"Red Herring," as I assume you're using it, means "a clue or piece of information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting." 

You make this charge based on your assertion that "Peck has never, to my knowledge, claimed MK revealed how she voted to Farr."

Here's what I said, which you now call a "red herring": "For the record, I have zero knowledge of MK disclosing anything to Mr. Farr or to any other Board member (or to me) about how anyone voted. So far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened, period, full stop."

This responded to, among other posts, Ms. Peck's following statements (in this thread):

"If MK is letting Board members know how voters are voting . . . we've got a serious problem."

"Wait. MK Elections Company told you how I voted?"

And your own statement in this thread:

"So MK told you a specific lot voted twice allowing you to know the lot was owned by a past board member."  

I thought my post was pretty clearly directed to all of that, but to more completely undermine  your charge that I'm purposely misleading you and other readers, let me amend (slightly) to say this:

For the record, I have zero knowledge of MK disclosing anything to Mr. Farr or to any other Board member (or to me) about how anyone voted or whether anyone voted twice. So far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened, period, full stop. 

I'm wondering why we've gotten here in the first place, since Ms. Peck, I think, has now stated that she purposely voted twice, and then told Steve Ransdell and MK about this. She's also now saying that those things were publicly disclosed by her last year, during the election, on this Forum. The Forum reading universe of people, then, according to Ms. Peck, should all have been aware last July and during the election that she voted twice.