Four Controversies: Youngsville Civil Service Board Still Reeling

The Youngsville Municipal Police Civil Service Board convened a special meeting Thursday, July 15, 2026, with an agenda dominated by disputes arising from the administration of Chief J.P. Broussard. Over the course of the meeting, Board members considered allegations that information had been misrepresented to the Board, alleged deficiencies in the Board’s own election process, an appeal filed by Detective Tyra Dorsey, and a grievance brought by Sergeant Louvenia Landry.

Notably absent from the proceedings was Chief Broussard himself. While the Board was left to address a growing list of personnel controversies involving his administration, the Chief did not attend the meeting.

Questions Continue Over Jason Brown’s Provisional Appointment

The Board first addressed concerns surrounding the provisional appointment of former Youngsville Police Captain Jason Brown. On May 8, 2026, a formal notice of deficiency was submitted to the Board questioning whether Brown’s provisional appointment had been lawfully extended after his original ninety-day appointment expired on January 8, 2026. Brown was appointed interim Police Captain after Captain John Davison was suspended and demoted following the Segura debacle. Davison was vindicated at his January 2026 hearing, dubbed the “Clown show.” District Attorney Don Landry has yet to file criminal charges in the matter.

The initial personnel action form (PAF) presented to the Board at the October 8, 2025 meeting stated that Brown had passed an exam administered on October 18, 2022, with a score of 75%. The information was later determined to be false, and the Board rescinded the PAF on December 10, 2025, and provided for the provisional appointment of Brown. The PAF form read “this appointment, if not terminated sooner, shall terminate on January 8, 2026.” Yet, Brown continued to serve as Captain after January 8, 2026.

The issue before the Board concerned a PAF approved on April 29, 2026, which stated that the Board had previously approved a renewal of Brown’s provisional appointment through April 8, 2026. The information again was false. The only meeting of the Board held between December 10, 2025 and April 29, 2026, was the January 27, 2026 meeting. No such approval appears in the Board’s January 27, 2026 meeting minutes. Nor should it, because it never occurred.

Board counsel Danny Landry advised members that he had reviewed the matter and concluded the effective date of Brown’s appointment was valid. The Office of State Examiner advised that similar situations occasionally occur when boards do not meet regularly. Landry concluded that the effective date of the personnel action was the controlling factor. The false information contained in the public document was never addressed by Landry or the Board. The discussion, however, quickly shifted to the chronology in the Board’s own records.

What Had Happened Was…

Board Secretary Laurie Segura explained that Brown’s renewal paperwork had been intended for consideration at the January 27, 2026 meeting but had been inadvertently left out of the Board’s meeting packet. That explanation was immediately challenged. The renewal PAF itself bears a preparation date of January 31, 2026 — four days after the January 27, 2026 meeting where it was allegedly intended to be presented. That discrepancy was brought directly to the Board’s attention.

It was also emphasized that under Louisiana’s Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Law, a provisional appointment may not simply continue by administrative action. Louisiana Revised Statute 33:2496(1)(a)(i) reads in part:

A provisional appointment shall not continue for more than three months. No position in the classified service shall be filled by one or more provisional appointments for a period in excess of three consecutive months, and successive like periods shall not be permissible. The board may, however, authorize the renewal of such appointment or authorize such successive appointments for a period not to exceed three additional months whenever it has been impracticable or impossible to establish a list of persons eligible for certification and appointment to the vacancy.

The statute requires Board approval before a provisional appointment may be extended. “It’s not a rubber stamp on a PAF form,” the Board was told. “It requires action by the Board.” Although the Board ultimately accepted counsel’s recommendation and took no further action, Board members acknowledged that improvements were needed to ensure personnel actions are timely presented and properly tracked in the future.

Election Procedures Again Draw Scrutiny

The Board next considered concerns regarding the procedures used during the 2026 election for the police department’s employee representative on the Civil Service Board.

The Board was promptly reminded of problems encountered during the previous election to select a Youngsville Police Department Representative three years earlier. According to comments made during the meeting, the individual initially declared the winner had not actually received a majority of the votes cast. After the results were reviewed, a runoff election was held, and the employee originally announced as the winner ultimately lost the race.

Board counsel then worked through each of the procedural concerns submitted to the Board. One Board member commented that the process contained ‘discrepancy after discrepancy.’

With respect to the nomination process, counsel concluded that the procedures complied with existing law. However, concerns remained regarding the use of anonymous nomination forms and the inability to independently verify whether nominations had actually been submitted by regular and permanent employees eligible to participate in the process. Those concerns were not materially addressed during the meeting.

The Board did, however, agree that improvements should be made to future elections. Several members expressed support for extending both the nomination and voting periods to ensure employees working varying shifts or away on vacation had a greater opportunity to participate. Discussion centered on expanding future election periods from only a few days to as many as fourteen business days. Rather than adopting a formal rule, the Board indicated it would recommend that the Chief implement longer election periods in future elections.

Representative Illegally Served

Perhaps the most significant issue involved the appointment, or lack thereof, of the successful candidate — Scott Clostio.

