Many departments have lessened negative repercussions of internal investigations by not involving the investigator in either rendering a finding in the case or recommending the discipline to be imposed. In these agencies, the investigator is only a fact-finder who presents a case file to a review panel or board. If the allegations are sustained, the supervisor is responsible for imposing discipline. This process fosters higher morale, especially if the investigators are periodically rotated and not permanently assigned to the internal affairs function. The fairness of discipline is also important to an agency's morale. Discipline that is too lenient will undermine the priority that should be given to officer integrity. Discipline that is too harsh will alienate line officers from command personnel. Discipline must be appropriate for the misconduct and consistent from case to case. A departmental discipline coordinator can serve as an authority on discipline records and patterns and provide advice to supervisors that can assist in maintaining consistency in discipline. Proactive investigations should also be an important part of the operations of internal affairs units. When a department has sufficient predicate evidence that an officer is engaging in criminal misconduct that might otherwise go undetected, a sting or proactive type of investigation that uses an undercover operative can be an appropriate investigative strategy. After an internal investigation has been completed, the process and the findings should be available to the public, so as to remove any appearance of secrecy and coverup. Also, a timely and thorough internal investigation can be an important aspect of departmental defense in a civil lawsuit related to the case. 8 notes