A summer of determined, subterranean effort to force out Bangor City Manager Ed Barrett ended publicly Monday night in an 8-0 vote of council support to extend his contract. Don’t be fooled by the tranquil surface. Beneath it run deep, unresolved problems that should concern every resident.

The episode is not a reflection on Barrett’s competence and performance. Instead, it is a symptom of strong but misguided political ambition. It gets to the heart of the most important question the city can ask: Who runs Bangor? The answer, for the moment: The people do.

The people do it through their elected councilors, enough of whom had the courage to force a showdown on this question. A council faction headed by Chairman Marshall Frankel and Chris Popper wanted to push the manager out of town, quietly. If they had succeeded, Barrett would be gone, and this city would be diminished. Bangor’s council-manager form of government would be in jeopardy, but more important, principles of good government that protect citizens and city workers from extreme actions by a few would be in a shambles.

Councilors had every opportunity to question the manager’s performance during a July 8 executive session. There reportedly were no substantive criticisms of Barrett. No surprise. Most residents support this manager who is not a showboat and self-promoter, but is a solid, quiet, effective administrator. Councilor Dennis Soucy’s impression of that session was that everything was fine.

On July 18, three councilors, Frankel, Popper and Charles Sullivan met with Barrett privately. There are conflicting stories of how three councilors came to be in the manager’s office.

One is that it had been set up as a private meeting between Barrett and Frankel and the other two were at City Hall by coincidence, and drifted in. Another is that five councilors were invited, enough to demonstrate majority support to terminate Barrett’s contract. If five had shown, the unpublicized meeting would have been illegal.

The explanations are irrelevant. Those councilors shouldn’t have been there on that mission. The episode should be investigated by an outside agency. Let Bangor know what happened. Clear the air.

Although challenged Monday night to explain what went on, and his role in the meeting with Barrett, Popper has chosen not to. Barrett, however, is believed to have been boxed into a corner by Popper, given an opportunity to slink out of town. Barrett, to his credit, stood his ground.

“It’s important that Chris understand that if he is going to engage in behavior like that, he should be called upon to publicly justify it. He didn’t,” said Councilor Timothy Woodcock, who posed the question to Popper during this week’s council meeting. “The public doesn’t have a clue to exactly the level to which these people have sunk.”

Councilor James Tyler does. Tyler surprised the audience and fellow councilors when he used that meeting to announce he will stand for re-election. Tyler had decided for personal and professional reasons not to run, but changed his mind, prompted, he explained by “a series of events with three rogue councilors.”

The 8-0 vote is meaningful in extending Barrett’s contract. It is, however, meaningless as an expression of the solidarity of purpose and commitment to principle the council must have to function effectively as Bangor’s representative body. It is a facade that hides truth about intentions.

Barrett’s interview this week in Concord, N.H., as finalist for the manager’s job there, reflects positively on his personal aspirations, but also makes a strong negative statement about the hostile employment environment in Bangor’s city administration. It creates a deserved and bad image for this city.

Politics is about acquiring and exercising power. At the local government level, it also is about cooperation and restraint in the use of that power. The conflict resolved temporarily Monday night is about individuals who want the power for themselves.

Bangor abandoned its mayoral form of government more than 60 years ago because it realized the city had become a breeding ground for conflicts of interest, favoritism and petty corruption. The city had higher ethical standards and aspirations. It adopted a council-manager form of government, and relegated the mayor to a ceremonial title.

Over the years, assuming this more modest role has been an honor for most council chairmen, but a bridle for a few who wanted more. To guard against the few, the public, city workers and other councilors rely on process to safeguard common values and shared interest in good government.

A competent city manager nearly was sent packing by two or three councilors who rejected proper procedure to enforce their will and broaden their power bases. If he had gone under those circumstances, Bangor’s credibility would have left town with him.

Who runs the city?

The people do. For now. But pay attention, it isn’t over.