Testimony in the misconduct case against an embattled member of the City Council, Allan Jennings, was scheduled to end yesterday but was prolonged when the Democrat of Queens decided to take the stand in his own defense.

City Hall sources said Mr. Jennings completed the majority of his direct testimony and would be cross-examined tomorrow afternoon, when the council’s Standards and Ethics Committee is scheduled to reconvene.

While the committee could begin deliberating this week, the more likely scenario is that it will adjourn until mid-January before considering what action, if any, to recommend against Mr. Jennings. The committee can suggest anything from a fine to removing Mr. Jennings from office. Its recommendation needs to be approved by the full council.

Sources familiar with the proceedings predicted that the committee’s deliberations could take time because one of the possible options, removing Mr. Jennings from office, would have serious and far-reaching ramifications.

Mr. Jennings stands accused of sexual misconduct toward two female council employees and of creating a hostile work environment for several others. He was elected in 2002 and has since been involved in a number of bizarre situations. In 2003, for example, he placed an advertisement in a Chinese language newspaper declaring his love for his then-girlfriend and claiming that his ex-wife’s family had problems with him because he’s black.

The Council Member denies all of the charges the committee is investigating, having called them “nonsense” and saying they were part of a “political witch hunt.” His lawyer, Robert Ellis, said last night that he was “amazed and bewildered” that the hearings have not been open to the public.

The case has been a political headache for the speaker of the City Council, Gifford Miller, who was sharply criticized for his delayed reaction when the initial complaints were lodged. A City Council lawyer, Saphora Lifrak, sued the council in May, alleging that Mr. Miller, who plans to run for mayor, and other senior officials ignored her when she reported that Mr. Jennings grabbed her wrist and told her detailed information about his sex life.

Ms. Lifrak, who still has a suit pending against the city, also happens to be in charge of rewriting the council’s ethics manual – a task many privately said she should have recused herself from. The manual is a 65-page, eight chapter document that has been in the making for more than two years.

The New York Sun obtained a final draft of the manual in late September, but the handbook has yet to be distributed. A spokesman for Mr. Miller, Stephen Sigmund, said yesterday that council members would have it by mid-January. Mr. Sigmund defended the timeline, saying the Council was simply doing a “comprehensive and thorough review.”

“It was totally redone,” added the speaker’s chief of staff, Charles Meara. “It wasn’t that that they just overhauled it. They rewrote the whole document in a much more user-friendly way.”

However, while most of the final draft provides easy-to-understand anecdotes and examples, the section on sexual harassment is written in legalese and jargon. It clearly explains, for example, when it’s acceptable to take Broadway show tickets or work on political campaigns but resorts to legalistic terms when addressing sexual harassment.

In addition to the Jennings case, which has included testimony from 25 witnesses over the last few months, the Council has been rocked by two other sexual misconduct allegations this year. Council Member Vincent Gentile was accused of sexual harassment by his male chief of staff in September and, more recently, three council employees filed complaints against a top policy adviser to Mr. Miller, Barry Ford. Mr. Ford was suspended, and then resigned a few hours later.