blind people for years? They did not. A sighted person was appointed with no knowledge of blindness or the sector. This is not about the individual, who I find personable. But the principle is too important to stay silent. The consequences for blind New Zealanders are profound.,

Yet another opportunity was lost to stop the steady erosion of blindness services. It is an erosion that affects every aspect of a blind person’s place in New Zealand society, including our employment and education prospects, our ability to travel with confidence, live independently, and thrive in a more technologically complex world.

A chance was missed to send a signal to the community, and particularly to younger blind people, that blind people can and do lead.

More damage was done to the organisation’s moral authority. After all, how can you possibly encourage or even castigate employers for not appreciating the potential of blind people, when you won’t even walk your own talk and appoint a blind person yourself to lead the organisation? There’s a word for that, hypocrisy.

Indeed, until recently, for some considerable time, there were 0 blind people on Blind Low Vision NZ’s Executive Leadership Team.

Imagine the powerful impact a capable, qualified, dynamic blind person could have when extoling the virtues of blindness services to potential high-value donors. They would be a living example of what’s possible if adequate resources exist. There are gaping holes in the current Blind Low Vision NZ fundraising strategy that could generate significant new revenue in areas where the organisation is struggling. A blind person is far more likely to identify and execute on those gaps.

When I commented on the appointment more obliquely at the time it was announced, some accused me of sour grapes. We need to stand firm against those with agendas who wish to personalise everything. Our community impedes our progress so frequently by not being able to separate the principle from an individual. So let me be clear. I would have been delighted if a qualified blind candidate from anywhere in the world had been given the role.

We must ask ourselves, why are blind people not worthy of chartering our own course, like any other minority? Do people for a moment think that if an organisation dedicated to serving women had been led by a succession of men for five years let alone a hundred years as is now the case with Blind Low Vision NZ, there wouldn’t be a huge outcry? Nor would, or should, members of ethnic minorities tolerate organisations serving them being led by someone who doesn’t know how it truly is to face their challenges first-hand. It wouldn’t be right for them, and it is not right for us.

So, what do we do? All of us should be asking leaders of consumer organisations, and blind people who are on the boards of these agencies, where they stand. If they do not support capable blind leaders, then it is time for them to go, and we should do all we can to replace them with people who embrace values of empowerment.

We can encourage our governments to take into account whether a blindness organisation is blindness-led when procuring services. Usually in procurement, there is a set of criteria that has a point value assigned to each criterion. Being blindness-led should have a high point value.

I call upon blind leaders in countries which are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to consider collaborating on an appeal to the UN.

I also don’t believe many donors appreciate the consistent pattern of discrimination and snubbing that these agencies are showing. Perhaps it is time to inform them at a time when donors are now more selective about the character of organisations they donate to. Nothing else seems to have worked. The logical, respectful stating of our case yields no results.

Enough is enough. Change only starts when the silence stops. I urge you to be a part of the change, not the silence.

Emma Bennison’s Post

For those having trouble accessing Emma’s article, here it is below, with her permission.

Missed opportunity to empower blind leadership

 

Leadership should reflect the diversity of the community it serves. This principle, recently reinforced by Australia’s Disability Royal Commission, is as relevant as ever in the blindness and vision-impaired community. Yet Vision Australia, the nation’s largest provider of services to people who are blind or vision-impaired, seems to be ignoring this vital tenet.

In a move that has ignited outrage within the blind community across the world, Vision Australia’s board decided to appoint its next CEO through an internal expression of interest process—bypassing external candidates and effectively excluding qualified blind leaders from consideration. For a community where only 24% of blind Australians are in full-time employment, this decision is more than a disappointment; it is a betrayal of the very values the organisation claims to uphold.

As one of the 34 prominent blind leaders who signed an open letter to Vision Australia’s board, I find this exclusion incomprehensible. The public version of our letter, circulated just three days ago, has already attracted over 400 signatures. But the outcry isn’t just about the process—it’s about missed opportunities for inclusion, empowerment, and authentic representation.

For decades, blind Australians have fought against stereotypes that question our ability to lead. We know that the challenges we face in finding employment, let alone leadership positions, aren’t due to a lack of ability but rather systemic barriers and ingrained misconceptions. For Vision Australia, an organisation that should be at the forefront of challenging these barriers, to sidestep the opportunity to appoint a blind CEO sends a disheartening message: that even within organisations that exist to serve us, we are not considered capable of leading.

This decision is particularly perplexing given Vision Australia’s history. The organisation was once led by people who championed blind leadership and its current chair, Bill Jolley has been a highly respected and effective advocate. I witnessed this firsthand when I was president of Blind Citizens Australia, working to revitalise our leadership pipeline. Bill was an outspoken advocate for fostering blind leaders, reminding us time and again of the importance of representation at the highest levels, particularly within blindness organisations. Under his influence, we created executive leadership programs and established the Hugh Jeffrey scholarships, supporting blind Australians with tertiary education costs.

But somewhere along the way, Vision Australia’s commitment to empowering its own community appears to have faltered. The decision to limit the CEO selection process internally suggests a preference for maintaining the status quo rather than seizing the opportunity to challenge outdated perceptions. It shows a reluctance to demonstrate that blind people can be effective leaders at the helm of major organisations. This is not just a missed opportunity for Vision Australia—it is a damaging blow to the confidence of emerging blind leaders who see a glass ceiling still firmly in place.

Some may argue that the appointment of a blind CEO could be viewed as tokenism. But this line of thinking only perpetuates the very stereotypes we need to dismantle. The solution is not to exclude qualified candidates who are blind but to ensure that blind people are evaluated on their merit, experience, and vision, just as sighted candidates are. Appointing a blind CEO would send a powerful message to employers across the country about the potential of disability leadership, serving as a beacon of hope and possibility for all people with disability seeking leadership roles.

In 2019, the World Blind Union reported that blind Australians are significantly underrepresented in the workforce, lagging behind New Zealand and Canada. Given these challenges, the few leadership opportunities that do arise should not be so easily closed off to us. Vision Australia has an extraordinary opportunity to be a leader in changing this narrative. By reconsidering their decision and opening the CEO role to external candidates, including those who are blind or vision-impaired, they could make history by appointing their first blind CEO—a legacy that would resonate for generations.

At its core, this debate is about more than just a hiring process; it’s about who we are as a community and how we see our future. Vision Australia has a chance to reflect the diversity it serves and stand as a powerful example of what true inclusion looks like. The question is: will they take it?

For the sake of the blind leaders who follow and the many thousands of blind and vision impaired people they serve, I certainly hope they do.

 

 

Emma Bennison MBA GAICD is the Chief Innovation Officer at Life Without Barriers and a former President and CEO of Blind Citizens Australia.