An apparently routine amendment to a Tisbury bylaw about keeping dogs on leashes dominated proceedings at a special town meeting Tuesday.

Laurie Clements, Tisbury animal control officer, just wanted to simplify the existing scale of fines for owners who failed to keep their dogs leashed in public. But the debate made it all seem anything but simple.

It took almost 25 minutes, a lot of explaining, a lot of spirited and confused discussion, three amendments and five votes before the meeting finished dealing with the issue.

In the end, voters approved a change, just as they approved the 14 other articles on the meeting warrant. But all the others — many of them relating to much bigger and more complex issues — went far more smoothly. Were it not for the dog debate, the meeting would have been over in an hour.

The dog leash discussion did not start auspiciously; there was an error on the warrant. Instead of the proposed changes, the existing scale of fines for people who did not leash their dogs in public places had been included in the article.

That regime ranged from a warning for a first offense, to a $25 fine for a second offense, $30 for a third and $50 for fourth and subsequent offenses.

So the printed article had to be amended right off the bat. Ms. Clements explained that she wanted a $25 fine for a first offender, and a $50 fine thereafter.

But some voters thought this too harsh. There should be a warning first, they said.

Ms. Clements addressed this by promising that even though it was not written down, she would exercise discretion. Of course a dog owner whom she knew to be responsible would get a warning first, she said.

She was only trying to “get rid of some of the chronic offenders,” she said.

Peter Goodale moved for an amendment to formally include a warning, after which every offense would carry a $50 fine.

Chris Fried wanted to know the definition of first offense. Did that mean the first warning that year? The first in five years? Ms. Clements said it meant for the life of the dog.

After considerable discussion, it went to a voice vote. The ayes seemed greater in number, but the nos were greater in volume.

So there was a second voice vote. This time the no voters — whose epicenter was located in the bleachers at the back of the hall — bellowed even more loudly.

And so a standing vote was called, and the amendment passed 56 to 40.

But no sooner had that happened than people began to have second thoughts. Maybe this also was too harsh. Ms. Clements herself thought so.

After much more, increasingly fractured discussion, selectman Tristan Israel proposed another amendment. Why not a three-step scale: a warning, followed by a $25 fine, followed by a $50 fine?

He was applauded for having cut the Gordian knot. His amendment was put and passed.

But even then it was not quite over. One man stood and asked what the previous fine scale was. A frustrated Ms. Clements told him again that it was printed on the warrant.

And so another vote was taken. And passed comfortably on the voices.

Apart from that, only one other article stirred any debate. It sought to authorize selectmen to negotiate with unions to establish an apprenticeship program within the Department of Public Works, so unskilled employees might be trained to fill skilled positions.

John Peipon questioned the intent of the article. He suggested it could be a way to get around the union.

DPW director Fred LaPiana denied this, saying the intent was to do on-the-job training with current unionized workers, which ultimately would see them earn more.

Mr. LaPiana then fielded concerns from other voters that it would lead to greater cost. He said the cost of training might be about $5,000 a year, but money would be saved in the longer run because more work could be done in-house, rather than being given to outside contractors.

The article passed easily. Several other articles involved some explanation, but little controversy. One was the approval of the layout of a connector road between the Edgartown-Vineyard Haven Road and State Road.

Two more articles related to the formal establishment of a town water department, and the authorization of a petition for special state legislation for a county-wide trust fund to provide for the post-employment benefits of town employees.

The first of these two was aimed at resolving a long history of dispute between the town water commissioners and selectmen, and the second aimed at providing a structure (if not the actual money) to begin addressing the town’s huge problem with unfunded liabilities for the health care and other expenses of former employees.

Two other articles that engendered some discussion, but ultimately passed unanimously, involved hooking the Tisbury School into the sewer network and allowing civilian flaggers to replace police at some roadwork sites.