OK, so I’m pretty much as confused about this whole issue as I was before the meeting. Two members of the board, Dr. Jack White and the board’s secretary sat on stage with Dr. Lillback and answered the questions of a few students (that’s all there was time for since it was scheduled during chapel time which is just 40 minutes).
Evidently, Enns was suspended because his book is divisive, not only has it caused division at Westminster but in congregations (2 congregations do not want their members coming to Westminster if Enns is here) and ETS. The majority of the professors support him and believe his book is within the boundaries of the confession and eight members of the faculty do not. The faculty have been meeting for two years to resolve this issue but still has not been able to come to a consensus, the board forced the issue. Enns did not get a chance to defend himself before the board since he had a scheduling conflict. Enns will have to go before a committee to plead his case, the committee will be made up of 6 board members a faculty member, an adjunct faculty member, someone from Dallas and Lillback and Trueman.
Left unresolved is what happens to the majority of professors who don’t see anything wrong with Enns’ view. A student asked this question but Dr. White said that the matter was limited to Enns. I can’t see how that can be the case when Enns’ views are shared with other OT professors.
What I did learn was what the major problem seems to be, Enns’ use of the incarnational analogy, evidently it’s considered heterodox. But we didn’t get a list of the issues the professors had with the book which I think would have been helpful. Here is a quote from Trueman that I found on the Internet:

one has to be very careful about using incarnational analogies for things such as the doctrine of Scripture. There is no equality of divinity and humanity in the orthodox understanding of the incarnation. They are not parallel and they are not equal because of this: the humanity brings no personhood into the incarnation. The humanity is just an abstraction until its united to the divinity. The form of the humanity in the incarnation is provided by the divinity. And when you talk about Scripture as being analogous to the incarnation, you better take that into account, or you’re going to come of what a doctrine of Scripture that is Nestorian at best and Ebionite at worst.

Here is where he said it.
Also they didn’t address where this leaves the students who have been taught by Enns, if the seminary does find that he is heterodox on this issue, do they intend to reprogram us?
Lilliback says that they plan to have other meetings to talk through these issues so maybe further light will be shed on why some professors don’t have a problem with the book while others do.
Update: Here’s a link to the audio and the release of the minority report of those board members who dissented. I’m in agreement with them.