In a political drama akin to those usually seen on prime-time television, the City Council censured one of its own members yesterday after months of investigation determined that he sexually harassed two of his female employees.

The 51-member body voted overwhelmingly to approve five punishments for Council Member Allan Jennings Jr., Democrat of Queens, after debating the case in packed council chambers for approximately two hours.

The complaints, which were first filed more than two years ago, set off a chain of events that have dogged the council’s speaker, Gifford Miller, and given fodder to headline writers and editorial boards.

Yesterday, after nine months of closed-door testimony and roughly $150,000 in expenditures related to the case, the council adopted recommendations drafted by its Committee on Standards and Ethics that stripped Mr. Jennings of his five committee assignments, fined him $5,000, and require him to attend anger-management courses.

The actions – approved on a 42-2 vote with four abstentions – were the “strongest penalty ever assessed in the history of this body,” Mr. Miller said.

The floor debate in the council highlighted just how contentious and bizarre the case has been. Though Mr. Miller kept his comments brief, saying the action sent a clear message of “zero tolerance,” his colleagues expounded. As a bank of television cameras sat perched on a platform in front of the chamber, council members took turns defending and attacking the closed-door process that the council used to try the case. Others took aim at the seamy allegations, which were detailed in a 104-page report released last week.

The council investigation concluded that it had substantiated allegations from two of the five women who came forward. Both of them were Mr. Jennings’s employees. The charges included making unwanted sexual advances; making sexual and racial remarks; forcing the women to do personal chores such as washing dishes in his apartment, and improperly firing one of them after she complained about his behavior.

“I think I can probably speak for a vast majority of my colleagues in saying that we are deeply embarrassed to have a session of the council today, to have to discuss this, to have to live with this for months and months and months,” Council Member Lewis Fidler, Democrat of Brooklyn, said. “It demeans the work that we do here to have to debate these issues and punishment like this.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Jennings maintained his innocence. He called the process “unconstitutional” and likened himself to Jesus in reading his colleagues a Bible passage.

“I forgive you all for you all not know what you do,” Mr. Jennings said, before casting his vote against the recommended penalties.

“You would not want your brother, or your son, or anyone in your family, or anyone that you love, to go through a trial that is grossly unconstitutional and unfair,” he told colleagues.

Council Member Domenic Recchia, another Brooklyn Democrat, said the punishment was a “slap on the wrist” and the charges should be sent to the district attorney, which the speaker said he would do.

Immediately after the council meeting, Mr. Jennings and his attorney, Robert Ellis, addressed a crowd of reporters on the steps of City Hall and vowed to appeal to the council’s decision to the State Supreme Court.

The men listed what they labeled as inconsistencies in the testimony that the ethics committee based its decision on, and said they were not given a chance to cross-examine fairly all of the witnesses.

A group of about a dozen of the council member’s constituents, who were sitting in the balcony during the proceeding, followed them outside with signs that read: “Stop the Political Lynching of Allan Jennings Jr.”

As they did last week, the council member and his lawyer said removing Mr. Jennings from his committees was “institutionally racist” because of the “predominantly black and West Indian heritage of the people in that district.”

“This is his house, his jury, that is the committee on ethics,” said Mr. Ellis, referring to the speaker.

A spokesman for Mr. Miller, Stephen Sigmund, denied that Mr. Jennings’s constituents would be without representation, saying he would still be voting on legislation with the full council.

The only council member beside Mr. Jennings to vote against the sanctions, Charles Barron, Democrat of Brooklyn, urged colleagues to recognize the flawed process. He said it was not fair for the council to close the hearings to members who were not on the ethics committee. He also said it was unjust to hire a “high-powered” prosecutor and then make Mr. Jennings pay for his own lawyer out-of-pocket.

“I find it ironic that now you’re calling on me to be the jury, but I couldn’t be invited to the trial,” Mr. Barron said. “I am not here to defend Allan Jennings, I’m not here to accept right or wrong what’s in the report. The stuff I read is disturbing, but I don’t know whether it was true because I couldn’t come to the trial.”

“Just suppose you’re accused and you’re innocent,” Mr. Barron said, shrugging his shoulders.

Council Member Margarita Lopez, who voted in favor of the measures, said the council had “failed” because it did not act fast enough. Ms. Lopez was one of the first officials approached about the allegations when one of the women confided in her. She then passed the information on to the speaker’s office.

Ms. Lopez attributed the inadequacy of the council to term limits, saying the body was “dismantled” when the new members came in.

“This house failed,” she said. “It failed the women of this city. It failed the women who worked for this house, and it failed every single person out there who has faith in this institution.”

“We did not move swiftly, because we didn’t stop this before becoming a scandal and because we didn’t take care,” Ms. Lopez said.

Mr. Jennings has been involved in a number of unusual situations. In 2003, he took out an advertisement in two Chinese-language newspapers declaring his love for his then-girlfriend, and in January he threw a piece of metal at a television reporter who showed up at his home to interview him.

The council members on the ethics committee and others who supported their work contended that they went to great lengths to ensure that Mr. Jennings had a fair trial. Mr. Jennings, who does not have the backing of his county party, has vowed to run for reelection.