rule will reduce or eliminate adjudicators’ exposure to ex parte information, as well as the inevitable human tendency to develop a will to win. See Ross v. Medical Univ. of South Carolina, supra. Our view is consistent with the approach taken by most courts today. Courts generally discourage agency staff and members from simultaneously acting as investigator, prosecutor, and judge. “It is proper to have some blend of judicial and prosecutorial functions in an administrative proceeding, provided that the person performing the quasi-prosecutorial function is not a member of the decision-making body.” Waste Mgt. v. Pollution Control Bd., 175 Ill.App.3d 1023, 125 Ill.Dec. 524, 530 N.E.2d 682, 694 (1988). Accord Babcock Center, Inc. v. Office of Audits, 286 S.C. 398, 334 S.E.2d 112 (1985) (<HOLDING>); 4 Stein, Mitchell, and Mezines,
holding that administrative agency may adjudicate appeals by panels composed of other persons within the same agency who did not participate in investigative or prosecutorial capacities holding that a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands holding a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands recognizing the combination of functions within an agency such as prosecutorial and adjudicative without more does not violate due process by virtue of being exercised by the same agency holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding