Overview:
The Center received the biggest donation in its history. But instead of helping LGBTQ+ seniors, the massive infusion continues to cause a rift in the community.
A generous endowment to a nonprofit has led to years of issues around transparency and finances.
In 2022, the San Diego LGBT Center received the largest donation in its history, one that exceeded its annual operating budget. The $19 million gift, from Fallbrook couple Maurice Thimot and M. Rust Rawnsley, was intended to help house LGBTQ+ seniors.
The gift, delivered in two parts, infused the nonprofit with more resources to address the needs of a growing demographic that faces unique challenges.
But it also sparked a rift between the nonprofit and some gay seniors over transparency, the dissolution of a senior advisory committee and The Center’s financial management.
The breach is still widening four years later, as entrenched sides double down on what counts as ethical sharing of information about the deceased and how the money should be spent while still respecting their wishes.
A board meeting divided
Seniors impassioned by the issue, organized by Ted Callam, Elaine Lewis and Charles Kaminski, attended The Center’s board meeting on Tuesday, April 28.
Those very board meetings have fueled complaints about transparency. Only the first 30 minutes are open to the public before a closed session starts. The agendas are less than illuminating. Comically, the agenda handout had an item, Approve Agenda: Agenda, with no actual information on what was to be approved.
Still, seniors and supporters turned out for ten minutes of public comment to lambast The Center for its shifting messages on the major gift and demand a forensic audit.
“For years, you’ve delayed, deflected and reframed. That creates the appearance of secrecy, intentional or not,” Callam said during public comment. “Transparency isn’t optional.”
Chaos and conflict at committee
The group is taking their complaints to the board after an informal Senior Advisory Committee was dissolved last year. That advisory group had met for years, often with only five or six participants.
The 2022 donation sparked new interest. At the time, little had been communicated about what limits had been placed on the donation, other than it was for seniors.
A long-time participant, John Keasler, invited seniors to come and share their ideas about how to use the donation.
But that effort backfired.
“It just got chaotic,” Keasler recalled. “Suddenly we had all these people.”
So many new people got involved with the sole focus on the donation, it derailed discussions about anything else. Conflict chased out board chairs. Those discussions were also reportedly based on limited or incorrect information about the gift, communicated by low-level staffers who did not know the particulars of its restrictions.
Participants put forward the idea of an LGBTQ+ senior center, but The Center clarified — with attorney input — that the bequest could only be used for senior housing and related services. A senior center did not count.
A new advisory system
In the wake of tension and conflict on the senior board, The Center overhauled all its advisory committees, including ones on Black, Latino, youth and trans services.
Gus Hernandez, spokesperson for The Center, said “This was not the elimination of community input, but a restructuring to ensure clearer roles, expectations and accountability, while centering the voices of active participants and volunteers.”
Under the standardized committee system, advisers must be either a volunteer or client. Members are selected by The Center.
Only the new Senior Community Advisory Committee had enough applicants to form again. It started in December 2025.
Keasler was selected by The Center to sit on the new advisory board. Lewis was not.
“We did get a lot of things done, and then all of a sudden, we’re just a bunch of troublemakers, and they get rid of us,” Lewis said.
On the new advisory board, Keasler said the committee decided not to even talk about the endowment, which distracted from all the other senior issues, such as social isolation, lack of familial caregivers, health disparities, HIV/AIDS healthcare, economic issues and discrimination.
He described the meetings as being more functional, productive and cordial, with a diverse group of 12 members. However, the committee is less transparent. The meetings are not open to the public.
Members could be ambassadors in the community and get feedback on their concerns, but some have chosen to stay anonymous on The Center’s website due to fears of being harassed, Keasler said.
Instead, the community can reach the committee only through email. The Center pledged, though, to hold three listening sessions this year.
Conflict over confidentiality
At least some of the conflict can be blamed on the method by which the gift was given — without advance notice.
“While the choice to discuss a gift in advance is always best practice, in this case, the donors chose not to do so,” Kim Fountain, deputy chief executive officer of The Center, wrote in a letter to Callam, Lewis and Kaminski sent in March. “The Center is deeply grateful for the transformative gift that Rust and Maurice made and we respect that they chose to give this gift without notifying or having conversations with The Center.”
Not following the suggested bequest process for a restricted gift means The Center could not consult with the late couple about what, precisely, they intended.
Rachel Young, a local LGBTQ+ attorney specializing in estate planning, had a more tempered view on consulting nonprofits ahead of time, noting there are pros and cons.
“Consulting ahead can mean that guidelines and rules are placed on the gift that the gifter does not find desirable,” Young explained. “On the other hand, consulting ahead can ensure that gifts fulfill the gifter’s intended goal and, for instance, does not interfere with benefits or government funding for the entity.”
A top demand of Callam, Lewis and Kaminsky is to release the will’s language, something The Center categorically refuses to do because it would break donor privacy standards.
The Center follows the industry standard for ethical fundraising, known as the Donor’s Bill of Rights.
“These practices are the cornerstone of how we build trust with our donors,” Fountain wrote on March 16.
Under those rules, gift details cannot be shared publicly without the explicit consent of the donor. By law, only the source and amount was disclosed publicly.
Thimot and Rawnsley are deceased, so the consent to share more can’t be given. The language remains private, other than that it is for senior housing and related services.
Pause on spending
Legal counsel is still hammering out what “related services” entails. Is it senior services in general or only services related to housing?
Soon after the bequest, The Center’s board approved using $350,000 of the endowment per year on senior services with the intention of starting a housing project at some point.
In an open February letter signed by 50 people, community members demanded to know how the money had been spent so far.
As the community asked more questions, the Center paused using the money completely in 2026 until receiving final guidance from lawyers.
“The allowable scope of these services is something which we are currently awaiting final guidance on to ensure we are following all regulations related to charitable assets,” Fountain wrote.
The lengthy process to decide how to spend the funds has been another point of contention. Some attendees at the April board meeting cared less about transparency than pushing the Center to move faster to meet the growing needs of LGBTQ+ seniors through the donation.
Growing senior needs
The Center has broadened its senior offerings in the years since the donation was announced. Almost every day, some activity is offered for seniors, from free lunch to exercise classes. There are art programs, tech navigation classes and support groups for people with HIV/AIDS. Currently, 35% of Center clients are seniors.
“It’s definitely an area where we see a lot of need, and we work very hard to meet those needs,” Hernandez said.
The Center also knows the need is growing as more people age. Last year, the organization saw a 70% jump in senior service visits from the previous year.
And housing is one area of need. The closest thing San Diego has to LGBTQ+ affordable housing for seniors is the “LGBT-affirming” North Park Seniors Apartments with 75 units.
The building cannot legally be restricted to LGBTQ+ people, only age and income, but applications to live there were spread widely by The Center before it opened in 2018. The Center staffs the complex part-time and offers programming. Many, but not all, residents are in the LGBTQ+ community.
With the Thimot and Rawnsley gift, it’s possible similar developments could follow, depending on the Center’s legal review and management of the donation.
