[brief] Whether there is an ethical violation is a case-by-case analysis for which the decisive factor is whether there is a potential for a conflict of interest, which arises when the public official has an interest not shared in common with the other members of the public.  Friends Retirement v. Board of Education, 356 N.J. Super. 203, 214-15 (Law Div. 2002).  However, in Friends Retirement, supra, the Law Division noted the longstanding principle that “the moral philosophy is that next in importance to the duty of the officer to render a righteous judgment” is in doing so in a manner that begets “no suspicion of the pureness and integrity of his action. ”  Id. at 214 (quoting Aldom v. Borough of Roseland, 42 N.J. Super. 495, 502 (App. Div. 1956)).  Put simply, a public officer’s duty to render a righteous judgment stands alone in importance.  In this regard, the ALJ’s decision vindicates Respondent in that he and members of the Board had a reasonable basis to request legal research from the Board Attorney if the basis of that research and any allegations as to [...] led to the sustained school ethics charges that are pending before [...].  See Sg166-168; Sg174-176.  Crucially, those same charges are ones which the OAL found violated the School Ethics Act and other charges referred the matter for a full hearing.  *Ibid.*  Given the public nature of [...]’s conduct, Appellant reasonably found himself in a situation demanding immediate action in furtherance of his duty to render a righteous judgment, for which consultation with legal counsel could not be delayed until after the next Board meeting without first considering adverse consequences for the school district.  *See Rathmann v. Board of Directors,* 580 N.W.2d 773, 781-82 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 1998).  The ALJ’s determination that Appellant and [...] had substantial negative prior history is thus not dispositive.  *See Sg179.*  Moreover, the record did not fairly support the ALJ’s assumption that Appellant and Complainant’s prior negative history in politics furnished substantive proof or evidence that Appellant committed ethics violations in this matter.  Nor are the ALJ’s considerations for whether the public could reasonably view Appellant’s request for legal services as having violated the public trust – the timing and topic of the request and whether the request, results and legal conclusions were presented to the Board or a majority thereof – as they rest on factual record tainted by reiterated allegations and hearsay and otherwise lacking testimony or affidavits from other Board members, the superintendent or the business administrator.  If the ALJ’s decision is permitted to stand, the SEC will have created a new line of caselaw from Cheng, supra, that substantially changes the duties and ethical considerations of a board president as well as their working relationship with board counsel.  Further, such caselaw will have the effect of emboldening political challengers by providing a mechanism for challenging the propriety of decisions, based solely on the situation of the decisionmaker, without accompanying consideration, let alone, rebuttal as to whether the decision was justified.  Accordingly, the SEC’s decision that Appellant violated N.J.S.A. 18A:24(b) or N.J.S.A. 18A:24.1(e) or (f) was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law and therefore must be overturned.