When Youngsville Police Chief J.P. Broussard circulated an internal memorandum earlier this month naming a new Assistant Chief of Police, few inside city government seemed to know anything about it. Just months prior, the Mayor and members of the Council made it perfectly clear that the position would not be funded. When the budget was adopted in June of 2025 the Youngsville City Council did not fund it. Since that time no budget amendment had been introduced, no salary ordinance passed, and—according to city records—no correspondence exists between the Chief, the Mayor, or any council member discussing the appointment.
Yet someone has been selected and slated to be the next Asisstnat Chief of police of Youngsville.
Public records tell a different story from the impression created inside the police department. Over the summer, the City Council had debated that very position several times and ultimately decided not to fund it. What the Chief quietly revived in October had already been publicly withdrawn.
The Public Record
On June 26, 2025, the City of Youngsville adopted its 2025-2026 operating budget and introduced a new pay plan for the police department. During that meeting, discussion turned to whether an Assistant Chief position should appear in the pay matrix. Two weeks later, at the July 10, 2025 council meeting, Dr. Doucet presented the final pay plan for the Youngsville Police Department. Several discussion occurred with regards to the position.
Mayor Ken Ritter addressed the issue directly. “The assistant chief position is not a classified position,” he explained.
“State law allows it to be a political appointment, if you will. And that position, in our conversations, we didn’t feel that it needed to be in that pay matrix. It’s a function of the budget.”
Ritter continued:
“It’s not in the budget now, but should it become in the budget that rate of pay could be assigned based upon the budget, upon the then chief’s request.”
Youngsville resident Art Lebreton was present at that meeting and sought clarification. “So, it’s not abolished—it’s just not funded?” “Correct,” Ritter replied.
“It’s not abolished. It’s just unfunded. That’s a great way to put it.”
Dr. Doucet remarks: “The only real change you see in the pay plan you have before you this evening concerns the proposed Assistant Chief of Police,” she said. “Chief Broussard has withdrawn his request for this particular position.” The plan was approved with the Deputy Chief designated as the department’s second-in-command and no Assistant Chief of Police position. From that night forward, no budget amendment or ordinance revisiting the Assistant Chief role appears anywhere in the city’s official record.
What the Law Allows — And Forbids
Louisiana law does permit a police chief to name an Assistant Chief. Under Louisiana Revised Statute R.S. 33:2571, the chief “may appoint” one assistant of his choosing. The statute was written to ensure that a chief could select a trusted second-in-command without civil-service testing or seniority restrictions.
But appointment authority is not appropriation authority. The same Louisiana laws make clear who controls the purse. Louisiana Revised Statute 33:406 vests “the governing authority” of the municipality with exclusive power to adopt ordinances “to authorize expenditures and to fix salaries.” In plain terms, the Chief can choose an Assistant Chief, but only the Council can fund one. Without that appropriation, there is no mechanism for appointing, funding and/or paying a selection.
This separation of powers isn’t a mere technicality; it’s the cornerstone of checks and balances. The Council holds the power of the purse precisely so that no executive officer—whether a mayor or police chief—can unilaterally expand government or create obligations on the taxpayers’ behalf.
The October Surprise
Despite those limits, in late October, Chief Broussard issued a memorandum announcing that he had selected an Assistant Chief. The document, circulated internally, implied someone had been selected and would be serving as the Assistant Chief of Police in the near future. But the city’s budget, as adopted in June and the police department pay plan adopted in July, contained no salary allocation for such a post. Chief Broussard was ignoring the express will of the Council and the budget constraints they have adopted for the agency.
Text messages later obtained by Citizens for a New Louisiana show that discussions about the appointment had begun weeks earlier. On September 29, 2025, Kenneth Duhon asked Chief Broussard whether he was “meet[ing] with the Mayor today,” to which Broussard replied, “Yes sir, I’m going to try.” Two days later, Duhon texted, “Let Eddie know that I am now a Republican.” Duhon is a registered Democrat, and the reference to Eddie likely refers to Eddie Lau.
Lau was the Chief’s campaign manager during the 2024 election and was hired by YPD in 2025 to perform digital media management services. Eddie Lau is presently under criminal investigation for allegedly disseminating false information during an election. Lau is scheduled to appear in court next week; however, the Attorney General asked that the hearing be continued. Then, on October 5, 2025, Kenneth Duhon, using his state-issued e-mail account, forwarded a resume to Chief J.P. Broussard.
Backroom Deals for a New Assistant Chief
These brief exchanges may appear casual, but they place the Chief’s coordination with both the Mayor and his political circle before any public authorization of the position. It also suggests that the selection of an Assistant Chief was handled as a political matter, with efforts to conceal the true political leanings.
When a public-records request was submitted seeking any communication between the Chief, the Mayor, or Council members concerning this appointment or its funding, the City Clerk confirmed that no such records exist. In other words, the appointment appears to have been made without notice, authorization, or budget approval.
If true, the move could expose the city to both legal and financial risk. Louisiana Revised Statute 39:1310 provides:
“The governing authority shall not expend funds, incur liabilities, or enter into obligations in excess of the total appropriations for any fund.”
Louisiana Revised Statute 33:406(A)(1) further provides:
“Ordinances shall be required to… provide for the levy of taxes and to authorize the expenditure of funds for any purpose.”
That means the City Council alone can lawfully authorize expenditures and fix salaries. Without a council-adopted ordinance or budget amendment, any payment is unauthorized.
Why It Matters
Budgets are not suggestions; they are the law of spending. Each line item represents the public’s explicit permission to spend their money for specific purposes. When a police Chief appoints a person to a position that the Council declined to fund, it undermines not only fiscal discipline and the separation of powers, but also accountability itself.
The issue is not whether an Assistant Chief would be useful, but whether the city’s elected officials—and the citizens they represent—retain control over how public funds are spent. By bypassing that control, even temporarily, the Chief risks transforming what should be an open, lawful process into a closed administrative fiat.
Youngsville’s government has faced its share of controversies and growing pains as the city expands its residential development. Maintaining public confidence requires strict adherence to the basic checks and balances that protect taxpayers. Transparency and compliance are not optional extras; they are the foundation of legitimate local government.
Unanswered Questions
For now, several key questions remain unresolved:
- Did Chief Broussard consult the Mayor or City Council before deciding to appoint an Assistant Chief of Police?
- Has any salary, stipend, or allowance been paid for the unfunded post?
- Will the Mayor or City Council formally address Chief Broussard’s ignoring of the adopted budget?
Until those questions are answered, the appearance of an “Assistant Chief” remains more than a matter of administrative housekeeping—it is a test of whether Youngsville’s officials intend to honor their Oaths of Office and the laws they are sworn to uphold. Thus far, they have seemed very content to ignore Chief Broussard’s actions, which, if conducted by Chief Boudreaux, would have prompted calls for investigation and cries of “poor, poor pitiful me.”
A Call for Civic Integrity
The people of Youngsville deserve a city government that respects both the letter and the spirit of the law. Louisiana’s statutes provide clear boundaries for a reason: to prevent concentration of power and to ensure that the public’s representatives approve every dollar spent in the name of public safety.
As Mayor Ritter himself said in June, the position “is not abolished—it’s just unfunded.” That statement still holds true. If the city wants an Assistant Chief of Police, the process is transparent and straightforward; bring it to the Council, debate it in the open, and let the taxpayers see how their money is being used.
Anything less would make the law itself optional—and that’s a precedent no community can afford to accept.
