[hoosiermama]

It's not “How do they even have an obligation under the law to take action if it is not as a duty of their offices” BUT have they fulfilled the obligations and duties of their offices. Are they negligent, partisan or incompetent?

Did the cease to act because of receiving an appointment or position? Did they benefit because of their lack of action?

[BuckeyeTexan]

First you say ...

It's affirmative only if the duties of their office are in question, not if their own actions are in question. If their personal actions are in question, they must pay their own way.

To which I respond that their personal actions have no bearing on the matter because they have no personal obligation to act. If they have an obligation to act, it would only be as an officer of the executive branch. I'm not even sure they have that obligation, but that's another discussion.

Then you say ...

have they fulfilled the obligations and duties of their offices. Are they negligent, partisan or incompetent?

So which is it? Their personal actions are in question? Or their actions as an officer of the executive branch are in question?