NORMAN — Nine Norman Public School teachers are suing the district for withdrawing $355.12 in January for tax obligations from their state-funded bonuses for National Board certification, saying a lack of funds doesn’t excuse a broken promise.

“Everyone pumps up that National Board Certification is a great thing to do, but no one is following through with the process,” said Betsy Ballard, a Norman High School teacher of 35 years and one of the nine teachers — among 122 National Board certified teachers district-wide — to file the suit Sept. 1 in Cleveland County.

This group of teachers — which also includes Debra Bailey, Pattipeg Harjo, Daniel Harris, Deborah Hill, GariAnn Jacobs, Barbara Sue Madole, Teresa McIntyre and Victoria Wood — have filed a suit to reclaim the remainder of their annual bonuses that were subtracted to pay FICA taxes.

Professional Educators of Norman, a professional organization of teachers employed by the district, has signed on in support of the lawsuit.

Richard Wilkinson, general counsel for the Oklahoma Education Association, is representing the teachers. Robert “Buddy” Pendarvis is the attorney for the district.

Wilkinson, who declined to comment on pending litigation, also has filed similar lawsuits against Moore, Putnam City, Yukon, Muskogee school districts, with others in the works.

According to court documents, the state — through Education Leadership Oklahoma, a program that promotes National Board certification — rewards a $5,000 salary stipend annually to National Board certified teachers, as long as they maintain their certification and teach in an Oklahoma public school classroom full-time.

Until 2008, a flat bonus of $5,000 was mailed directly from the state to the teachers.

But according to court documents, the Internal Revenue Service intervened two years ago to resolve a dispute over whether taxes should be paid on the bonuses to the IRS.

Court documents state that according to the IRS, even though the bonuses were from the state — not the schools — this did not change teachers’ classification from employee to independent, and employer taxes should be withheld.

Rather than paying the bonuses directly from the state, the state opted to forward the funds to the district to be divvied out to National Board certified teachers, court documents state.

“School districts are not responsible for payment. We served as the paying agent,” said Brenda Burkett, chief financial officer for the district.

Pendarvis said the district’s move was legal, citing an Oklahoma statute that states “no school or school district shall be liable for payment of bonuses.”

In previous years, Burkett said the Oklahoma State Department of Education sent $5,000, plus the $355 for the FICA contribution, to the districts.

She said this year the district only received $5,000.

“That’s all I received,” Burkett said. “I just purely received the money and paid out what they gave me — even if I had all the money in the world, it still isn’t my district’s obligation to pay that employer cost for the state department.”

The state, however, only was allocated $5,000 this year from the Legislature, said Shelly Hickman, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma State Department of Education.

She said the money for the employer cost was not allocated this year.

“You have to remember, that was during a period of time when every month schools’ funding was being cut,” Hickman said, recalling a continual monthly decline in state aid last year.

And that’s exactly why Burkett said the district couldn’t absorb a cost for the state.

“Yes, they didn’t get the money from the Legislature. But why should they expect us to pay it?” Pendarvis said.

Burkett said she sent out an e-mail in February to the teachers detailing why they did not receive their full $5,000 bonus this year.

“It was Sanskrit to me. ... I have no ability to understand financial vocabulary that way. I’m a fine arts and language person,” said Ballard, who has been nationally certified for nine years.

Ballard said she doesn’t hold animosity toward the district and hopes the suit will clear the gray over who should pay.

“It’s OEA’s position that it’s illegal to make us absorb the cost, and it’s the district’s position that they have no money to spare,” Ballard said. “But things are tight all over.”

Nanette Light 366-3541 nlight@normantranscript.com