I did ask Dr. Horn why she abstained. She chose to abstain to continue to develop a more cohesive board that understands the importance of teamwork. Working well with other members of the Board is essential to getting things done. She has every right not to provide the reasoning behind her vote or lack there of. Can you imagine if she did provide her reasoning at the board meeting? More sharks would be in the water smelling blood. Her job is to work with other board members to do the work of the community.

Peck makes the claim that she did not vote on the Lakernick application because she is the board liaison and wanted to remain neutral.

Can you even begin to imagine what a ruckus would have started if Amy Peck had not forwarded Mr. Lackernick application to the board. I conjecture her signature was a pass through to let the board decide. I would have done the same thing. Sometimes it better to avoid controversy. Especially if it serves no purpose. The purpose of avoiding these controversies is not to lose sight of the purpose of the board. To often that has happened in the past.

she ignored her supposed need to be neutral and voted for the appointment of Frank Brown to the committee.
Another way to look at her choices, is to assume that she knew there would be controversy around his application and wanted to remain neutral with that particular individual. Perfectly good reason to abstain. I see no hypocrisy there more like prudence.

one must agree with her on every POLITICAL position she takes.

I certainly don’t expect you to agree with anyone’s political view or decision. I certainly don’t. But name calling serves no purpose in advancing the work of the board.

You sent me a previous comment on the use of mores different now than in the 1950’s. That was simply an attempt at a metaphor for assuming bias or different mores are not the reason to dismiss another somewhat different point of view just because of who or what that person is.
I am probably not the right person to explain gender fluidity but any college age grandchildren can explain it. The comment was simply a poorly phrased metaphor. It did not advance civil discourse. My apologies