Did it ever occur to you that those posting anonymously could be one of those IT people that are asked to keep the engines going on the Titanic as it sinks beneath the waves and are posting anonymously so-as to protect their jobs for the remaining time? Posting with your name will result in a backlash by Eric and his henchmen. When you're looking at alot of severance and PTO that is coming your way, why jeopardize that by posting with your real name? And when your piece was nothing more than a puff piece to make Eric look like he's a competent CIO addressing the issue of the day for many CIO's then you should expect the other side to be presented as well.

If you want honesty, then let those comments fly. I'm sure Eric's supporters will be more than willing to back him up. But based upon the number of detractors and supporters last time I doubt it.

Besides, you got free content by allowing those comments to be posted. As a webmaster, free content that updates your page as it slides past the front page is golden. Taking those comments down was a poor choice on your webmaster's part.

Here, here! I applaud your policy and your adherence to high values!

Not an Eric Fan:

Of course it occurred to us that people may have good reasons not to post their real names.

That's why I said quite clearly that we would consider posting comments without real names from people who identified themselves to us. Anonymous sources are a staple of journalism; unchecked potshots are not.

I believe that preventing those personal shots here is fair. I don’t know Eric personally but it was clear to me since he took over this role within the company that he wanted to do something new and innovative.
Eric did a great job "start" under very hard circumstances of cost limitations and future uncertainty. Let us learn out of this situation as IT professionals for our next career phase, we've enough problems to solve!
Ahmed

Most excellent.
Integrity, good job.

Too many sites allow anonymity and those hiding behind their status of an "anonymous guest" just flat out run amuck. Slinging salacious, falacious, slanderous and flat out untrue statements too, too many times.

Sure, there are times to use anonymity but there are far more times when that anonymity just goes overboard and turns into something else.

Bravo Mr. Cone! Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, but they also bear the responsibility of what they said. You have done a good job on taking responsibility and showing integrity. I’m sure that if the anonymous posters have information that is relevant to a particular story, you have an avenue where they can sign their name confidentially and the facts can be verified. (Maybe you should publish instructions). Anyway, keep up the good work.

jim

I do respect the desire to keep the peace in the forums. Some of the comments were very personal attacks of Eric.

However, I think it would have been appropriate to admit that the article had some factual errors and was somewhat biased in the presentation of the information.

I find your position very interesting because when I read the original comments they seemed to be more a criticism of your reporting than anything else.

I worked for Mr. Goldfarb since his arrival at BearingPoint as the Senior Network Architect. Having been in that position it is obvious that your article was based upon an interview and not an investigation of the actual environment. Retention of talent in Eric's organization is based upon two criteria. Those criteria are salary paid and unequivical support of Eric Goldfarb. Productivity, leadership and general competency have little weight in decisions made regarding retention of an individual. You can validate this by reviewing the talent retained and the talent departed over the past several years - not just since the bakruptcy. Simply look at certifications, education, credentials, ending salary and work history.

So, I do believe that you published a nice fluffy article with no substance that will look very good in Eric's resume. I would suggest that perhaps you review the comments submitted with a more critical eye.

Now that I have recieved my severance pay, I can make these statements with with only a moderate concern for retribution.

You may publish my name because as soon as I identified my former position, I identified myself to everyone in Eric's organization.

You did the right thing. There is far to much anonymous stuff aimed at hurting people, or simply creating havoc because it's possible. Congratulations for taking a stand for honesty and factuality. Keep up the good work.

In the United States we are allowed to to take "shots" without censoring in any way but if you got the guts to speak out "shots" then put your name on the paper. If your comments do not get posted it is because this guy does not like what you said and then he is in violation of the first amendment and he should go to Cuba where you are shot in the head if you speak out against something that the government or there friends do not like.

Sense Obama became the new nut everyone in business is running scared. Scared of him that is!

SO if you got guts to speak then put your name down and I will still respect you for having the guts to say what is on your mind.

What say you Mr. Cone

You have the Floor Mr. Cone

Dennis King,

The First Amendment protects our right to speak freely without government sanction.

Publications make decisions about what to publish all the time, based on their own standards.

