YOUNGSVILLE: Repeated Failures to Investigate

The Youngsville Police Civil Service Board has announced its plan to adopt a rule regarding the initiation of investigation requests submitted to the Board. What is the moving force behind this rule? Is the rule necessary, and if so, why? What impact will additional rules have on the current process? Join us as we explore this topic and Youngsville’s dubious history of complaint handling.

July 30, 2025, Civil Service Meeting

The Youngsville Police Civil Service Board met yesterday evening to discuss, most notably, a move “to revise the board rules to adopt a formal Request for Investigation Form to investigate reported violations of the Civil Service Article or Rules.” The meeting agenda called for a “public hearing” to be held on the topic, but an objection was raised, and no public hearing was held. Instead, a discussion ensued about revising Rule VI, Section 2 of the existing civil service rules, which specifically deal with complaints. What is it all about?

Youngsville has a history of failing to investigate. This is more than mere opinion. It relies on undisputed facts! Nor is the assertion based on “ancient history” either. We are discussing events that have occurred (and haven’t) over the past few years.

March 30, 2023, Special meeting

On March 30, 2023, a special meeting of the Youngsville City Council was called. According to the meeting agenda, the sole item up for consideration was a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to “secure an independent investigation of the Youngsville Police Chief.” This item stemmed from the tangled web, which later became commonly referred to as the Kayla Reaux incident. The Chief of Police later terminated one of the officers involved in that incident, and his termination was pending before the Youngsville Police Civil Service Board when one of the Board members resigned, citing concerns about retaliation.

On May 3, 2023, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief was filed by the Youngsville Police Chief in District Court. The petition sought a judgment to prevent the City of Youngsville from acting on Resolutions 2023-08 and 2023-09, which aimed to initiate an investigation “as soon as possible” into the Chief of Police’s activities and ultimately declare the resolutions null, void, and ineffective. The court never ruled on that case, and the matter remains unresolved despite statements to the contrary. Additionally, no prompt or meaningful investigation was ever carried out. The only update the people of Youngsville received was the “Garbage Report” released in January 2024.

Civil Service Board Likewise Did Nothing

The request that prompted the compilation of the Garbage Report was made on July 26, 2023. It just so happens that was the same day we filed a complaint with the Youngsville Police Civil Service Board. Our complaint, which was later supplemented, was not made against a single person within the Classified Service. Instead, it focused on several situations which likely involved the activities and coordination of SEVERAL EMPLOYEES to both facilitate and cover up, as well as others impacted by the failed administration. Those activities included: ticket fixing, abuse of office/extortion, retaliatory conduct, concealment and security of records, election rigging, complaint handling, unsafe workplace and witness intimidation. The Board voted to accept the complaint and indicated that it had never received a request for investigation and would need to determine how to proceed forward. No investigation would ever be conducted.

It is important to note that Louisiana State Law creates a duty on Board members on these kinds of matters. First, Louisiana Revised Statute 33:2477 vests the Board with duties and powers and mandates it:

LA RS 33:2477

• Represent the public interest in matters of personnel administration in the fire and police services of the said municipal government.
• Make, at the direction of the mayor, commissioner of public safety, chief of either the fire or police department, or upon the written petition of any citizen for just cause, or upon its own motion, any investigation concerning the administration of personnel or the compliance with the provisions of this Part…
• …take any other action which it determines to be desirable or necessary in the public interest, or to carry out effectively the provisions and purposes of this Part.
• … any investigation requested… upon the written petition of any citizen for just cause shall be completed within sixty days of the board’s receipt of the request for an investigation or receipt of a written petition of any citizen, or both.
• Conduct investigations and pass upon complaints by or against any officer or employee in the classified service for the purpose of demotion, reduction in position or abolition thereof, suspension or dismissal of the officer or employee, in accordance with the provisions of this Part.

No Investigation When the Chief Fails to Take Action

The law provides that the Board shall take action where the appointing authority, Chief of Police in this case, fails to act through Louisiana Revised Statute 33:2500, which states:

“Any citizen, taxpayer, municipal officer, or employee may file with the board detailed charges in writing against any employee in the classified service for violating any one or more of the provisions of this Section. The board shall, within thirty days after receiving the written charges, hold a public hearing and investigation and determine whether such charges are true and correct.”

