CSX and liability

I am, by no wild stretch of the imagination, any sort of "pro-CSX" figure in this issue. But I am a person who would genuinely appreciate it if public figures, especially those who were elected to represent the public, would read this analysis of the situation and bring that into the so-called forum on public transportation needs on the railroad lines between Framingham and Worcester. If what Mr. Gorman has outlined in his May 5th opinion piece is accurate, then our public officials are just basically lying to us. Conversely, if Mr. Gorman's descriptions are not an accurate representation of the situation, then why has no-one called attention to that?

The presentation by public officials has yet to deviate from the vilification of CSX as the only roadblock in this so-called process, and I had been willing to believe them until I read Mr. Gorman's analysis of what this is all about.

If what Mr. Gorman says is accurate, then James McGovern, Tim Murray, and everybody else involved with this focus on CSX as the only reason things haven't moved forward is nothing but outright lying and covering up... not to mention the anonymous author of the T&G's latest obsequious ass-kissing on the subject.

In this country, a public corporation is required by law to serve the best interests of its stockholders. Were CSX, in light of Mr. Gorman's outline of the situation, to act in any other way than it has done in this matter, then the stockholders would have cause to sue them for failing to maximize their returns. Meanwhile, McGovern, Murray, and a whole host of others have been making them out to be the only reason things haven't moved forward in all this time, and publicly re-running the tired old hype that CSX isn't willing to "act in the public interest"... Well, they CAN'T act in the public interest if it conflicts with the interests of stockholders.

Corporate law and precedent goes all the way back to Henry Ford vs the Dodge Brothers, when Ford tried to act "in the public interest" and ended up losing that decisive case to the stockholders.

What kind of a lawmaker is it that wouldn't know that?