Just so you get the terms straight -- what we did is not called "censorship," which is government control of speech, it's called "editing."

We've made a lot of progress since the post above -- two IT execs from BearingPoint have published comments under their own names, and the story is moving forward.

Thanks for your interest.

"Not an Eric Fan" was worried about not getting severance or PTO if he spoke out, and Lyle claims to have received his severance. It was my understanding that there have been no severance payments for some time, and nobody (including those who transferred over to Deloitte) is likely to see a payout for their PTO...

Makes me question the validity of both comments.

Anonymous - since I am still currently working for BearingPoint let me clue you into something that you may have missed in your assumption.

Since I know him and know when he left, I can tell you that Lyle Brown was RIF'ed after our Chapter 11 Bankruptcy filing. During this time, the employees were told that we were working with our creditors to emerge as a company. The employees who got released during this time were the luckiest of all the BearingPoint employees in that they got their severance and their PTO paid to them.

Shortly after Lyle (and also Tom Davies - check his statements on this website too) were let go, the word was passed down that the company would be broken apart and sold piece meal to various entities (Deloitte, PWC, etc...) and assurances were given that we (the remaining employees) would get our severance and PTO as well. The plan was that those transferring to Deloitte or PWC would get no severance but would get their PTO paid out which they had earned. Those who were not going to Deloitte or PWC would not only get their PTO but severance as well (since they would be left without a job).

Now - the junior creditors are back in court trying to prevent the payment of PTO and Severance ( the same PTO and severance that we were assured we'd get) to the remaining employees. The judge has yet to rule on this motion but a decision is to be made soon.

So Lyle was let go after the Chapter 11 filing but before the company was broken apart and before the junior creditors went to court to block the employees (who didn't run the company into the ground like the executives) from getting severance and their PTO which they earned.

This is how Lyle and some other former BearingPoint employees could've been paid their severance and PTO and yet some remaining employees are fearful of a backlash from Eric if their names are out in public. If the judge rules we can get our PTO and severance, we have alot to lose by exposing our names right now.

I'm quite sure after all is said and done and the lights are turned off in BearingPoint that you will see more and more ex-employees make their names known.

Hope my valid statements clear things up for you.

An afterword: it's worth noting how it all ended for Eric Goldfarb and his staff at BearingPoint.
Goldfarb, the author of this much commented upon article on staff retention, did just what his article claimed to tell other CIO Insight readers how to prevent - he jumped his sinking ship with a bonus check for $250,000 leaving his staff behind. The original bonus was for over $300,000 and was filed on March 23rd, barely a month after the company filed bankruptcy on Feb 18, 2009. It was filed publicly and word got around to his staff, making things very uncomfortable for Goldfarb when his staff confronted him about it on his “monthly IT-wide team conference call” which he touted in his article as being one of the "keys to retaining talent". When asked why he agreed to receive this bonus he became very uncomfortable and said he “worked really, really hard” and mumbled something about all the money he’d been expecting to make in stock options but now would not get since the company was being sold to the highest bidder. After the call ended, he called several of his staff trying to elicit pity, telling them how stressed he was how hard he worked, and reiterating how deserving he was of the payout. He paid them compliments and promised he’d be calling with a job “when all this over and after I’ve taken a long vacation on a beach somewhere.” In short, he was trying to calm them down and shut them up until he made off with his cash.
It’s worth noting that at the time he was arranging this payout for himself, BearingPoint staff were being told that the company may not have enough money to pay them their unused vacation time and staff were being strongly encouraged to take vacation before they were laid off. At this point, few expected to see any severance, but Eric and the executive team were earmarking a few million for themselves.
Sensitive to the economic climate and news stories of executives making off with huge bonuses while their companies failed, the bankruptcy judge denied the request. A few months later, on July 24th they filed again requesting slightly smaller bonuses for fewer executives, and most importantly they filed this *privately*, perhaps so Eric wouldn’t have to face his loyal staff on his IT-wide conference call. This time the payout was approved and Eric cleared $250,000 and slipped into his lifeboat and rowed away to “better opportunities” no doubt, while his staff remained on board.