“Presuming that the respondent was wrong in stopping payment on the $50,000 check to DCEMS, we note that the respondent’s action was an isolated event in that there was no evidence presented that he regularly interfered with other payments made by the commission with which he disagreed. Significantly, the respondent’s action involved no personal enrichment or advantage. Moreover, one can conclude from the respondent’s explanation of his conduct that it was made in good faith to prevent an unlawful act by the county commission. Further, the respondent’s action was easily correctable by the other county commissioners. Those commissioners could have legally challenged the respondent’s action of stopping payment of the check or they could have revisited the issue of donating $50,000 to the DCEMS at the next county commission meeting after proper notice. Therefore, we conclude that the panel did not err in finding that the petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the action of the respondent in stopping payment of the check constituted a willful, unlawful act or otherwise constituted official misconduct.”