You obviously font understand why we lost it.
I know Perlman snubbed the whole meeting (and its attendees) where the vote took place. Not cool when Harvey only needed two votes to prevent it. But you obviously knew this already and are dismissing it for some reason. Care to explain why?
One of the things I read about the process that ended with NU's AAU membership being terminated was that Perlman was allowed to make a statement but wasn't called into the meeting until they were ready to hear his statement, and then he presumably had to leave while the vote took place. I may be remembering this particular process incorrectly but I am 100% sure there was some sort of process that Perlman had to follow.
And if the AAU counted agricultural research dollars this would never have been an issue. Also, if NU had been allowed to count research dollars spent at UNO this wouldn't have been an issue. This issue was largely out of Perlman's hands because of the AAU's rules and how they count research dollars.