On January 27, 2026, the Youngsville Municipal Police Civil Service Board heard an appeal involving Police Chief JP Broussard’s decision to demote and suspend Captain John Davison. After hearing the testimony, the Board unanimously overturned the disciplinary action, finding that Broussard, as the appointing authority, “did not act in good faith and with just cause.”
We first requested the transcript on March 6. After follow-ups, the response on May 22 was that the chief’s attorney had not requested one and the department had no responsive documents. Obtaining the testimony in writing ultimately required us to arrange and fund its preparation through the city.
That’s unfortunate, because some of the testimony is rather interesting. Fortunately, we were able to obtain the transcript anyway. It cost another $2,208.65, generously covered by a private donor, but the entire 344-page document is now available for anyone to examine.
Read the complete transcript of the January 27, 2026, Youngsville Civil Service hearing here.
Let’s look at a few things that came out during the hearing.
What Broussard Said Under Oath
One particularly interesting exchange involves Deputy Timmy Picard, who testified about a conversation he had with Broussard concerning Davison. According to Picard, Broussard told him Davison had entered the chief’s office, cussing and screaming. Picard testified that he specifically asked whether Davison had gone into Broussard’s office, and the chief confirmed that he had.
But when Broussard took the stand, he described something different. The confrontation, according to Broussard, had occurred over the telephone. When asked whether Davison had burst into his office, Broussard answered, “No, ma’am.”
Later, Broussard’s own attorney asked whether he had told Picard that Davison entered his office cussing and screaming. “Not that I recall,” Broussard answered.
That’s quite a difference between the two accounts. Picard testified that the chief had specifically confirmed the encounter happened in his office. Broussard testified that it happened over the telephone and couldn’t recall telling Picard otherwise. You don’t have to take our word for any of it. Compare Picard’s testimony beginning on page 142 with Broussard’s testimony beginning on page 288. Broussard’s response to his own attorney appears later, on transcript page 299.
Another Uncomfortable Exchange
That wasn’t the only occasion when Broussard’s testimony came under scrutiny. During questioning about his handling of a separate disciplinary complaint, Broussard acknowledged that he had not conducted an internal investigation. He also acknowledged, in response to questioning, that his handling of the matter had not complied with the Police Officer Bill of Rights.
Davison’s attorney then confronted Broussard with a written public record concerning that complaint. The questioning eventually turned to whether Broussard had given false testimony about the matter. Broussard denied doing so. The document was subsequently admitted into evidence as Exhibit Q.
The board’s decision reversed Davison’s discipline. The questioning, Broussard’s responses, and the introduction of the written record are worth examining. The exchange begins on page 281 of the transcript.
What Order Did Davison Refuse?
Another revealing portion of the hearing concerned the orders Broussard had supposedly given Davison. During questioning, Broussard acknowledged that he had never issued Davison a direct order. He also could not identify a lawful order that Davison had refused to obey. Those admissions are particularly interesting considering that Broussard had already demoted and suspended Davison. That exchange appears on transcript page 289.
Ultimately, the Civil Service Board voted unanimously to reverse the disciplinary action. Its motion specifically found that the appointing authority had not acted in good faith and with just cause. The Board’s decision appears on pages 306–307 of the transcript.
The Cost of Transparency
Getting this transcript took months of requests and follow-ups. On March 6, we requested the court reporter’s transcript. Attorney Joy Rabalais responded that YPD did not have a copy and that she had asked when it would be available. We followed up on May 15. On May 22, her response, sent through her office, said attorney Michael Corry had not requested a transcript and concluded: “Youngsville Police Department has no documents responsive to your request.”
On May 26, we challenged that explanation, citing the city’s $1,587 payment and an invoice that referenced an original transcript. On June 10, Rabalais said she had again contacted YPD to find out whether the transcript had been delivered. The next day, City Attorney Wade Trahan said the payment covered the reporter’s appearance and the recording of testimony, and that no one involved in the hearing had requested a transcription.
We then requested the communications and records behind those explanations. On June 18, Rabalais acknowledged that she had not initially checked whether anyone had ordered a transcript. She said she later learned Corry had not requested one, adding that this made sense because the city had not appealed the board’s decision to district court. She maintained that her earlier responses had not shifted; the first had only meant that YPD did not possess a copy.
How We Got the Transcript
The hearing was over. The discipline had been reversed. Months after our first request, there was still no written transcript to provide. Back in June, we reported that the City of Youngsville had already paid $1,587 for court reporting services associated with the hearing, even though no transcript had been produced.
Mayor Ken Ritter subsequently explained that the court reporting company considered the initial payment an appearance fee. That amount would be credited toward the cost of preparing the transcript, which had not yet been ordered. We asked that the transcript be prepared and offered to cover the remaining balance. Ritter submitted the formal request on behalf of the city, and the court reporting company went to work.
The final invoice came to another $2,208.65. A private donor generously covered that amount, bringing the combined cost of the hearing record to $3,795.65. That’s a substantial amount of money for a written account of a single civil service hearing. But the result is a permanent public record of testimony that otherwise might never have been transcribed.
You can read it right here without paying a cent.
###
Facts First. Even When They’re Inconvenient.
Some outlets or groups tell you what to think. Others have discovered there’s an easier way to build an audience: tell people exactly what they want to hear. We’ve chosen a harder path.
At Citizens for a New Louisiana, we start with the evidence — public records, financial disclosures, court filings, voting records, audits, and original documents — and follow it wherever it leads. Sometimes the facts confirm what we expected. Sometimes they surprise us. Sometimes they disappoint our friends. Either way, we publish them.
That approach doesn’t always produce the loudest headlines or the easiest fundraising. But over time, it produces something much more valuable: TRUST. If you value independent Louisiana journalism that puts evidence ahead of outrage and principle ahead of tribe, please help us continue the work.
Become a Monthly MemberContribute $10 NowMake a Tax Deductible Gift
Already have a donor-advised fund? Ask your DAF administrator about recommending a grant to New Louisiana Foundation.
