The opinion
CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge.
I respectfully dissent.
*244 As the majority notes, “[t]he Board followed its standard operating procedure in prosecuting and adjudicating this matter.” (Footnote omitted). The majority also notes that the Board not only made the initial decision to issue a complaint against Lyness, but ultimately adjudicated that complaint by ordering, without an evidentiary hearing or oral argument, a harsher sanction than that imposed by the hearing examiner. Such involvement constitutes an impermissible commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions under Dussia v. Barger, 466 Pa. 152 , 351 A.2d 667 (1975).
Thus, for the reasons more fully explained in my dissent in Bruteyn Appeal, 32 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 541, 380 A.2d 497 (1977), I would reverse.
COLINS, J., joins in this dissent.