During the meeting, Board counsel acknowledged that the employee representative, Scott Clostio, had participated in the Board’s April 29, 2026 meeting before receiving the formal appointment required by law from the Youngsville City Council. Louisiana Revised Statute 33:2476(C)(2) mandates:

“The members of the board shall be appointed by the governing body…”

Board Secretary Laurie Segura attributed the failure to complete the appointment process to the governing authority, the City of Youngsville. However, that explanation contrasted with statements she made during the Board’s April meeting. The issue of Clostio serving illegally on the board was raised at the April 2026 meeting. Segura indicated at that time that all required steps had been completed in accordance with direction and a checklist received from the Office of the State Examiner (OSE) before Clostio assumed office. The Board brushed aside those concerns and business resumed as normal.

We later requested records concerning Segura’s statement about a checklist received from the OSE. Segura was only able to produce the standard instructions for completing, executing, and distributing the oath of office. Due to Segura’s misrepresentation at the April meeting and the Board’s failure to take action when the concern was originally raised, Counsel recommended that the Board ratify each action taken during that meeting to eliminate any question concerning the validity of the Board’s prior decisions. The Board unanimously ratified each action previously taken at the April meeting. Problem solved! Accountability avoided.

Board Dismisses Tyra Dorsey Appeal

The Board also considered an appeal filed by Detective Tyra Dorsey challenging disciplinary action imposed by Chief J.P. Broussard. Following a brief discussion, the Board voted to dismiss the matter as untimely. According to the discussion during the meeting, Dorsey received disciplinary action on June 6, 2026, and filed her appeal on June 22, 2026. Under the Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Law, disciplinary appeals must be filed within fifteen calendar days.

Only after the Board had already voted did discussion turn to how those fifteen calendar days should be calculated. Dorsey questioned whether Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 5059 extended the filing deadline because the fifteenth day fell on a weekend preceded by the Juneteenth legal holiday. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 5059 provides:

“In computing a period of time allowed or prescribed by law or by order of court, the date of the act, event, or default from which the period begins to run is not included. The last day of the period is included, unless it is a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day that is not a legal holiday.“

Under that language, she argued, her appeal filed on Monday, June 22, 2026 was timely. Board counsel maintained that the law did not apply to Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service appeal deadlines. Although additional discussion followed, the Board did not revisit its earlier vote dismissing the appeal.

The contrast is difficult to ignore. One employee’s appeal was dismissed as untimely after being filed one day beyond the Board’s interpretation of the filing deadline, while questions surrounding a provisional appointment that remained unapproved for more than 100 days after its expiration were ultimately excused as an administrative oversight.

Promotion Grievance Remains Pending

The final major personnel matter involved a grievance filed by Sergeant Louvenia Landry. That matter initially came before the Board at the April 2026 meeting, where the Board accepted Landry’s complaint and appointed Board Counsel Danny Landry to gather information and report back to the Board.

Board counsel advised members that he had reviewed the grievance and noted that Sgt. Landry had also filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimination by Chief Broussard under the Civil Rights Act. He recommended allowing the EEOC investigation to proceed before the Board considered any overlapping issues, explaining that the federal investigation would likely be more comprehensive than anything the Board could independently undertake.

Counsel further advised that he had not identified an apparent violation of the Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Law because Youngsville’s special legislation permits the Chief to select from among the three most senior eligible candidates rather than being limited to the single highest-ranked employee. Counsel was referring to Act 196 of the 2020 Regular Session brought by Representative Jonathan Goudeau. The bill was hotly contested and received opposition from the Police Association of Lafayette (PAL) at the time. Goudeau ultimately lost his bid for re-election to Troy Hebert (R 7/10).

Landry Lays Into Them

Sgt. Landry then addressed the Board and argued that the central issue was not the Chief’s discretion to choose among the top three candidates. Instead, she contended the individual ultimately promoted was not even among the top three candidates in departmental seniority at the time the vacancy occurred. Landry asserted the promotional process never reached the point where the Chief could exercise the statutory discretion created by the carve-out.

As the discussion unfolded, Board members appeared to conclude that additional records were necessary before any determination could be made. The Board requested the seniority list and promotional eligibility list that existed when the position became vacant. That request produced another unexpected development.

Although those records are central to administering a merit-based civil service system, and the Board is the responsible party for maintaining such lists, it was unable to immediately produce them. Board Secretary Laurie Segura advised members the lists would need to be verified and “recreated” before the Board could continue its review. You heard that correctly — Segura indicated that the spreadsheet she relied on has since changed and the record would have to be “recreated.”

Rather than rule on the grievance without those records, the Board voted to continue the matter until its regularly scheduled July 29, 2026 meeting.

A Board Increasingly Occupied by Administrative Controversies

Viewed individually, each of the four matters presented different legal and factual questions. Collectively, however, they painted a broader picture.

Over the course of a single special meeting, the Youngsville Municipal Police Civil Service Board found itself examining disputed personnel records, revisiting election procedures, dismissing a contested disciplinary appeal, and postponing a promotional grievance pending production of records the Board itself is expected to maintain.

Whether these matters ultimately result in additional corrective action remains to be seen. The Board has a documented history of inaction. What is clear is that the Board continues to devote a significant portion of its time to resolving personnel and administrative controversies arising from management decisions with the Youngsville Police Department — while the Chief whose administration gave rise to those disputes was notably absent from the meeting.

###