The issue being created by the motion that's being moved here is outside typical practice and that's one of the reasons it's problematic that this is being done. Typically it's not been the case that there's been someone who is eligible for more than one additional salary.
The reason it becomes an issue is that some of the caucuses are quite small and it would require someone to be doing two different roles. Typically that's not done. The intent here is to ensure there isn't double-dipping.