This was the case concerning another complaint filed with the Board in December of 2023. That complaint involved the failure of the Chief of Police to take appropriate action concerning the alleged excessive use of force by then Youngsville Police Department employee Eric Segura. Yes, the same Eric Segura who was arrested for interfering with a shooting investigation in Youngsville involving his son Zachary Segura. That incident resulted in an internal memorandum by Chief J.P. Broussard outlining the individuals who are shielded from breaking the law in Youngsville and those who are of no apparent concern. Now back to the complaint.

The incident complained about concerning Segura occurred in August of 2022, and later resulted in a federal civil rights lawsuit, which the City of Youngsville quickly settled. During the incident, body camera footage captured Segura uttering something to the effect of ‘we’re about to whip his a**!’ before striking the subject in the face approximately seventeen times. The matter was later forwarded to the Lafayette Parish Sheriff for possible criminal prosecution, but no charges were filed. It was also allegedly the subject of a probe by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

As a result of the incident, Segura received a verbal reprimand, despite evidence indicating that he had not only violated department policy but also engaged in activities that likely rose to the level of criminal and civil rights violations. Segura also appeared to have lied during the investigations, something for which he never faced disciplinary action. Despite the Board receiving a written petition to launch an investigation into this matter, they again DID NOTHING.

A Lack of Discipline When Juveniles Were Subjected to Sexual Harassment

In yet another example, on June 27, 2024, the Board was provided with another petition for investigation. This case, similar to the Segura matter, involved an officer who was found to have violated policy but did not receive discipline commensurate with the severity of the offense.

The petition alleged that Richard Vincent, a Youngsville Police officer, was subject to an internal affairs investigation for sexual harassment. The investigation was initiated following a complaint filed in October 2023. It was alleged that Vincent, who was assigned to the Sports Complex, was touching underage female workers without their consent and making them feel uncomfortable. The investigation concluded that Vincent had violated sexual harassment and professional misconduct standards. Vincent received a written reprimand and was required to undergo remedial training.

The Board had the power to investigate, overturn the discipline, and mete out the appropriate level of punishment, as is often the case in matters before them. Instead, the Board AGAIN took no action. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

The Board Was Weaponized for Political Reasons

The Board then, for the first time in its known history, chose to investigate complaints of alleged prohibited political activities. The Civil Service Law, dealing specifically with prohibited political activities, provides through Louisiana Revised Statute 33:2504(B) that:

“Any citizen, taxpayer, municipal officer, or employee may file with the board detailed charges in writing against any employee in the classified service for violating any one or more of the provisions of this Section. The board shall, within thirty days after receiving the written charges, hold a public hearing and investigation and determine whether such charges are true and correct.”

On June 26, 2024, the Board met and voted unanimously to investigate two alleged complaints of prohibited political conduct. According to Board Secretary Laurie Segura, two complaints were received by telephone from an anonymous source, indicating that two members of the Youngsville Police Department had engaged in prohibited political activities by attending a political campaign event. Board members Benjamin Langlinais, Jacob Held, and Tracy Girard promptly voted to accept the complaints and initiate an investigation. When the public was allowed to comment, after the vote had already been taken, it was questioned whether the complaints were even legitimate. After all, if they were not written, the law didn’t permit their acceptance. The question was also raised as to whether complaints could be accepted from an anonymous source that could not be determined to be a citizen, taxpayer, resident, qualified voter, etc.

In response, it was stated that ‘the Office of State Examiner advised the Board that if they became aware of any prohibited activity, it was incumbent upon them to investigate.’ When asked about other complaints filed with the Board, which were never investigated, the Board seemed to suffer from amnesia. Following the meeting, the Board continued to consult and discuss the investigations in violation of Open Meetings laws.

What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

On July 10, 2024, the Board received an additional three complaints, all concerning alleged prohibited political activity. Oddly enough, when the complaints were being lodged, it became suddenly necessary for them to be submitted in writing. The first of the three complaints alleged activities identical to those the Board was actively investigating against two other officers, specifically, the presence at a political event. The complaint went so far as to indicate that it “…DOES NOT believe Sergeant Jason Brown participated in prohibited political activities, the Board has made it abundantly clear that they have no discretion with regards to investigating ALL complaints received by the Board, including anonymous ones.” That complaint would later be voluntarily withdrawn when the Board found no wrongdoing on the part of the other two officers who attended the same event.

