Former University professor William T. McSweeny was bound for trial yesterday in Centre County Court on charges of theft, tampering with records and receiving stolen property.

McSweeney is suspected of making about $4,000 worth of long-distance phone calls to New York that were not directly work-related.

A pattern of several lengthy long-distance phone calls appeared in phone records in mid-January, testified Betty Klindienst, administrative assistant of the Agricultural Economic and Rural Sociology Department. She said after noticing this pattern that dated back to May 1990, she approached her supervisor to see if anyone in the department was doing research that required such calls.

"Certainly I'm not aware of all projects in a department of 40 plus," testified Charles Shannon Stokes, Klindienst's supervisor, but said he would know about any project that required a large amount of funds.

McSweeny, whose research grant expired in June 1990, never went to Stokes about a request for money, Stokes said, adding that once a year a request form is circulated for research funds.

No one from the department approached McSweeny to ask him about the calls before the official investigation when University Investigator Ronald Schreffler contacted McSweeny for an interview, Stokes testified. Schreffler interviewed McSweeny after meeting with Stokes and Klindienst, who gave him the phone records and McSweeney's travel vouchers.

In the Jan. 24 interview, McSweeny said the purpose for his calls was research he was doing on an expert systems project with a woman in New York.

Schreffler said he called the New York number and discovered it was a private residence.

McSweeny could not provide any documents to prove that he and the New York woman were working on a project together, Schreffler said, adding that McSweeny said the woman's disk with research on it was destroyed.

Schreffler testified that in the interview, McSweeny said the project was unofficial and performed more for intellectual stimulation.

Klindienst also testified that McSweeny called the same New York number listed on the phone records from Canada when he traveled there in the spring of 1990. McSweeney also filed a voucher for his travel expenses to New York, where he said his purpose was to talk to bankers concerning the project.

All three witnesses testified that McSweeny never tried to conceal or lie about the phone calls he made.

"I think ultimately he's going to be exonerated," Joseph Amendola, McSweeny's attorney, said after the hearing.

If faculty members who make calls are never approached about them, then everyone could be at a risk, Amendola said.

In closing arguments, Assistant District Attorney April Chamberlain said the state is concerned with two factors.

First, McSweeny did not comply with the University policy to report the supposed research expenses. If the phone calls did not pertain to research, he is required to reimburse the University. Secondly, Chamberlain said that based on McSweeny's own statements, the calls seem to be of a personal nature.