The proposal to delay consideration of new applications for charter schools is an unfortunate turn of events but seems to be a necessary one. If it leads as it should to a more realistic schedule for reviewing business plans for new charters that can sustain themselves responsibly, then taking a hiatus will have been a productive decision.

The Hawaii State Public Charter School Commission is weighing the proposal, submitted by Tom Hutton, its executive director. He is recommending that the panel forgo charter applications for the 2016-17 school year, postponing reviews of new additions for another year.

Hutton, who cited capacity problems keeping up with reviews as the reason for the hiatus, nonetheless expressed regret about taking this step. It does represent a lapse in fulfilling the agency’s mission of enabling the charter school movement to grow.

But the commission should accept the proposal and seek to rebalance its staff workload so that the new and continuing charter schools get sufficient oversight.

Setting the right pace for application reviews is essential to avoid more school failures of the kind exemplified most recently by Halau Lokahi Public Charter School. The state revoked the Hawaiian-focus school’s charter after persistent problems with debt. A commission review found roughly $100,000 in questionable expenditures, and a lot of this red ink is sure to fall on the taxpayers.

It wasn’t the only charter school to fall short. The Myron B. Thompson Academy, which operates largely online, in 2010 was hit with accusations of nepotism. Such cases serve to remind the public that the charter schools have a measure of autonomy in the way they deliver their curriculum, but they use public funds and so are accountable for using that money responsibly.

Such problems finally yielded legislative action in 2012, when an overhaul of the state’s charter law and stricter oversight rules emerged from the state Capitol. That act created the commission, which ultimately is running a tighter ship and showed its resolve by making the painful decision to revoke a school’s charter.

This served as an appropriate warning to administrations of the public charter schools, who need to know that the bar will be kept high.

Now the commission will need to evaluate its staffing and ability to manage the mission, going forward. Next summer, the charters of Hawaii’s entire portfolio of 33 charter schools will expire, which means the panel must consider either renewing those contracts, putting schools on probation or deciding against renewal altogether. It will take time to do a thorough review, and it would have been all but impossible to manage that along with deciding on new applications.

A good start would be to give the new contracts staggered terms so that all don’t come up for review at the same time.

The delay in accepting new charter contracts drew fire from advocates, such as Kanu o ka ‘Aina Learning ‘Ohana, who say the hiatus represents a break with the commission’s statutory role.

In fact, Hawaii’s charter school system has matured to the point where the independent campuses offer a real choice to parents unable to pay private-school tuition. They want an affordable academic option that suits their children better than the district public school.

It’s critical that this option be kept vibrant and available to the community. But the commission’s duty to taxpayers requires more than simply adding to the charter school directory. It means ensuring quality and sustainable schools. The commission needs to do what’s required to keep up standards.