The second complaint lodged was against Board Secretary Laurie Segura. That complaint alleged that Segura assisted with the management of incoming and outgoing funds for the campaign finance account of the Chief of Police. The complaint even attached a copy of the checking account ledger, which was said to contain handwritten entries by Segura. This would unequivocally be a violation of the prohibitions against political activities, and if committed while on duty, could also form the basis of criminal misconduct for public payroll fraud.

The third complaint was lodged against Board member Tracy Girard. In that complaint, it was alleged that Girard frequented establishments, making unsolicited statements in support of a candidate for the position of Chief of Police. All three of these matters were set to be taken up at the July 24, 2024, Board meeting.

What happened? Not what you think…

At the July 2024 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to go into executive session to discuss all five complaints concerning prohibited political activity. When the Board returned, Girard announced that the two officers subject to the unanimous complaints were exonerated. However, at this time, a vote of the Board had not been taken. The Board would later vote to exonerate the two officers, thereby ratifying the premature statement made by the chairman. As such, the complainant chose to withdraw the complaint against Sgt. Brown. The Board, including Girard, then moved to table the remaining two complaints alleging prohibited political activities against Girard and Segura.

Those matters would linger for several months without any investigation. Then, on October 31, 2024, without providing explicit notice to the complainant or their counsel, the Board chose to take up those matters and declined to investigate.

The complainant, after learning of the dismissal of the complaints involving prohibited political activities, addressed the Board at the February 2025 meeting. It is essential to note that the Board failed to provide any specific notice to the complainant or his counsel regarding its intention to address the matter in October 2024. At the February meeting, the complainant requested that the Board place his request for reconsideration on the agenda for the next Board meeting.

Reconsideration Denied

The matter came before the Board again at the April 2025 meeting. The complainant explained to the Board the history related to the various complaints and emphasized their duty to take action. Board Attorney Danny Landry interjected that there was an Attorney General’s opinion outlining that no violation had been committed when a member of the Classified Service attended a free, public event open to the candidate. Landry also advised the Board of a two-year period during which Ethics Complaints must be lodged. Neither item pertained to the matters before the Board. The Board AGAIN, for at least the fifth time, refused to take any action to investigate lawfully submitted complaints.

It is interesting to consider that the only two instances in the Board’s history where there is a record of them taking action to investigate complaints involved politically motivated anonymous complaints that could not be lawfully accepted. These complaints weren’t in writing but were allegedly received by phone by the Board Secretary, who failed even to document receipt of the complaints. Complaints that could not be verified as having originated from a person with standing to file a complaint. The same Secretary would, weeks later, assert that complaints must be in writing. How convenient!

On the following agenda item, the Board offered a solution. The Board is now proposing a rule concerning the process for initiating a request for investigation. A proposed “request for investigation” form has also been developed. By revising an existing rule to remove all timelines for the completion of investigations, and completing a form, the Board will be empowered to take appropriate action and fulfill its duties as required by law—something it has repeatedly neglected to do.

When does it end?

The failure to take action in the City of Youngsville is not limited to the Civil Service Board. We have mentioned several times how the Youngsville Police Department has failed to take any action regarding a criminal complaint, which would likely have implicated a contractor for the City of Youngsville. There has also been a lot of chatter about why the criminal charge involving Youngsville Chief Administrative Officer Terry Bourque was referred by police to district court for prosecution and not treated as a municipal ordinance violation to be handled in Mayor’s Court (where it could be better controlled). Then why and how was the subject of the simple battery committed by Bourque banned from public property? And why hasn’t an arrest been made in the New Year’s Day shooting where over a dozen shots were fired from inside a home, striking the victim at least four times?

There is a clear culture in the City of Youngsville that remains unchanged. It didn’t start with Ricky Boudreaux, and it certainly didn’t end with him. It permeates and reverberates much deeper and resides within the hearts of some elected and appointed persons who claim to “serve our best interest.” Yes, I laughed too.

The clear pattern and practice of the City of Youngsville, on multiple levels, of refusing to investigate law violations and failing to perform their duties is appalling. However, it isn’t limited to Youngsville. Would it surprise you to know that the same symptoms are being exhibited by a state body which seems to take no steps to refer for prosecution violations it becomes aware of? Stay tuned for more on that one.

###